With all due respect to Stephen Kenny, I would like to disagree with the argument presented in his column (“GU Liberal Education Needs a Liberal Dose of Change,” THE HOYA, Dec. 4, 2007, A3). While the university should certainly be applauded for its decision to review its curriculum, I firmly believe that any changes to our core curriculum should seek not to reinforce the traditional Western, Catholic canon that Kenny so firmly espouses but should instead further the diversity of course offerings to better reflect the brave new multicultural world of the 21st century. I first take issue with Kenny’s critique of the theology core requirements. Citing the oft-stated maxim that Georgetown is a Catholic university, he proposes that Georgetown “improve its treatment of theology by requiring at least one course in Catholic theology specifically.” The logic of the argument seems to flow smoothly enough, but in mandating the teaching of Catholic theology, Kenny ignores perhaps the greatest virtue of our system of higher education: the wide berth given to students to pursue individual interests. Of course, the idea of academic freedom should not be taken so far as to eliminate the theology requirement altogether – any quick scan of a newspaper reveals the frightening dearth of moral people in today’s world – but perhaps Kenny needs to be reminded that not every Hoya is Catholic, and many of us did not choose Georgetown for its Catholic heritage. Therefore, the theology requirement ought to reflect the diversity of religious experience and background on the Hilltop. If a student wishes to take a class in Catholic theology – and there are many such courses at Georgetown – they have every right and opportunity to do so. Yet to require every student to learn Catholic theology, when many students are not even Catholic, seems to me a waste of a course for non-Catholic Hoyas, who could use the theology requirement to study issues more pertinent to their specific faith. The assault on academic diversity doesn’t end with theology, however. Kenny also seems to believe that the current philosophy requirement is deficient because it does not mandate a course in Greek and Roman philosophy. Taking courses in the so-called “classics,” the argument states, would help “students see the development of Western philosophy in the correct perspective.” Aside from the obvious problem of the latter part of this statement – what, pray tell, is the “correct perspective”? – the argument also perpetuates the unnecessary veneration of long-dead thinkers whose works are important only due to the power of tradition. Once again, I point out the necessity of academic freedom in the academy. If Kenny wishes to read Plato’s “Republic,” Aristotle’s “Nicomachaean Ethics” or the assembled works of Pliny, that is his right. Yet such work is, at least in my opinion, almost wholly irrelevant to modern life. If anything, I would critique the current philosophy offerings not for a bias against antiquity, but for their bias against contemporary thought. Too often, students believe that philosophy died with Friedrich Nietzsche or, at best, Albert Camus. Too few philosophy courses here at Georgetown incorporate the works of contemporary philosophers – men no less brilliant than Plato, and far more pertinent to today’s students – such as Richard Rorty or Michel Foucault. Philosophy, like any other academic field, is a dynamic discipline that has adapted to face the new challenges of life, and any change to the philosophy offerings ought to reflect this, instead of asking students to revisit dusty old volumes written centuries before the first Christmas. I’ll skip over Kenny’s critique of the history requirements (though it should be noted that it’s impossible to study a so-called “non-Western” history without encountering some Western power or another) to focus instead on his proposals for the English requirements. Stating boldly that “no university worth the name has any business conferring a degree upon a student who has not read the seminal works of the canon,” he calls for a mandatory course in British literature. Yet such a prescription suffers from numerous erroneous assumptions. First, it assumes the primacy of British contributions to the “canon,” ignoring the invaluable contributions to the canon made by authors such as Cervantes and Dante Alighieri. Second, the proposal ignores that many Hoyas have already read some combination of Shakespeare, “Beowulf” and Victorian literature in their high schools and are eager to venture outside the constricting, and often tedious, body of British literature. Of course, not all of us have been forced to endure “Wuthering Heights” – and those who haven’t, consider yourselves lucky – which brings me to my third critique of Kenny’s case. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would like to emphasize the need of the university to prepare its students for a world radically different from that described by Dickens or Austen. If we are truly seeking to educate Hoyas in how to live in contemporary society, lessons from “Othello” are no more important than works from contemporary authors such as Kurt Vonnegut or Don DeLillo. Aficionados of the Bard or John Milton may take issue with my harsh critique of their favorite authors, as is their right. Yet to equate the competence of a university with its willingness to force-feed its students “Pride and Prejudice” seems incredibly irresponsible. any before me have accused the academy of navel-gazing, isolated from the real world and hiding behind barriers of leather-bound books. Fortunately, I can take solace in Georgetown’s Jesuit heritage, which warns against the complacency of isolation and calls us to be men and women for others. This call to engage in the world which we inhabit is not, as Kenny would have it, limited to Catholicism, the Western canon or the British Isles. Let’s hope the changes to our curriculum reflect this need to engage our brave new world. Brendan Roach is a sophomore in the School of Foreign Service and a columnist for HOYA Sports.