The works of the Bard of Avon have been a mainstay in American curricula since the early 20th century. However, it’s time to reconsider his place in modern curricula. The bard’s prose and verse are clunky and outdated, not relevant to the modern teen, and for too long, the Western literary canon has been too white and too male. 

The length of time between when Shakespeare wrote his plays and sonnets and the modern day is about 400 years. This means his language includes archaic words, phrases, idioms, and obsolete grammatical structures. His vocabulary is estimated to have been about 35,000, and up to 63,000 in some studies! In comparison, the average teen knows about 15,000 words. So, students will encounter many words they don’t know, words borrowed from other languages (Benedicite anyone?), and other linguistic challenges that will hinder the ways they can interact with a given text. Romeo and Juliet is part of the 9th-grade curriculum. I sincerely doubt any ninth grader will be able to fully comprehend such dense sentences as “O, she is rich in beauty, only poor / That when she dies, with beauty dies her store” (Act 1, Scene 1) and “Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds, / Towards Phoebus’ lodging.” (Act 3, Scene 2) so that they can interact with the text on a meaningful level within a very short period. 

In addition, Shakespeare uses many outdated and inappropriate tropes. He reinforces patriarchal norms and female domesticity, racial exoticism and fetishism, and he normalizes many problematic ideologies. The central narrative in The Taming of the Shrew, is of men ‘taming’ a headstrong woman into a compliant wife. It validates the notions that independent women are undesirable and that their descent into obedience is desirable. For a modern audience, it reinforces patriarchal control and diminishes female agency by portraying it as something to be corrected. In Hamlet, Ophelia’s character is very passive, only being shaped by the actions of other male characters. Her being controlled by her father and manipulated by Hamlet shows that women are vulnerable and delicate. The shaming of Hero after falsely being accused of adultery by Don John in Much Ado About Nothing shows a society where women’s honor depends on male validation, which is regressive and dismissive of personal autonomy. Othello, in Othello, is portrayed as exotic and barbaric, which reflects orientalist tropes. Iago uses racist stereotypes to de-legitimize Othello by portraying him as sexually animalistic and predatory. Othello risks reinforcing negative stereotypes about people of color as sexual and exotic. In The Tempest, the Bard portrays Caliban, an indigenous person, as bestial and animalistic, falling right into the narrative surrounding the justification of European colonialism.  While these plays can be studied critically, their inclusion in curricula without sufficient contextualization risks normalizing outdated ideologies. In an era striving for greater representation and inclusivity, educators must actively challenge these depictions rather than passively accepting them as “classics.”

The Western literary canon is traditionally composed of works that scholars, critics, and institutions have determined to be “classics.” However, the process of canon formation is inherently subjective and shaped by historical biases rather than objective literary merit. The canon prioritizes Western European texts and excludes Eastern and non-European works. Even within Western literature, LGBTQIA+, female, and writers of color have been excluded. Canonical works are marked as universal representations of the human experience; this framing erases the specificity of race, gender, class, and culture, assuming that Western, male perspectives represent a “neutral” or “default” experience. Shakespeare has been mythologized by the theater industry, publishers, and academia. His ubiquitousness created the illusion that his works are inherently superior to all others and held up as the gold standard of literature, further reinforcing that the perspective of a heterosexual, European man is better. 

While Shakespeare’s works contain universal themes. The continued prioritization of Shakespeare reinforces a Eurocentric perspective, often at the expense of equally profound works by writers from different cultures, genders, and backgrounds. If students have only a limited number of literature courses, why should Shakespeare consistently take up so much space when many other authors offer fresh, relevant, and engaging perspectives?

Additionally, the argument that Shakespeare can be “modernized” or taught with critical frameworks acknowledges the challenges his language and outdated themes pose. If educators and students must spend significant time translating and contextualizing his works, it raises the question: Are they truly the best choices for fostering deep literary engagement? Instead of centering literary education around deconstructing problematic texts, curricula should balance classic works with literature that immediately resonates with students while still encouraging critical analysis.

This does not mean Shakespeare should be erased from education. Rather, his works should be one part of a broader, more representative curriculum that includes authors from historically marginalized backgrounds. Teaching literature should be about expanding students’ perspectives, not reinforcing the same voices that have dominated for centuries. By diversifying required readings, educators can create a more inclusive, relevant, and engaging learning experience that reflects the world students live in today.

I certainly think that the American education system shouldn’t be exposing students to such outdated ideas and legitimizing those ideas by way of touting his existence in the literary canon. If the goal of the education system is to create conscious and thoughtful people, then Shakespeare should have less of a role in that.