Yale's Dead White Male Poets

Recently, Yale University English Department learned of a student petition to "decolonize" the English department by no longer requiring students to study "white male poets" (http://goo.gl/LJn0LV). The petition's use of the term "decolonize" seems to imply a correlation between early American and British colonization of indigenous cultures and today's students of color. For instance, the petition claimed that the requirement to read English poets "create[d] a culture that is hostile to students of color . . . that [the course,] Major English Poets [should] be abolished." What's lost on these students is the fact that the petitioners have ironically engaged in scapegoating--the very discrimination to which they presume to be victims.

In defense of the petition, one student, Adriana Miele, wrote in the Yale Daily News that in forcing students to take the Major English Poets, the English "department actively contributes to the erasure of history." Funny: Hasn't the course been taught at Yale since around 1920? And the petitioners want it abolished? 

By claiming the study of these major English poets creates a hostile environment, the petitioners outright reject a rich literary tradition, one that shows the evolution of a culture's language, and they ignore the purpose of engaging with the text. As such, in their "collective call to action," the petitioners seek to inhibit their own fluency in their native tongue. The assumption is that the "hostile environment" is spurred by the English poets. If so, this is a good thing, typical of a college English literature seminar. The texts are supposed to spur discussion. But, this is less a problem with the poets and more a by product of literary criticism and interpretation. Disagreements meted out during class discussion may be the result of differentials in identity and status among students at Yale, but it isn't a problem with the poets or their texts. In other words, students from different walks of life are going to read the texts differently, they're going to get into arguments; that's the discipline: students learn through making and defending arguments. To dismiss the cultural construction of these poets is to deliberately wear blinders that stubbornly ignores one's own past ,which does not enhance the shaping of one's identity. Ironically, it hinders one's shared cultural identity, creating a truly hostile tyranny of the one-sided argument.

This controversy revolves more around literacy levels than race, both of which form identity politics. Within the past decade or so, it seems the functionally illiterate have usurped American political correctness, persistently seeking to destroy institutions that seem to represent "white wealthy male power." Studying the Major English poets does not represent "whiteness," nor does it represent wealth or masculine power, because true poetry represent the human condition, something that transcends identity politics. Specifically, these texts represent a literary tradition that has shaped the language we speak, read and write today. 

I understand why some students might resent the wealthy white male, but it is not a reason to dismiss engagement with their "discourse" via well-reasoned arguments, one of the core skills of a rigorous English education. Just because one finds it difficult to relate to Donald Trump's "political incorrectness," (i.e. his language), doesn't mean one should abandon reason and riot in the streets. One still must engage in reasoned argument.