The bane of my existence

I am a math and literature double major, with a minor in Chinese. I don't think my education lacks breadth. But this isn't the story told by curricular codes. They have become the bane of my existence.

When I realized that a course on human rights and the state of exception, consisting of readings from contemporary political philosophers, didn't carry an Ethical Inquiry code, and that, consequently, I was missing one, I signed up for a course on the rise of literary formalism in French poetry, consisting of close readings of symbolist poets. This made sense to someone, apparently.

The current system is dependent on the professor or Director of Undergraduate Studies, either of whom can apply for codes. This means that code availability varies wildly from department to department, and from professor to professor. The setup is the only explanation I can find for my EI difficulties. This may also be why students in "Historical/Philosophical Perspectives on Science" will get ALP and CZ codes if they take the course as Philosophy 241S, but only CZ if they take it as Cultural Anthropology, Literature or Women's Studies 241S.

Moreover, the Modes of Inquiry are not all modes of inquiry. They are often codes intended to force students to engage with the content the curriculum framers saw fit to mandate. The most absurd is STS, whose name doesn't even try to sound like a mode of inquiry. This may be why the T-Reqs website describes Modes of Inquiry as "important cross-cutting themes that transcend individual disciplines and may be approached from various disciplinary perspectives."

Duke's desire to direct students toward themes it thinks are important is truly a violation of students' academic freedom, which is first and foremost the freedom to determine which subjects are fit areas of study and research. Duke attempts to mask this effort by calling this theme a Mode of Inquiry, but no one should be fooled. The scientific method is a mode of inquiry (one, which, incidentally, a student could easily graduate without learning); "Science, Technology and Society" is a topic of study.

Which brings us to one of the recommendations made in the Campus Culture Initiative report due to be released today. According to a draft of the "Curriculum and Experiential Learning" section, the report will call on the University to "refine the Cross Cultural Inquiry requirements to address differences of importance in the United States, and specifically, differences associated with race, ethnicity, class, religious, gender, and/or sexual preference." According to this report, "The intent of [the CCI requirement] was to ensure that Duke students develop the cross-cultural competencies to address the difference that confront us on a daily basis in this country."

The proposal reveals the deceit at the heart of Modes of Inquiry: While they masquerade as attempts to give students many ways of approaching problems, they are really attempts to make us better people. The attempts might make sense if they were effective. However, as the author of an incisive critique of the neoconservative conspiracy at the heart of Southpoint mall, and someone who has completed his CCI with both an American and an international focus, I can testify to the fact one can tick the boxes, and yet be completely unreformed.

What's more, though this theme may well be interdisciplinary, it corresponds to a specific field: Critical U.S. Studies. I fully support the effort to develop Critical U.S. Studies at Duke, through the new Institute and undergraduate certificate. I do object to the CCI using the curriculum to force us all into these studies, and, worse, to force professors to teach more courses in them. After all, the report's stated reason for the change is that "opportunities to engage cultural differences in an international context are more prevalent than those within a national context." The objective is not even to encourage students to study a field the committee approves of, but to increase the number of courses in this field, which the committee clearly feels is underdeveloped.