On pages 296-297 of Six Crises, Richard Nixon discusses the importance of a liberal arts education in college, and how that prepared him for public life:
"The
small Quaker college I attended----Whittier...did not offer a course in
political science in the years I spent there. But looking back, I
think the limited quantity of courses offered was offset by the high
quality of the group of dedicated teachers unto whom it was my privilege
to study. History, literature, philosophy, and the classics----taught
by inspirational men----is the best foundation for a career in
politics. There will be plenty of time later to learn firsthand the
intricacies of political strategy and tactics by working in the
precincts. There will be little time later for gaining indispensable
knowledge in depth about the nature of man and the institutions he has
created...I hasten to add that this is not a case against courses in
political science...I can only express my opinion that if a choice has
to be made, the college years----when the mind is quicker, more
receptive, and more retentive than it will ever be again----can best be
used to develop the whole man rather than the specialist...It is not
that people do not 'grow' after they finish their formal education and
enter public life. But the capacity to grow will be determined by the
breadth and depth of the intellectual base which is acquired during the
college years. If a man comes out of college with only the narrow and
thin background of the highly trained political specialist, he may win
elections----but he will serve neither his country nor himself as well
as he should."
I minored in political science as an undergraduate,
but I did not learn much (if anything) in my courses about political
strategy. Rather, I read political classics, such as Plato, Aristotle,
Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others. I also studied the governments of
foreign countries. And I took a class in which we discussed articles
that we read about current events. I think that Nixon would probably
approve of my college's political science program (though some of its
professors most likely didn't approve of Nixon!).
I've often
wondered how practical my education has been in terms of giving me
skills for the "real world". Perhaps I should have audited more courses
on business! But I don't regret reading the works of those who have
been classified as great thinkers. When I was in college, a friend of
mine was debating someone in the college newspaper about whether
learning can take place without reading great thinkers. Someone wrote
an article lamenting that a number of students he knew did not do the
readings for their classes, but preferred instead to party. My friend
responded that who qualifies as a great thinker is rather subjective,
that learning can take place through discussion with other people
without consideration of the thoughts of the "great thinkers", and that
socializing itself prepares students for the real world. I can see
merit in both sides. I think that people miss out when they do not read
the writings of great thinkers, for a number of these writings can feed
the soul, and familiarity with them also enables people to understand
the world around them a lot better. But, in my opinion, it's also
important to learn social skills.
What should the canon be,
however? I see merit in the writings of dead white males (and
females). But I'm also all for people reading the writings of
minorities. I am hesitant to say that, say, rap music should replace
T.S. Elliott in school curricula. But reading Frederick Douglas or
Martin Luther King or Malcolm X or W.E.B. Du Bois, or others, can be
quite profitable. This can familiarize students with the world around
them, and it can also give them background for wrestling with the big
issues----what are human beings like? What should a political system be
like, and why?