dlowan wrote:Hmm - of course, like you Blatham, I discount a lot of what Lash (and, it seems Fox?) are saying, because of their extreme right positions - (as they do our comments - shrugs - eg when we laugh at their perception that the media is left-dominated ) but there certainly have, in the past, in my experience here, been times when left bias (and I suspect a great deal more radical than the "liberals" which people seem to consider the left in the US!) has been very strong in some areas.
Of course, I have no idea what the situation is where Lash is studying - (it would be good to hear from a solid and sceptical centrist point of view) - but at one of my city's universities in the 70's and 80's, in both politics and political philosophy, woe betide anyone (unless they were truly brilliant and could argue their opponents to a standstill) who was not at least a Marxist - preferably a Maoist.
I do not think it went as far as affecting marks - as long as the knowledge and argument were very good - but it was certainly a very uncomfortable experience for the less able students, unless they toed the line - and socially very difficult for the non-Marxist higher degree students, since they were ostracized socially - (academe is a small world at those levels, where I live) - not, I think, especially intentionally - but the experience was awful for a couple of my friends, for instance. Pack stuff is pretty awful when the pack is a big part of your life, and you are not of it.
I used to experience some of the same stuff from the same folk when we met socially - for being a wishy-washy social democrat - (not to mention, horror of horrors - a therapist!) - but 'twas no problem for me, I did not inhabit their circles day after day. I used to kind of enjoy teasing them.
Part of the problem was a highly charismatic professor - who tended to gather acolytes. (He was a great guy to argue with, though - albeit kind of nuts!)
A couple of friends of mine - doing Phd's - refugeed either to one of the other universities, or to sociology - meaning they took longer to complete their degrees.
So - it CAN happen. I would think the ravages of the extremes of deconstructionism/constructivism etc etc more of note in academe of late than left-ness - but hey, I am way out of date.
I guess what I am saying, Blatham, is there may be something in what Lash is saying - and it can be hard to stand up when you hope for bread and butter and a career out of what you are doing.
I know when I was doing my final post grad work in social work, the way I was actually working was very out of favour at the university - and I could not be bothered challenging them (I do now, as a student supervisor - to almost zilch effect - sigh) - I just wanted to bloody well graduate and start earning some goddamn MONEY after 9 years!
So - I did all my practice essays and recordings and such-like crap by translating what I was doing into their dumb, useless, theory bases - and pretending I was doing what they wanted. My field supervisor understood and happily co-operated... (I gave her cheat sheets on the useless twaddle they were insisting we pretend to use - 'twas like being on the stage)
One has only so much investment in these things.
deb
How a discussion/conversation such as this one might go depends a lot of whom one is talking with. If I'm discussing black culture with a white supremicist, I won't approach that discussion in the same manner I would with someone else.
Earlier here, I brought up the famous hoax piece by Sokal as a perfect example of how academics (and academic trends) can go quite off the mark and even fall into what looks very much like the dogmatism of faith - unquestioning acceptance of authority. University personnel are not exempt from all the human failings, and university procedures (at any particular school) won't be exempt from habitual and unreflective tendencies either. Clearly, certain disciplines are more susceptible to social values ideas, or political ideas than other disciplines (the humanities vs the hard sciences) but phrenology and other pursuits point out how plastic things can get anywhere.
My career in university was marked by a number of conflicts of this sort, some of which I've spoken of on this thread. In those situations, I found myself arguing as finn or lash might. I was an adult, so such conflicts didn't bother me and I set to them with some zest in the classroom, with professors in private (two instances) and with letters to department heads (again, two occasions - one a postive appraisal and the other a very negative appraisal with written complaint to four professors, dept head, and dean). I did not, frankly, give a **** about my GPA. I recognize that not all folks have such the luxury of a lack of prudence.
But it wasn't imprudent. My marks never suffered no matter how much I argued or no matter how confrontational I was in class or out of class. It certainly never mattered what my political position on any question was, or what anyone else's position was. Professors -
and this was almost one for one, including a lot of professors and TAs - lit up when confronted. They loved their subject areas and loved the dilemmas and uncertainties of knowledge. Engagement with sparks made for the best classes and almost all of them knew that and cherished it, inviting students to engage. The necessary criteria were:
-that students had read the materials
-that the students had thought about the materials
-that the students were careful and orderly in presentation of argument
-that all was done with an open mind and a lack of prejudiced notions
I do not exaggerate. That is an accurate description of my time in college and university. The rest of the folks here who have attended many years cumulatively of university all - and that does mean all - have experiences far more similar to mine than to what fox, jw, lash and finn suggest - and they have attended no university, or comparatively little. In each case, they draw their information from extremist political sources - particularly Horowitz. Their arguments are uncareful, their data suspect, and they are unswayable in their views because they already KNOW the truth of things. Their proposal for remedy - following Horowitz - amounts to a partisan politicization of universities with something like an equality of Republican and Democrat in teaching positions mandated or enforced. Green Party or Marxist Leninist or Scientologist or Muslim theocrats need not apply however. Just more Republicans (here and there, Horowitz writes 'Republicans', not 'conservatives' which ought to clue in even the slower folks among us.)
Universities or academic spheres, can be too slow in self-correcting. But they do manage it and arguably, manage it well. The arrival of the notion that a single poltical party ought to determine what constitutes proper curricula and procedure and personnel is a deeply dangerous idea. And in this case, it can be seen to be a purposeful strategy aligned with other strategies towards a common goal. The four folks I mention earlier won't find that credible, but there are very clear and evident causes as to why they won't.
