By Professor Doom
The Chronicle of Higher Education is a mainstream website for higher ed.
They generally don’t cover serious criticism of their bread-and-butter, but
recently they covered a mostly empty rant by a tenured professor. Since he’s
tenured, he can get away with using his real name instead of a pseudonym (most
faculty, tenured or not, generally do so):
While I’m certainly a critic of higher ed and appreciate criticisms in
general, this isn’t a very good rant. That said, let me cover some highlights
of his many complaints, and then list a few monstrously huge issues he somehow
overlooked.
BS is the university’s loss of
capacity to grapple with life’s Big Questions, because of our crisis of faith
in truth, reality, reason, evidence, argument, civility, and our common
humanity.
I’m certainly willing to concede this has happened to some extent, but
I’m disappointed the professor is too afraid to point out why and how it happened.
We don’t get to deal with the big questions, perhaps, because we’ve been
disempowered by an edu-fascistic takeover of higher ed, the merger of
administrative and ideological interests which have de-professionalized
scholars to the point that all most of us can do is cower before the might of
the true rulers of our universities.
I’m not sure how this hasn’t occurred to him, and I suspect he was just
afraid to point the finger at the Emperors here.
BS is the expectation that a
good education can be provided by institutions modeled organizationally on
factories, state bureaucracies, and shopping malls — that is, by enormous
universities processing hordes of students as if they were livestock, numbers
waiting in line, and shopping consumers.
Again, the edu-fascistic interests who control our schools view
the students of livestock, as I identified in an interview with a Poo-Bah. Why won’t you mention from
whence the BS comes, professor?
BS is the shifting of the
"burden" of teaching undergraduate courses from traditional
tenure-track faculty to miscellaneous, often-underpaid adjunct faculty and
graduate students.
But, every dollar not spent on education is a dollar which can go into
an administrator’s pocket. It really is curious he doesn’t consider where these
changes are coming from.
BS is third-tier universities
offering mediocre graduate programs to train second-rate Ph.D. students for
jobs that do not exist, whose real function is to provide faculty with graduate
RAs and to justify the title of "university."
These programs exist because they create growth for the school. That
they do great harm to human beings by wasting years of their lives for
worthless degrees is irrelevant. And, again, it doesn’t take much to realize from
where these “initiatives” for these programs originate.
In short, much of his complaints deal with the administrative side of
what’s happened to higher ed. Does he know about the ideological takeover?
BS is the grossly lopsided
political ideology of the faculty of many disciplines, especially in the
humanities and social sciences, creating a homogeneity of worldview to which
those faculties are themselves oblivious, despite claiming to champion
difference, diversity, and tolerance.
The above is his only complaint against the ideological homogeneity of
our campuses. While I give him credit for identifying the hypocrisy here, I do
wish he’d had the courage to specifically identify which side has taken over
(hint: it’s not the Right).
I do wish he’d spent more time on this problem, because it’s a major
factor in what’s happened on campus. Instead of studying actual academic
subjects, concepts which have guided humanity for over a thousand years, the
takeover has encouraged academics to be removed, and replaced by, well, BS
subjects of no educational value (hi Gender Studies, although it’s not alone on
campus).
BS is hypercommercialized
college athletics and administrations sucking the teats of big money, often in
the process exploiting and discarding rather than educating student athletes,
and recurrently corrupting recruitment programs, tutoring services, and grading
systems.
The professor only lightly touches on the corrupted sportsball on our
campuses, so allow me to fill in some details of the above. Sportsball athletes
are supposed to also be students. Yes, some of them are legitimate students,
but a great many really are just athletes. Since a top team needs those
athletes to be competitive, “recruitment” tactics to get them can be pretty
slimy. To make them look like students, these athletes often get their own
special “tutors,” who do their academic work for them so they have more time to
practice sportsball, and, ultimately, their grades are simply rubber stamps.
UNC was caught doing this, but as UNC readily admits (after having no choice in
the matter), they’re not the only school engaging in such practices, just, perhaps,
the only one who allowed the fake athlete/academic system to leak into the
general student population (or should I say “student herd” instead?).
BS is the ascendant
"culture of offense" that shuts down the open exchange of ideas and
mutual accountability to reason and argument. It is university leaders’
confused and fearful capitulation to that secular neo-fundamentalist
speech-policing.
BS is the invisible
self-censorship that results among some students and faculty, and the subtle
corrective training aimed at those who occasionally do not self-censor.
To be fair, I guess I should include the above as part of his criticisms
of the ideological takeover of many of our campuses, although I do find it to
be far too subtle. Which side is forbidding the open exchange of ideas,
professor? Which side are the “leaders”
capitulating to? Which side supports censorship?
Speaking of “subtle,” I’m not sure that “corrective training” he refers
to is subtle. These “white hate” seminars can turn into days of indoctrination,
and the threats of being forcibly subjected to such are seldom delivered
subtly.
Sadly, the comments don’t add much to the professor’s rant, with only
one person pointing out how none of it is supported by any provided evidence. I
grant that much of what he has to say is self-evident, but I still think his
clear fear of pointing the finger at who/what is responsible for the great
quantities of BS in higher ed is fairly revealing.
Much as Voltaire said, to learn who rules, determine who you are not
allowed to criticize. The gentle reader should carefully consider who the
professor fails to criticize here, to answer the all-important “why” campuses
are drowning in BS right now.
This all began way back in 1960's. I was there, at the epicenter of all this, back then: BERKELEY. I had to flee that nut house around 1970 due to DEATH THREATS when I wrote an editorial in the Berkeley Barb, mourning the death of a young motorcycle cop right on the front yard of my home that week. The nuts at Berkeley back then graduated and infiltrated all other schools since then. Also, they are Maoists, not just mere leftists. The most dangerous leftist trope on this planet earth.
ReplyDeleteDoom: the posting system here has been changed, again, and I suspect is confusing people, it confused me. This may be why you are not getting some of the comments here lately.
ReplyDeleteOh, I know something is messed up big time. It says I have far more comments than I can see...sorry if I'm not responding to any questions.
Delete"New World Odor"...I like that. Thanks for the kind words...wish I could see the at least 3 other comments that are supposedly made here.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhen did social studies become incorrectly labeled as social science?
ReplyDeleteAny field involving the study of human behavior is not a science. Humans do not, by and large, behave in rational ways. Humans act in their own emotional self interest, not their rational self interest. (This is where economics goes off the rails, for example.)