Is the Scrapping of Yale’s Introductory Art History Course Justified?

The recent decision by Yale University to discontinue its introductory survey course in art history, citing the impossibility of adequately covering the entire field and its diverse cultural backgrounds in one course, has sparked controversy. This article explores the reasoning behind this decision and its implications for the broader field of art history.

Scope and Content of the Course

The course in question, titled 'Introduction to Art History: Renaissance to the Present,' is not an introduction to the broad history of art but a highly selective sample. The final iteration of the course focuses on the idea of Western art, which, while fair, does not encompass the global diversity of art produced throughout history.

It is important to note that if the instructor's intention was to demonstrate that a class about the history of art does not just mean Western art, this would indeed be a long-overdue change. Given the traditional focus of introductory art history courses, the scope of this course should have been broadened to reflect the full spectrum of art from different cultural backgrounds. The absence of complimentary introductions with titles such as 'History of Art: Edo and the Floating World' or 'History of Art: the Art of the Late Bronze Age Mycenaeans and Minoans' further highlights the need for a more inclusive curriculum.

Inclusive Approaches to Curriculum Design

The new equivalent class, proposed to be 'Introduction to Western Art,' aims to be equal in status to other 100-level courses, not claiming to be the mainstream while pushing everything else to the margins. Lectures and visual aids will bear the title 'Introduction to Western Art' to reflect the course's focus on Western art, which, again, is narrowly defined and does not cover a comprehensive introduction to the global history of art during the described timeframe.

This approach raises questions about the accuracy of the course title and its compliance with consumer protection legislation, akin to the UK's Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which mandates honesty in product description. If such a course was offered in the UK, the changing of the course title might have been mandated decades ago.

Historical Context and Cultural Decolonization

The controversy surrounding this decision echoes similar reactions to Yale's move towards 'cultural decolonization' in 2017, sparked by observations that the various luminaries studied were exclusively 'dead white men.' This issue has resonated with a broader academic community, leading to an overreaction that is expected when any hallowed institution adapts to changing times.

These reactions are not unique to Yale or the academic realm. Headlines like 'Political Correctness Gone Mad!' have long been a part of the discourse, reflecting the broader societal debates about cultural sensitivity and inclusivity. Examples of this phenomenon include the big university gender pay gap, as highlighted by BBC News, and the ongoing controversy surrounding the BBC's gender pay gap.

Conclusion

The decision to discontinue the introductory art history course at Yale is a complex issue that touches on issues of inclusivity, cultural sensitivity, and academic representation. While the move towards broader curriculum design is warranted, careful consideration must be given to the accuracy of course titles and the potential misconceptions they might engender.

As we move towards more inclusive practices in academia, it is essential to strike a balance between ensuring comprehensive coverage and catering to the diverse demographics of learners. The art history community needs to continue the dialogue on these issues to create a more equitable and comprehensive educational experience.