When is a Great Books program not a Great Books program?

On her "Evocations" blog, President Susan Henking posted the following provocative quote from Donald Levine's foreword to The Idea and Practice of General Education:

Often hailed as the most momentous curricular experiment in the history of American higher education, the 'Hutchins College' has even more frequently been misrepresented. The phrase evokes a widely cherished founding myth: Robert Maynard Hutchins came to the University of Chicago as a young man in 1930; he brought along Mortimer Adler, who introduced him to the powers and pleasures of the Great Books; as a result, Hutchins established a liberal arts curriculum in the College organized around reading of Great Books. The story is colorful, inspirational perhaps, but quite untrue.

The facts of the matter are:
(1) Well before Hutchins was even considered as a candidate for the presidency of the University of Chicago, its faculty has developed all of the ideas for what became known as the New Plan, instituted under President Hutchins in 1931.
(2) The College faculty subsequently considered but firmly rejected his aspiration for a curriculum organized around the Great Books, after which the plan for a Great Books curriculum got transported to St. John's College in Annapolis, Maryland.
(3) The curriculum consistently developed in the College in the Hutchins years followed an alternative principle, that of leading students to develop their powers by focused work in the major disciplines by means of which human knowledge had been constructed -- not a Great Books program, then, but one that included some Great Books along with other texts whose selection was geared to progressive mastery of some basic ideas and methods of the various arts and sciences.

(my emphasis)

Levine is unquestionably correct on the facts. However, coming from the Shimerian perspective, I have some problems with his interpretation of them.


One part of today's Shimer curriculum that stands out for its ties to the U of C curriculum of Hutchins' day is Social Sciences 1 (known then as Social Sciences 2), which despite numerous changes in form and content, is still recognizable as the course designed by eminent Chicago social scientists as a general "survey course" to introduce undergraduates to the field.  (Hilariously familiar concerns about undergraduates reading unwholesome texts like Durkheim's Suicide can be found all the way back in the earliest years of this course in the 1930s.)

If Soc 1 is not a Great Books course, then Shimer is not a Great Books college -- which is absurd.  We must therefore revisit the premise.

In so doing we can no longer escape a truth that Shimerians often avoid, whether deliberately or unconsciously:  "Great Books" means something quite different at Shimer than it does at most other schools that have adopted this label, from St. John's to Gutenberg to "Harrison-Middleton".  

If I were to try to pin this Shimerian difference down, I'd inevitably get into trouble: any N Shimerians have at least 2N+1 strongly-held and mutually contradictory opinions about the curriculum.  But suffice it to say that at least part of what sets Shimer apart is an enduring commitment to the Great Books approach as a pathway to "general education" -- which is to say, as something fundamentally radical, inclusive and progressive rather than exclusive and conservative. 

This is the ideal that informed the survey courses of the Hutchins era, of which Soc 1 is  a leading exemplar -- and which broadly underlay the curriculum that took shape in Hyde Park in the 1930s and 1940s, of which these courses were part.  This ideal requires a conversation informed by the classics of a given field, but not necessarily limited to them. In fact, including recent and contemporary scholarship will tend to strengthen the focus of such a course.

 From the perspective of a classic Great Books college like St. John's, Shimer's curriculum can appear as, at best, a compromise, with its numerous recent and contemporary texts (and extensive allowance for electives).  But seen properly on its own terms -- as even we Shimerians often fail to do -- I would argue that Shimer is in fact truer to the Hutchinsian Great Books tradition than any other school in the present day, St. John's included.  

This points to a broader theme, which I'll hope to tangle with some more in future posts: the more deeply we understand Shimer's own history, the more forcefully we can argue for (and the more effectively we can preserve) the integrity of the Shimerian vision.

16 decades of "not what to think but how to think"

A recurrent problem in understanding the early history of Shimer College is identifying the things that were actually unusual about it at the time.  Many of the things that have often been held up as unusual – e.g. its coeducational character – or that strike the modern ear as peculiar – e.g. a "non-denominational seminary" – turn out on closer inspection to have  been fairly unremarkable in their time and place.  And because the seminary movement has suffered from a remarkable lack of scholarly attention – the most recent thorough studies are now approaching their hundredth birthday – it requires a lot of original research to even provisionally identify the attributes that distinguished the Mount Carroll Seminary from the hundreds of similar institutions that once dotted the Old Northwest. 

Fortunately, a document that has recently come to light sheds some fresh light on this question.  An examiners' report from 1859 – prepared, as was the practice at the time, by the committee of local notables who had overseen the quarterly public examination – attempted to spell out the differences between the Seminary and other schools of its type, as they were perceived by the committee:

There are some marked peculiarities as to the mode of instruction adopted at this Institution, as shown by this examination, about which the undersigned desire to say a few words. The committee call them peculiarities, because in all the schools which the committee now have, or ever had any knowledge, they form the exception, and not the rule. The pupils are here taught self-reliance, in the broadest sense of the term. The teacher suggests a topic, and the pupil rises to his feet and enters upon a full discussion of that topic in all its bearings. He defines it, he explains it, he shows its advantages or disadvantages, and, if susceptible of proof, he proves it to a mathematical certainty. There is more in this mode of instruction than one, at first, might suppose. It relieves the teacher of a vast amount of hard mental and physical labor. It teaches the pupil the art of expressing his ideas in the clearest manner, and in the best of language. It teaches him to reason, to compare; in short, to think. It makes him ready in conversation and in debate — two important acquisitions for an American youth. Another of these peculiarities is thoroughness. Superficiality has not the ghost of a chance here. The pupils all know the why and wherefore of every proposition introduced to them, before they are allowed to go beyond it.

To be sure, the pedagogy of this period in Shimer history, dominated by the object-lesson methods of Page and the intellectual arithmetic of Stoddard (to say nothing of the rigid regulation of student life), would probably not sit very well with any present-day Shimerian.  But this report from 1859 allows us to see that even in its first decade, Shimer sought to be a school that taught its students "not what, but how to think" – at a time when this was far from commonplace, especially among institutions of Shimer's type.

The examining committee concluded its report with these words:

The citizens of Northwestern Illinois ought to be proud that such an Institution exists in their midst. A majority of the best public school teachers this county received their instruction at this Seminary, so that its influence extends to hundreds who were never within its walls, and will be felt, if not acknowledged, for years after it may have ceased to exist – an event which the undersigned sincerely hope may long be delayed.

You can do your part to ensure that this delay continues by donating to Shimer today.  (Here's one of many reasons why it's worth the trouble.)

Futures past: remembering May 11, 1853

From the 1893 Oread:

THE OPENING DAY OF MT. CARROLL SEMINARY.

On the morning of the eleventh of May, 1853, amid doubts and sad forebodings of failure, yet with hopes and prayers for future success, began the first term of Mt. Carroll Seminary.

In strange contrast was the room in which the school first opened, to the spacious and commodious buildings it now occupies, surrounded, as it is, with every comfort and convenience that combine to make a first-class institution of learning.

Our school began in an old church, which had been used, just before this time, for a small select school. The building was a "Grout" structure in a sad state of dilapidation. The furniture — what there was of it — was in a like condition.

That Monday morning did not dawn bright and clear without a cloud ; on the contrary, the sky was overcast, and a cold, drizzling rain fell, strangely in harmony with the general outlook of the school.

There were only eleven pupils on that dark May morning, forty years ago to-day. Their names were, as nearly as we can remember, Miss Mary E. White (now deceased), Miss Fannie E. Pierce, Lydia A. Orcutt (Mrs. Wm. Petty), Adaline Yontz, Eveline Yontz, Ellen Yontz (Mrs. Geo. Miles), Amanda Venalstine (Mrs. Swiggert), Celia A. Harris (Mrs. S. A. Tate). Sophia Neely (Mrs. Frazier), Mary Bartholomew (now deceased), and the writer, Fannie E. Bartholomew (Mrs. R. G. Bailey).

Misses Wood and Gregory had left their homes in New York and had come to this then "Far West," to found a school that should be as lasting as time ; and this small number of students on the first day caused a shade of disappointment on the brows of these two young women. It passed away in an instant, and Miss Wood, smiling cheerfully, remarked: "The rain kept some away, no doubt." At fifteen minutes of nine the bell tapped and we were in our seats. A chapter was read from the Bible, and Miss Gregory suggested singing "The Watcher," as all were familiar with that. Meanwhile, an old tin waterspout, that had become detached from the roof, blew back and forth, shrieking and creaking, as if to accompany the doleful music and the patter of rain upon the windows. The selection of that piece was not a favorable one, perhaps, and may have added somewhat to the gloom of the dismal day.

The morning exercises over, our teachers began assigning our lessons, introducing new studies and better text-books. The methods of teaching were also an improvement. When twelve o'clock came, each girl felt that she was proud to be among the first enrolled. At one o'clock the eleven were all in their seats promptly. Not one more name was added to the roll. Then was first displayed that perseverance and energy, that courage to combat difficulties, that has ever characterized the work of the Principal, Mrs. F. A.Wood Shimer; and many are the women scattered over our broad land, who are trying to emulate her example, who feel her influence constantly with them. But I digress — I would tell you of the afternoon of that opening day.

Our teachers told us cheerfully and hopefully, that in the near future we were to have a pleasanter school-room.

The afternoon song was more cheerful. Miss Gregory had a sweet voice, and sang that song beginning "Study low, study low."

Then our work commenced in earnest. The rain had ceased at four o'clock and the sun shone brightly. The girls of that day, now in the afternoon of life, as they near the sunset, love to look back upon that time and feel that it was well to have been there.

Fannie B. Bailey.

Help keep Shimer warm and dry for generations to come!  If you donate this month, your donation will be matched.

The Problem with "Good" Administrators as Shimer Presidents

The process of selecting the next president of Shimer College remains on hold until the problems with the Board are resolved. In the meantime, it appears that Ed Noonan is providing outstanding and much-needed leadership. That said, it is certainly not too early to reflect on the factors that have led to Shimer's best and worst presidencies, and how these might best guide the selection of the next president.


In the history of Shimer, there have been three presidents who served for twenty years or more: Frances Shimer, William Parker McKee and Don Moon. Shimer's enrollment more than doubled (arguably tripled) under each of these presidents, and each of them effectively built a campus from scratch: the 4-building 25-acre Seminary campus under Mrs Shimer, the 12-building Junior College campus under Dean McKee, and the 12-building Waukegan campus under President Moon. As Shimer once again finds itself in need of a figure who can lead us to renewed expansion -- and once again in need of a campus -- it is worth looking at what attributes these three figures share.

Shimer has had thirteen full (non-"interim") presidents in its history. These can be roughly graded according to their qualifications as administrators of higher education. Some were extremely highly qualified, in both education and experience: Floyd Wilcox, Raymond Culver, Aaron Brumbaugh, Robert Long, Tom Lindsay. Others had substantial qualifications and experience, though of a less sterling character: Albin Bro, F.J. Mullin, Milburn Akers, Ralph Conant, Bill Rice. And there were three who had no obvious qualifications or experience in running anything larger than a classroom or a congregation: Frances Shimer, William Parker McKee, and Don Moon. (All three were accomplished in their chosen fields, but juding from the available records, none appears to have had prior experience administering an institution of any size.)

I do not think it is a coincidence that the least superficially qualified presidents in Shimer's history have also been the most successful. Nor is it a coincidence that of the three presidencies that ended in unmitigated disaster, two were led by figures of unquestioned qualifications (Long and Lindsay).

Shimer has gone through many transformations in its history, but certain things have remained constant: Shimer has always been small, has always been unusual, and has never been a terribly glamorous place to be president. As such, it has little to command the attention or respect of the career administrator. No one whose qualifications would pass muster with a search committee would want to spend their career as the president of Shimer College. Thus, judging from the record, the best that we can hope for is that a qualified administrator will leave quietly after a short time, as Wilcox did in 1935, Brumbaugh in 1953, and Rice in 2006. Alternatively, unless they die early (Culver, Akers), such figures seem invariably to leave the college in disarray, if not chaos (Lindsay) or bankruptcy (Long).

On behalf of 157 years of hard-learned lessons, then, I make this request to the Board of Trustees: for our next president, please do not hire anyone who is "qualified" for the position. Instead, if you can, hire someone intelligent and accomplished in their field, someone who demonstrably cares about Shimer and about education... and who has never set foot in educational administration before.

"I signed up for Shimer College not the Thomas Lindsay Reading Club."

Recent alum Byron Keys recounts the initial reaction of the Shimer College community to Thomas Lindsay.

I was a student member of the Board of Trustees in 2007-08. I was also the secretary of Administrative Committee and a member of the Agenda Committee during the same school year. In retrospect, we know now that the change in the responsibilities of the Administrative Committee and the foisting of Tom Lindsay on the college appear to be steps in a carefully orchestrated plan to take over the college. I know that some of you refuse to believe this and think that the Lindsayites have the best interest of the school at heart. I would argue to you that this is not the case.

By now, you have heard from many students, alums and employees of the college as to why Tom Lindsay must resign immediately to begin to return the college back to normal. I would offer you a number of voices from the past, of students, staff and faculty, that were sent to the board after Tom Lindsay’s May 28, 2008 visit to campus, prior to the vote on the presidency. It is amazing how, with this much documented opposition Tom Lindsay was still able to garner three quarters of the trustees in order to be confirmed. I will let these voices speak now, I will not identify the writer for a couple of reasons. I have not asked the writer’s permission and I fear Tom Lindsay would retaliate against some of the people who have commented, especially those in admin or academic positions at the college. So, listen to the voices of opposition that were raised at the end of May 2008. In retrospect, some of the comments seem very prophetic.

One commenter, whose remarks were the voicing of the secret fears of many Shimerians at the time said, “I have concerns about the candidate and his thoughts about the direction of the school and curriculum. I am concerned about his possible pushing in a direction that takes Shimer away from its roots.” Tom Lindsay’s visit at the end of May was a disaster, meeting and talking to him caused one Shimerian to post the following; “He believes in the centrality of certain outdated and dangerous narratives. And I do not mean the great books themselves (hahaha). Rather he holds ideologically loaded beliefs regarding what ‘questions we should be asking.’ This is important because he believes he is being objective when he says that race, class and gender are not important academic topics. He is a cultural imperialist and a staunch opponent of ‘multiculturalism.’ It would not be as upsetting to me had he not made it explicit that these were the fundamentals of (h)is crusade. He wants to implement these dogmatic jingoistic beliefs and make us into ‘proper American citizens.’ That last quote offended me. He also called all of continental philosophy (excluding Heidegger) derivative and not as worthy of our curriculum. His favorites ‘The Founding Fathers,’ whatever that means, however are excluded from criticism. He believes we should all identify with, what I call but he would never claim is, the dominant ideology of this country and that in fact the dominant ideology itself is a good litmus test for what is important to read. I think this sort of agenda-driven approach is harmful and will probably alienate a lot of students who are diametrically opposed to all of it. I signed up for Shimer College not the Thomas Lindsay Reading Club.”

Remember that Tom Lindsay submitted a CV for the original job opening, but was not chosen for a campus visit by the committee. A committee headed by Patrick Parker. However, after his chat with Barre Seid, in which Seid handed him a check for $75,000, he came to the May 8 board meeting with the purpose of extending the search. Actually, not extending the search, but bringing in Tom Lindsay and force feeding him down everyone’s throat. This should sound familiar to people who were on the Administrative Committee when Amy Pitts was rammed down their throats. One community member commented of Tom Lindsay’s visit, “Although I liked his ideas, I disagreed with his methods. I would prefer overall candidate #3 (I believe Mark Tierno) for Shimer. Not only did Mark connect more easily with Shimer students than Tom (at least from what I saw), he was also willing to listen and work things out before putting out his own ideas. I respect that. (Sorry for the dual evaluation.. but I didn't get a chance to fill out Mark's form!)” The favorite was Mark Tierno, who still serves as president of Cazenovia College in New York. Tierno’s visit was enlightening, he seemed to really be excited at the prospect of turning the colleges around and is an experienced and proven fundraiser. Tom Lindsay either avoided or obfuscated questions relating to his fundraising experience. One community member commented, “Very limited administrative experience - academic for sure, but little beyond that. He did not come across as a real leader to me - so I really wonder how this would play itself out. Little evidence of a sense of humor. Not clear if he is committed to diversity - in terms of the curriculum, student body etc. in any way, shape, or manner.”

One of the ways that Tom Lindsay rubbed me wrong was his body language and not giving direct answers to direct questions. This was noticed by other people who met him that day as well, as evidenced by the following comments, “Lindsay does not seem open to views that are different from his own. He tends to label any intellectual approach that differs from his own as ‘ideology’ and dismisses it as not worthy of liberal education. Shimer has served itself well by staying out of the cultures wars; Lindsay is a stauch cultural warrior and I fear he will drag our institution into this tiresome debate. He does not provide straight answers to questions but repeats the same ideas about a liberal education to most direct questions. We all agreed before the search process that what Shimer needs is someone who can be an effective fundraiser; Lindsay evaded questions about this aspect of the job. The one direct answer he gave was that when he believes in a cause, such as liberal education, he doesn't mind asking for money. We need a president who is less ideolgical and more interested in raising money for the College.” When we needed a man who was like our interim president, Ron Champagne, what we got was an ideologically compromised candidate who was in the pocket of and had marching orders from Barre Seid and Patrick Parker. Lindsay’s writings were printed and circulated at the college during May 08. One Shimerian said of them, “I discovered his writings online just as many others in our community did. Some of them scared me.”

Anyone who thinks that Tom Lindsay came on board with universal acclaim is mistaken. There was opposition to him before he ever set foot on campus when his sexist, racist and misogynistic writing was discovered. I offer these voices from the past to ensure you that he faced a lot of opposition early on. I believe this opposition will continue until Tom Lindsay is fired or resigns. Perhaps the presidency of COTUS would be suited for him.