That’s Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw’s take on the university’s new Gen Ed curriculum, according to an interesting article by Bonnie Kavoussi in the Crimson.

Gen Ed committee chair Jay M. Harris and several committee members declined to comment.

Oh, Professor Harris. The “no comment” about something there’s absolutely no reason not to comment on is classic Harwellian language.

Would it have been so hard to say something like, “This type of discussion happens in the implementation of any new curriculum. It’s healthy.”?

Instead, you send a message of anxiety, defensiveness, hostility to constructive debate….

Perhaps if you had a blog, as Greg Mankiw does, you could fully explain yourself, and thereby project an image of intellectual confidence and open-mindedness….

But economists aren’t the only ones worried about their discipline’s place in Gen Ed. So are historians.

The new curriculum has replaced Historical Study A and B with categories that focus more on contemporary issues: U.S. in the World and Societies of the World.

Well, that is just asinine. Why not junk both categories and establish one in “United States and World History,” making it mandatory to take two courses in the discipline, one of which does not involve American history?

Societies of the World…. Sheesh. One can only imagine the (sorry, sociologists) quirky but hardly fundamental courses that could fit into this category.