Site Search: WWW DTN

Monday, March 07, 2005

Can Leftists Be Intellectuals?

Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education of May 25, 2001, "the eminent sociologist and political theorist Alan Wolfe… essentially argues that no thinker of intellect who calls himself a conservative can be considered an intellectual," notes Ronald Radosh in "The Myth of the Public Intellectual" (FrontPage, May 23, 2001).

Judging from comments made by self-styled "liberal" academic Mark Edmundson on the final, December 5 installment of C-SPAN's "Book Notes", we at Moonbat Central suspect that it may be more appropriate to ask how many leftists actually deserve the designation "intellectual."

Host Brian Lamb had invited Edmundson – a University of Virginia English professor with a Ph.D. from Yale – to come on the show to promote his new book, Why Read? In an apparent effort to at least simulate broadmindedness, Edmundson expressed compassion for college students whose shabby treatment at the hands of "liberal" professors might have sent them down the dark trail of Rush-Limbaugh-style conservatism. He said:


"I think a lot of the kind of angry conservative movement that rubs me the wrong me, the Rush Limbaugh kind of stuff, came about because people going to college felt, `All my professors are liberal, I could never give them my reservations about the liberal line,' so that those things festered and got darker and nastier. And then, you know, welcome to talk radio. .... If they`d been listened to in a tolerant way and disagreed with in an affectionate way, we might have a little bit better civil discourse in the country."

Later in the show, Lamb played video footage of past "Book Notes" guests. One turned out to be Nobel-Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman discussing Friedrich Hayek's 1945 freemarket classic, The Road to Serfdom. The following exchange ensued:

LAMB: "He`s talking about Road to Serfdom – Hayek – a bible for people on the conservative political side."

EDMUNDSON: "I`m glad to know about it. Until this moment, I`ve heard nothing about it. But I will write it down and give it a look."

LAMB: "So, you`ve never read
Road to Serfdom?"

EDMUNDSON: "Never. Nor heard of it, until this moment."

Impressed by Edmundson's show of penitence regarding "liberal" tyranny on campus – if not necessarily by the breadth of Edmundson's reading – David Horowitz invited the good professor via e-mail to put his words into action by supporting the Academic Bill of Rights and the academic freedom movement. Edmundson never replied. "So much for his liberalism," comments Horowitz.


9 Comments:

Laeth MacLaurie said...

Perhaps he hasn't replied because Horowitz's little movement is grotesquely disingenuous and seeks to STIFLE rather than advance academic freedom?

Mon Mar 07, 08:02:54 PM  
Laeth MacLaurie said...

Perhaps he hasn't replied because Horowitz's little movement is grotesquely disingenuous and seeks to STIFLE rather than advance academic freedom?

Mon Mar 07, 08:03:28 PM  
Redbeard said...

If that's true, please lay out the facts to back up that accusation. I'd be curious to see Horowitz's devious plan. Then we can work to silence Horowitz and all these other silly people who actually believe that academic freedom involves more than a dogmatic leftist point of view.

Mon Mar 07, 09:05:21 PM  
Laeth MacLaurie said...

The Academic Bill of Rights is a naked attempt to silence professorial political speech. It's mockery of what academic freedom has always been about (protecting the right of professors to challenge the beliefs of students).

Mon Mar 07, 10:25:50 PM  
Rightminded said...

There are sixty some law professors (and I use the term lightly) at The Harvard School of Law. Every jack one of them are registered victi-crats!

NOW THAT'S TYRANNY, BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. Especially in a racket that is all based on interpretation.

What is a cargo bay filled with a bunch of leftist lawyers bound for parts unknown?

A GOOD START!

Tue Mar 08, 01:34:14 AM  
Redbeard said...

Laeth writes: "The Academic Bill of Rights is a naked attempt to silence professorial political speech."

I'm still a bit fuzzy on how this silencing will be accomplished, if the evil Horowitz gets his way.

Is it the part of the A.B.O.R. that calls for hiring and firing on the basis of performance?

Is it the section stating that tenure, search and hiring activities be done in the sunshine?

Is it the odious requirement that students have their grades based upon what they have learned rather than upon their political opinions?

Or is it the call for balance, for opening up our institutions of higher learning to all viewpoints, that is the most heinous part of this devious and underhanded plan?

Dear merciful heaven, is Horowitz actually proposing FAIRNESS and OPENNESS and BALANCE in higher education? This must be stopped before the virulent concept reaches the elementary school level. We could lose an entire generation this way.

Tue Mar 08, 08:45:59 AM  
J. Edward Tremlett said...

I have to agree with Laeth - the movement sounds great on paper, but when you look at the mission statement there's a big problem:

"Faculty and instructors shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or antireligious indoctrination."

"Faculty and instructors shall not infringe the academic freedom and quality of education of their students by persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose."
It all sounds good, but how do we define 'indoctrination,' and what's 'controversial'?

Besides, if professors are bringing stuff into class that has no bearing on that class on a regular basis, that's wasting class time. It doesn't matter if it's complaining about Bush or begging people to help neuter stray cats over the weekend - it's a matter that should be handled by the university so students get their money's worth.

Without a definition of those two words, the manifesto is asking for abuse.

J

Tue Mar 08, 11:31:06 AM  
Laeth MacLaurie said...

Ed, have you ever checked out the SAF's student complaint list (where Horowitz's gestapo get the opportunity to rat out their professor's)? It's absolutely hilarious, and it reveals the real problem facing conservative students today: their own base stupidity. Here's a typical example of the white trash retards that think their professors are out to get them...

"This complaint applies to the discriminating nature of grading of my English teacher. She knows I'm an advancer of conservative ideas b/c I where a "W" t-shirt to class on sometimes. Ever since the 1st day of class when I wore my "W" shirt she has treated me cold and been discriminating in grading my essays. On the last one, I wrote about how family values in the books weve read aren't good. I know the paper was pretty much great because I spell checked it and proofred it twice. I got an D- just because the professor hates families and thinks its okay to be gay."

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/comp/viewComplaint.asp?complainId=370

Why can't Johnny read? Why, because he's a "conservative," of course.

Tue Mar 08, 08:12:15 PM  
J. Edward Tremlett said...

Heh, that's a hoot. : D I wonder if she remembered that there's a difference between there, they're and their after the spellcheck did its job? And how about organization of essay?

That also shows another problem with the Big Plan: in the end, it's going to come down to 's/he said \ s/he said' when professors get fingered for "indoctrination."

How do we grade the worth of someone's complaint when they're flunking the course?

J

Wed Mar 09, 01:17:02 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Copyright 2003-2005 : DiscoverTheNetwork.org