History Course Is Not a 'Gut'

The recent article on Donald Fleming's European Intellectual History ("Intellectual History Goes Easy on the Brain," Feb. 9, 1994) falls short of journalism.

Though it deals with a course taken by several hundreds of students, the author relies on the testimony of one major informant and two minor ones, and doesn't appear to have attended even one lecture herself to see whether they speak the truth.

Unburdened with common sense which would recommend firsthand observation or a broader sampling of opinions, she uses the accounts of select witnesses only to buttress her preconception: that a course without sections or papers must needs be a "gut." I know from my experience as a teaching fellow that many Harvard undergraduates, so long used to learning under compulsion, tend to abuse the kind of liberty Professor Fleming offers.

But I have known equally many mature enough to handle, indeed thrive on, being treated like adults. The blue books in Professor Fleming's course, which I have read as a grader, always have reflected this--a substantial number of them mediocre and derived from circulating photocopied notes, but many others that showed genuine interest and understanding.

I am a graduate student in intellectual history, and have heard many distinguished scholars other than Professor Fleming lecture on the same material. But I have never heard anyone make it as accessible and as enjoyable as he, without sacrificing any of the complexity.

Those students who say they haven't learned anything from the course should therefore realize that that's nothing to boast about: it is an admission of their immaturity or of their lack of ability or of both. It isn't the first time a pearl was thrown to the undeserving. Michael S. Pak   Ph.D. Candidate, History, GSAS