Does Diversity Fit Into “Masterpieces of Western Literature”?

Columbia struggles to reconcile the historic Core with today’s political climate.

Amber Yin/Columbia Sundial

For all Columbia College students, past and present, Literature Humanities is the first course they are immersed in. The Columbia College website notes that students read “books that enable us to ask questions about literature and how it works, about our place in histories and traditions, about ourselves as beings and members of a society.”

However, in recent years, the Core office seems more concerned with the optics of Lit Hum than with valuing novels as important parts of “Masterpieces of Western Literature and Philosophy.” A few months ago, Spectator published an article noting how the Core had the most black authors from 2020-2021 (four, at the height of the Black Lives Matter movement), but the number has been declining ever since. This year, Spectator noted that the only two black authors on the Lit Hum syllabus are Toni Morrison (Song of Solomon) and Claudia Rankine (Citizen).

Notably, Spectator did not mention Augustine, despite his identity as a Roman-African. This suggests that Spectator only considers an author’s identity relevant if the text explicitly engages with racial themes.

However, this frame of mind prioritizes the subject matter instead of the book’s literary merit. By critiquing Columbia for selective representation, Spectator cannot just look at the lack of black authorship in Lit Hum; to maintain a coherent critique, one must also consider the glaring underrepresentation of other diverse voices. After all, the official 2024-25 Lit Hum syllabus features only two Middle Eastern authors (Ibn ‘Arabi, Enheduanna), one Latinx author (Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz), and no East Asian or openly LGBTQ+ voices.

Spectator’s framing is certainly inconsistent, revealing a broader issue: does Lit Hum still reflect its historically stated purpose, or has it become more concerned with being “correct” in today’s political climate?

Lit Hum has two irreconcilable goals: preserving the historic “Masterpieces of Western Literature” name while also satisfying modern-day calls for inclusion and different perspectives. In theory, Spectator’s entire argument lacks any standing because the course includes in its title “Western Literature,” a canon that has historically excluded minority voices. However, optically, Columbia wants to signal that they are with the times and care about DEI values, so long as society is trending in that direction. It’s no coincidence that four books written by black authors were added or officially codified into the Lit Hum syllabus in the 2020-21 academic year, but today, only one of them (Citizen) remains. Columbia clearly wants to signal DEI values to appease bodies like Spectator, who will criticize the lack of Lit Hum diversity while still preserving the historic foundation of Western Literature. As it stands, Columbia sits in an intellectual limbo between the prestige of tradition and modern inclusivity.

But Columbia can’t have it both ways: by trying to split the difference, it succeeds at neither. Based on the Spectator article, those pushing for increased diversity believe there must be more changes to the Lit Hum syllabus. If they follow this same argument, this means increased diversity not just for black authorship but for other races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations.

On the other hand, adding more diverse authors will inevitably erode the traditional foundation of “Masterpieces of Western Literature” because minority voices are not historically found in the Western canon. Therefore, books by diverse authors would likely be more recent works, raising the following questions: What truly constitutes a “masterpiece?” Can Citizen, a book published in 2014, be considered a “Masterpiece of Western Literature” in the same way that Homer’s Iliad or Shakespeare’s King Lear can? Does modern inclusion enrich the canon, or is it merely performative?

This patchwork inclusion strategy reveals a deep-seated insecurity within the Core committee. Although the course’s historic title signals an adherence to a strictly Western tradition, those overseeing it today have largely dedicated their careers to multicultural discourse. If the “Masterpieces of Western Literature” curriculum were proposed today, it would face immediate criticism for perpetuating an outdated, ethnocentric agenda. Requiring students to have a basis in Western culture implies superiority of one perspective as opposed to emphasizing the shared elements of humanity.

However, it seems that Columbia is afraid to totally remodel “Masterpieces of Western Literature,” reflecting an institutional reverence for the Core over a commitment to scholarship. So instead, Lit Hum starts with a critical analysis of select authors that are mainstays of the traditional reading list (think Homer, Virgil, Plato), and then concludes with a largely uncritical analysis of a few minority authors that serve as political tokens rather than integral parts of the canon.

Let me be clear: I completely agree with the underlying premise of teaching the shared human experience. However, if Lit Hum is to remain meaningful, it can’t just reflect the politics of the moment. The Core office must confront these contradictions.

As I see it, Columbia has two options. First, they could decide to stick with the traditional values of Lit Hum, rooted in Western Literature, and instead look to incorporate diversity in other areas of the Core. Columbia has already done this on some level by introducing the “Global Core” requirement in 1990. However, given that they have already made a point to incorporate diverse authors into Lit Hum, a reversion would likely incite a lot of backlash.

A more plausible solution would be to explicitly divide the course. Columbia has already decided to officially title the course “Literature Humanities,” dropping the traditional title, beginning in fall 2025. I suggest that the first semester of Lit Hum should remain “Masterpieces of Western Literature,” focusing on canonical texts that have historically shaped Western thought. This would keep the prestige of the Core. Then, the second semester can be titled “Masterpieces of Modern Literature” or, more simply, “Masterpieces of Literature,” where a wider range of works can be read and evaluated for their literary merit. This would largely be an optical change that gives Columbia the potential to expand the diversity of the course’s authors without running afoul of the original course name.

Maybe this simple (and mostly visual) change would result in fewer angrily charged and confusing Spectator pieces. Don’t bet on it, though—at Columbia, “change” usually just means a long-winded email.

---

Ms. Rajan is a rising sophomore at Columbia College majoring in political science and sustainable development. She is a staff editor for Sundial.

---

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sundial editorial board or any other members of the staff.

For those interested in submitting a response to this article, please contact us at columbia.sundial@gmail.com.