Letters

To the editors:

Gautam Mukunda makes a good case for requiring American history at Harvard College (Opinion, Sept. 28). But as a historian, I have to point out that there are serious flaws in the argument. First is the presumption that Harvard is an "American" institution with an "American" student body. Though the majority of both students and faculty are American citizens, there are sizable minorities from other countries, with neither the responsibility to study nor the interest in U.S. history. Second is the presumption that Harvard is responsible for the citizenship of its students. The appropriate place to require national history is in primary and secondary schools, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could graduate from the U.S. school system without taking substantial hours of American history.

Mukunda also attacks the critical tone of U.S. historical scholarship. This is a serious misunderstanding of history as a discipline: we are engaged in the practice of critical thinking, investigation and argumentative scholarship. I believe that the critical eye of historians serves the ideals of democracy and equality much better than some antiquated "city on a hill" image of the United States.

The greatness of this nation does not depend on "faith" in its ideals, but on the practice of them. Insofar as we are free to choose our fields of study and teaching, and to be publicly critical, this is a great nation.

JONATHAN DRESNER

September 28, 1998

The writer is a Ph.D candidate in Japanese History.