Anti-intellectualism

Criticizing academia, or the professorate, is not the same as being anti-intellectual. In fact, it might be intellectual to do so. In my experience with academia and the professorate, the main tendency is what George Orwell called, "group-think".

Meh. I think that you are right to a certain point. Professional academics do have "group think" to a large extent, especially in perpetuating a certain social and political dialogue (Noam Chomsky has alot to say on this), and I think it is important for there to be a strong check against the idea that they are intellectually "above" everyone else.

However, I think that Horowitz has plugged into a certain feeling prevalent among Americans that modern academia is representative of the secular left, is a liberal bastion, and is essentially godless. Before I went to college, my mother told me to "keep my faith close" because it would be challenged. That challenge came from the consideration of new ideas, and it was her preference that I did not consider them. That is anti-intellectualism at its hilt: the idea that we should not think about new ideas because they threaten the old.

Horowitz plugs into this fear, giving ammunition to right wing idealouges in the guise of rational dissertation, which he does not partake in. His arguments are generally ad hominem, example driven, and emotional. He is not especially intellectual, in any significant sense.

But isn't Horowitz right? No matter how you want to say it? Most college professors (especially those in the humanities and in the soft sciences) are on the left and are "liberals" in the current social and economic sense, and do not believe in God. And they tend to propagandize their views when they should not under the shield of freedom of speech. I agree that protecting people from other ideas is anti-intellectualism, but both your mother, and many college professors are guilty, especially since the latter discourage any ideas contrary to theirs, and they have more of a captive audience than does your mother. But I think both your mother and many college professor belong in the same category of anti-intellectuals.

It's interesting that when secularists tell people to deny religion outright, it's called rationalism. When the reverse occurs, it's called anti intellectualism.

(I'm thinking of the Bright's movement in particular) Brights movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes, I'll agree that many college professors fall into the anti-intellectual camp, if just by virtue of the fact that if you are a polemic Marxist there isn't many job opportunities out there besides teaching.

But on the other hand, college is a place for competing ideas. I'd like to think that most professors encourage a diversity of opinion in their classes. I haven't had a professor yet (granted, I am a business student) who has done anything besides facilitate the free exchange of ideas. Pointing out a few (or 101) professors who are radical may mean that there may be an institutional bias towards radicalism, but that is alot weaker than saying that it is "anti-intellectual"

Yes, I meant to mention that. That makes all the difference. It is the same with the hard sciences. But when you get into the humanities, and into the soft sciences, things change radically-and I mean, radically. You show me a literature or a social sciences professor who is even middle of the road, and, even if not, does not preach leftism in class, and I'll show you a very rare bird, indeed! By "anti-intellectual" here, I mean the discouragement of any ideas that are not leftist. And you are right about the Brights. Anyone who calls himself a "Bright": I wonder whether that is not a pragmatic contradiction. Like saying, "I am dead". In general, people who belong to "things" are not bright. Or very immature. That is why they "belong". They love to be with people who agree with them, and sneer at those who do not.

Hey 1st post

I think the most prominent "anti-liberal academia" commentator (that I have listened to and read about) is David Horowitz. Check out the wiki page on his book "The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America".

I do not recommend it for intellectual rigor, but as an example of the type of thought that permeates the discussion.

Horowitz wrongly attributed to Foner a statement by the late author and journalist, Paul Foot. [1] In the introduction to his book, Horowitz said the profiles were written by 30 researchers he had hired. He wrote: "I have revised and edited all of the profiles contained in this text and rewritten many . . . I am ultimately responsible for their judgements and accuracy." On his blog, Horowitz admitted wrongly attributing material to Eric Foner, blamed the error on the 30 researchers, and went on to say that the errors in his book are "inconsequential."[2]

Horowitz takes more of an "academia is a bunch of brainwashing communists" approach, but I think much more widespread is the sort of pseudo-populist idea that academics regard themselves as elevated compared to those around them, as if they are, by virtue of their place in academia, in possession of some special knowledge.

In the movie "Away We Go" one of the couples that the main characters meet are a couple of hilarious hippies whose life is so non-mainstream that they refuse the gift of a stroller from the main characters; they don't want to "push" away their kids.

IMHO, most people that you pass on the street are as intelligent as anyone in academia (you just have to ask them about something they care about). I have had some amazing conversations with people on the bus, in coffee shops, in bookstores etc.

The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evidently, it is inconsequential to Horowitz to condemn a person for saying something that he did not in fact say. Horowitz evidently values neither truth nor justice.

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

• It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since January 2010.
  
• It may violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Tagged since January 2010.
  
• An editor has expressed concern that it is unbalanced
  

Wikipedia is not the only source for saying that Horowitz has no regard for the truth:

Nine Professors At Columbia Are Deemed 'Dangerous' - February 21, 2006 - The New York Sun

USATODAY.com - Ex-liberal navigates right

Right, left, and wrong - The Boston Globe


I do not have enough interest in Horowitz to bother looking at more, but there seem to be a number of people who do not regard Horowitz as being overly accurate in his specific assertions.


If one wishes to assert that there are some bad teachers, I do not know anyone who would disagree with that. I also regard it as improper for teachers to grade based upon the level of agreement with personal opinions, instead of on understanding the relevant subject matter. When I was in school, I remember some teachers seeming to have all sorts of biases that appeared to intrude in unwelcome ways. But they were not all leftists at all. I remember conservatives trying to shove their ideas on the students as well as some liberals. The best teachers, of course, did no such thing, though they did not necessarily keep all of their own opinions hidden.

:

If they do not possess any special knowledge, then they should not be teachers. People who do not know anything should not be hired as teachers. Of course, some who are experts in one area may start imagining that they are experts in other areas, about which they know little or nothing, and that is a problem. But it is not unique to academia.

All biased teachers are not biased to the left. But all who are biased to the left are, of course, biased. It is not just grading. It is bullying, as using your position and authority to force students into accepting your views. Conservatives can be biased and bullies too. But. at least, the academy is not full of conservative teachers. It is full of militant leftist teachers. They continually slant their readings, and their lectures. It is beginning to blow-back, however. The radical left of the 60's have taken over the classrooms. But they are starting to retire too. And, not a moment too soon.

Totally agree. I obviously did not make my point clearly enough.

My intention was much more to try and put my finger on the attitude that is commonly shared by people, about academia, that they believe they are part of an elite group who are the only ones who understand certain truths about society. This is not especially here nor there as far as criticisms are concerned, just an observation from a college student.

As a side note, anyone who attempts to defend the intellectual rigor of David Horowitz is barking up the wrong tree.



Well, in cases like feminism, you could definitely make the claim that since so much of the rest of society is so thoroughly biased against women that the radicalism of the college experience provides a balance against society at large. But as it stands now, I don't think that anyone is arguing with you that teachers shouldn't bully students and enforce their own version of "anti intellectualism".

What "rest of society" is " thoroughly biased against women" ? You don't seem to be, and neither am I. And how would the leftist bias of "the college experience" provide a balance for this alleged bias? I find what you say very obscure, and highly questionable. As a matter of fact, recent evidence shows that women cannot find suitable husbands because women are now above suitable marriage partners both in education and in pay-scale.

What you say makes me wonder what is being indoctrinated at UC (as if David Horowitz and I don't know).

Haha. I hope not. I have done a decent amount of research and thinking into gender studies, so I hope I have a decent grounding into it. That said, I could well be wrong.

Perhaps my point can be better illustrated through a personal experience. I would be hard pressed to find any empirical data or statistics on this.

When I was in high school, I attended church and christian youth group. I was never encouraged to think critically or to ask questions, quite the contrary, I was discouraged. USC was the opposite. I was encouraged to think critically about my beliefs and my philosophy, and I think I became a better person because of it. I think I can say the same for many of my friends.

My point was that the college experience challenges many of the preconceptions we share. (It also reinforces a vast amount) It provides a institutional balance against the status quo...if that makes any sense.

But suppose you go to college as a leftist-Liberal, and not as a conservative. Would college then challenge many of your preconceptions? And teach you to think critically about them?

In just the college setting, I think that as a true liberal (i.e. someone who wants to change the status quo) you will still be challenged to a certain degree, due to the diversity of opinion. I could go to Berkeley as an anarcho-syndicalist, and still have a tough time convincing statist communists that their ideas are false, even though we both lie to the left of the political spectrum.

That being said, I think that any true liberal is challenged every day by societal convention. My idea of liberal in this sense is drastically different from the conventional use. For example, someone who wants to adopt intelligent design and radically change the way we view science would be a liberal whereas someone who argues for the status quo in science would be a conservative.

Part of the reason I think it is challenging for a liberal is because when you try to change something, in addition to justifying your own position, you also have to displace certain biases and the momentum of tradition. If I were to argue that we should invade Mexico, I better have some very convincing evidence to support my claim.

So I guess in a convoluted way I am saying that it is just a tautology, assuming that a college is "liberal" and I hold those same "liberal" beliefs, that I will not be critically challenged.

What makes you think that "true" liberals want to change the status quo?

If college doesn't critically challenge those who agree with its prevailing ethos, and only those who do, it does not seem to me to perform the function of a college. Perhaps we should recommend that only conservatives go to UC.

Even if I decide to listen to "smarter" people, its going to come down to a subjective choice on my part as to which "smarter" person to listen to.

It's "USC" -a private college, and much more conservative than the norm.

And my definition of liberal was my own way of explaining how academia is liberal. To my knowledge, there is much disagreement within academia about how things should be changed, but a general consensus that things should be changed.

However, I do think there are some important ways that academia tends to perpetuate a certain set of cultural dialogue, and in that sense they support the status quo. After all, they are academics. If they were revolutionaries, they wouldn't be partaking in the system as much as they do.

If you don't mind me interpreting your question as to whether it is a good thing to go to a university that challenges and invigorates our intellectual side; yes. As for sending only conservatives to liberal schools, and vice versa, I think there is a very definite value in diversity. I'd say that 75% of my political discourse tends to be with students. If they were all conservatives (or liberals) I'd probably tear my hair out.:sarcastic: