Proposals were made to reform the alleged bias in thencourse on Western culture by the injection of material fromnnon-Western culture, Third World countries, and fromnspokesmen for feminists and the various oppressed minorities.nThey elicited some relevant technical objections tontheir feasibility and desirability—limited time, inadequatenpersonnel, and their relative significance for the perennialnproblems of reflective life central to the course. Thesenobjections were fiercely denounced as a mask for thenexpression of racism and as more subtle manifestations ofnthe spirit of intolerance and violence evident in the outragesnat Howard Beach and elsewhere. The pages of the StanfordnDaily contain the most intemperate and irresponsible chargesnof racism against those who defended retaining thencourse on Western culture, with some modification, onnvarious educational grounds. Among the grounds was thenapproval of the overwhelming number of students who hadncompleted the course over the years. Some declared it to benthe high point of their educational experience.nThe extent to which the discussion of the course onnWestern culture became politicized is evidenced in thenshouting protest march of last January on the Stanfordnsenate led by the Reverend Jesse Jackson demanding thenabolition of the course. The marchers chanted: “Hey, hey,n.10, ho: Western culture has got to go.” Whatever hisncontributions to American life and culture, the ReverendnJesse Jackson is not known for his contributions to curricularnreform on the collegiate level. That the members of thenSenate and Academic Council of Stanford Universitynshould be in need of instruction from Mr. Jackson on thenessentials of liberal education is preposterous. One can verynwell imagine what the reaction of the Stanford facultynwould have been to a march on the senate by the ReverendnPat Robertson demanding that the course in Westernnculture be Christianized.nIt goes without saying that there is no justification for anynexpression of racism, especially in an educational institution,nand above all in an institution like Stanford. An assertionnthat Stanford’s course in Western culture is an expression ofnracism is no more credible to any informed person than thencharge that The Hoover Institution is a hotbed of Communism.nAs morally offensive as any expression of racism is, a falsencharge of racism is equally offensive — perhaps even morenso—because the consequences of a false charge enable annauthentic racist to conceal his racism by exploiting the loosenway the term is used to cover up his actions. The same isntrue of a false charge of sexism or anti-Semitism. This is thenlesson we should all have learned from the days of SenatornJoseph McCarthy. Because of his false and irresponsiblencharges of Communism against liberals, Socialists, andnothers among his critics, many Communists and agents ofnCommunist influence sought to pass themselves off asnJeffersonian democrats or merely idealistic reformers. Theynwould all complain they were victims of Red-baiting tonprevent criticism and exposure. The First Amendment, ofncourse, gives everyone the right to express his or hernsentiments whatever they are — Communist, fascist, racist,nsexist, anti-Semitic, or what not — provided his or her wordsnare not an incitement to violence. Students have a right tonprofess and hear all views. But there is such a thing as thenethics of words, as the great American philosopher CharlesnPierce once observed, and their violation is an intellectualncrime, especially in an academic community.nThere is no need to go over the thoroughly plowednground to justify the course in Western culture. Aside fromnthe intrinsic value of the study of the outstanding books,nideas, movements, and personalities that constitute theirnsubject matter, this course seeks to familiarize students withntheir common legacy, including the conflicting culturalntraditions of the past that have shaped the present andncontributed to some of our current difficulties and dilemmas.nThe materials studied have in part provided us with thenbasic categories of thought, the conceptual tools, sentiments,nand dispositions with which to approach the centralnproblems of a reflective life. Far from leading to a glorificationnof the status quo, as ignorant detractors charge, thenknowledge imparted by such courses, properly taught, isnessential to understanding the worid of our own experience,nwhether one seeks to alter or preserve it. Indeed, the idealsnof tolerance, the limitations of ethnocentrism, the Utopiannvisions invoked by critics of Western society and its institutionsnare all expressed in the literature studied in the coursenin Western culture. It would hardly be an exaggeration tonsay that of all cultures of which we have knowledge,nWestern culture has been the most critical of itselfnI have discussed elsewhere, and at length, the manifoldnnnMAY 19881 17n