Shooting the Messenger: In Defense of Academia

[Revoltingest]

There is far more to Marxism than politics.

Regarding Marxism, I rolled his economic into his politics.
Not precise, but it was briefer....til now.

I don't really believe we need more surveillance these days.

All I do is observe what I normally encounter.
It's not much. But neither am I.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some examples:
Marxian economics - Wikipedia
Marxist aesthetics - Wikipedia
Marxist film theory - Wikipedia
Marxist literary criticism - Wikipedia
Marxist historiography - Wikipedia
Frankfurt School - Wikipedia
Critical theory - Wikipedia
Freudo-Marxism - Wikipedia
Postcolonialism - Wikipedia
Post-structuralism - Wikipedia

My gawd....I'll not be perusing those.

 

[Kooky]

My gawd....I'll not be perusing those.

And nobody will make you. That's the beauty of freedom of speech - you're not obliged to listen if you don't want to.

 

[Revoltingest]

And nobody will make you. That's the beauty of freedom of speech - you're not obliged to listen if you don't want to.

Oh, good.
There are some subjects that aren't enhanced by delving deeply.

 

[Kooky]

Oh, good.
There are some subjects that aren't enhanced by delving deeply.

Sausages, for example. Never delve too deeply into your sausages.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sausages, for example. Never delve too deeply into your sausages.

I delve into eating, but not their making.

 

[Valjean]

The poor persecuted intellectual elites ... persecuted by philistines and commoners. That's basically the portrait you paint but I don't think it's accurate. What I think is they are arrogant enough to see themselves this way and you're helping them further their delusions. The reality is they are pushing extremist views on gullible young adults whose brains aren't even fully developed yet.

What are you interpreting as arrogance? Refusal to compromise on well evidenced conclusions? Confidence in their conclusions or observations? Defending their ideas from the criticism of philistines and commoners by 'arrogantly' pointing out their erroneous reasoning?
Where are these "delusions" you accuse them of?
And why doesn't English have the cases to distinguish subject from object?

Those snooty, 'élitist, intellectuals' are attacked by those who apparently were never educated in how to think, how science works or why the scientists and academics believe what they do. The critics don't understand what they don't know, and aren't aware of what the experts do know. Of course it all seems wack, when you don't really understand it.

The fact is it's not really one thing or another that we can point to but an overall tendency to push extreme "progressive" ideology. One recent study finds that the communist manifesto is the most assigned economist in U.S. colleges.

I hear a lot of working class conservatives fear higher education, and consider colleges reëducation centers. They don't want their kids to be college educated for fear it will brainwash them to question the values and opinions they were raised with.

What are these "extreme progressive" views. I challenge you to name a few that were not at one time considered moderate and mainstream legislative proposals, or a few that haven't proven successful elsewhere. You don't seem to understand how far to the right the 'mainstream' has drifted over the past few decades.

Karl Marx is the most assigned economist in U.S. college classes

Yes, and it wasn't that long ago that one could obtain a masters degree in economics without ever taking a single class on Marxian economics, so great was the rabid political hatred of all things communist (read: Soviet)

Marx was (is) one of the most influential economic theorists in history. It's high time Americans began catching up. Neoliberalism isn't working out so well...

 

[Orbit]

The poor persecuted intellectual elites ... persecuted by philistines and commoners. That's basically the portrait you paint but I don't think it's accurate. What I think is they are arrogant enough to see themselves this way and you're helping them further their delusions. The reality is they are pushing extremist views on gullible young adults whose brains aren't even fully developed yet.

The fact is it's not really one thing or another that we can point to but an overall tendency to push extreme "progressive" ideology. One recent study finds that the communist manifesto is the most assigned economist in U.S. colleges.

Karl Marx is the most assigned economist in U.S. college classes

Maybe that's because his analysis of emerging capitalism is a spot-on classic. Have you read it?

 

[Valjean]

Some examples:
Marxian economics - Wikipedia
Marxist aesthetics - Wikipedia
Marxist film theory - Wikipedia
Marxist literary criticism - Wikipedia
Marxist historiography - Wikipedia
Frankfurt School - Wikipedia
Critical theory - Wikipedia
Freudo-Marxism - Wikipedia
Postcolonialism - Wikipedia
Post-structuralism - Wikipedia

Marxist film theory?

https://www.oldtimeradiodownloads.com/comedy/the-marx-brothers

 

[74x12]

I'm curious to hear what exactly you see wrong with assigning Karl Marx as reading in college classes.

Regardless of how wrong you think he was, I doubt you could argue that he wasn't one of the globally most influential economists - or philosophers! - of the 19th and 20th century. I certainly cannot think of a single other economic theorist who had that far reaching an impact in nearly all areas of intellectual life. Even Keynes, who may have been more influential in economics proper than Marx, probably isn't nearly as widely known outside of economics departments.

EDIT: Although, for what it's worth, the Communist Manifesto isn't exactly an in-depth work on Marxist economics, being nearly devoid of the depths of economic theory, but rather an early blueprint of the philosophy and political theories of Marx & Engels.

The problem is not that it's being assigned. Clearly the problem is that it is apparently the most assigned. That is when you know an agenda is being pushed.

 

[Kooky]

The problem is not that it's being assigned. Clearly the problem is that it is apparently the most assigned. That is when you know an agenda is being pushed.

First of all, this from the article:

This post has been updated to reflect that the Open Syllabus Project database algorithms can’t determine when texts with single-word titles and no specified author, such as the Bible, are included in syllabi.

So first, it's the most assigned text written by a single specific author, which excludes the Bible as well as a large number of other collaborative works. Given the large number of Christian colleges in the US, it seems unlikely that the Communist Manifesto would outrank America's most holy book, don't you think?

Second, would you say that the foundational text of an ideology that massively influenced global politics for 150 years, which had far reaching influence on literally every country's intellectual, political, and cultural life - and which, unlike the Bible, the overwhelming majority of American youth would not have read - should not be widely read in American colleges? I would argue that not coming into contact with any of the major works of Marx & Engels at all would leave a massive gap in the knowledge of many young coeds. And wouldn't it be of even more import for an anti-Marxist to be familiar with the most significant talking points and arguments of Marxist ideology?

Third, do you believe that getting assigned a text in college necessarily means that students are being indoctrinated with that text's ideas? It appears to me like you have been missing that an important element of these reading assignments could be the critical reception and analysis of the assigned text, rather than a deliberate attempt at conversion to any particular ideology.

 

[Kooky]

Yes, and it wasn't that long ago that one could obtain a masters degree in economics without ever taking a single class on Marxian economics, so great was the rabid political hatred of all things communist (read: Soviet)

Marx was (is) one of the most influential economic theorists in history. It's high time Americans began catching up. Neoliberalism isn't working out so well...

I contend that even if one was thoroughly and completely opposed to all forms of Marxism, it would behoove one to have at least a passing familiarity with what those Postmodern Neomarxist kids are talking about these days, if only to avoid embarassing oneself by being completely clueless about the ostensible object of one's ire.

 

[Orbit]

The problem is not that it's being assigned. Clearly the problem is that it is apparently the most assigned. That is when you know an agenda is being pushed.

By this logic, Shakespeare is a plot.

 

[SomeRandom]

The problem is not that it's being assigned. Clearly the problem is that it is apparently the most assigned. That is when you know an agenda is being pushed.

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if say Mein Kampf was the most assigned text in history classes. Some texts are just important to read for academic purposes. It doesn’t necessarily mean you’re supposed to agree with the texts, though.

 

[Valjean]

I'm curious to hear what exactly you see wrong with assigning Karl Marx as reading in college classes.

Regardless of how wrong you think he was, I doubt you could argue that he wasn't one of the globally most influential economists - or philosophers! - of the 19th and 20th century. I certainly cannot think of a single other economic theorist who had that far reaching an impact in nearly all areas of intellectual life. Even Keynes, who may have been more influential in economics proper than Marx, probably isn't nearly as widely known outside of economics departments.

EDIT: Although, for what it's worth, the Communist Manifesto isn't exactly an in-depth work on Marxist economics, being nearly devoid of the depths of economic theory, but rather an early blueprint of the philosophy and political theories of Marx & Engels.

The Manifesto is, well, a manifesto. If you want a long, tedious analysis, read Kapital.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Completely agree. It's very unfair to people who sometimes spend their entire lives doing research and trying to find answers and help others. They deserve a lot more respect.
I have a beef with the school system, but not with the scholars on an individual basis. For me the issue is that all school is a "one size fits all" machine, that expects everyone to learn the same things the same way, regardless of their individual capacities and intellect. Everyone is good at something, but we can't all excel at the same things. Unfortunately, diversity is not something school knows how to embrace, in any level.

I had a mixed response to this. Schools here (Oz) are probably better at 'accepting diversity' than real life is.
But if you meant the learning and teaching structures were largely designed in the times of the industrial revolution, and need more diversity in terms of delivery, etc...then I agree.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The poor persecuted intellectual elites ... persecuted by philistines and commoners. That's basically the portrait you paint but I don't think it's accurate. What I think is they are arrogant enough to see themselves this way and you're helping them further their delusions. The reality is they are pushing extremist views on gullible young adults whose brains aren't even fully developed yet.

The fact is it's not really one thing or another that we can point to but an overall tendency to push extreme "progressive" ideology. One recent study finds that the communist manifesto is the most assigned economist in U.S. colleges.

Karl Marx is the most assigned economist in U.S. college classes

I've read a fair amount of socialist-based literature through my life, both in terms of the direct writings of socialists, and of history related to socialism and key figures of same.

Of all the people I've discussed this with in real life, by far the best read person on the topic was a quite extreme capitalist who had a view that a free market would allow the cream to rise to the top.

Apart from this, I've read a lot about various dictators and rebels (including Mein Kampf) and I've read a LOT of religious related literature, including source, analysis and history, much of which disagrees with an atheist interpretation of the world.

So...what do you think it means, that Karl Marx is heavily assigned?

 

[Valjean]

By this logic, Shakespeare is a plot.

Elizabeth I probably thought so.

He was born into a police state. There were spies everywhere. He had to Censor many of his plays to avoid undue attention by the powers-that-be.

 

[Valjean]

I contend that even if one was thoroughly and completely opposed to all forms of Marxism, it would behoove one to have at least a passing familiarity with what those Postmodern Neomarxist kids are talking about these days, if only to avoid embarassing oneself by being completely clueless about the ostensible object of one's ire.

Nothing to contend here.
If one can't argue all sides of a debate, maybe you're not informed enough to have a valid opinion on it.

 

[Stevicus]

In recent years, there seems to have been an increasingly dogmatic, virulent attack on academia under the pretense of "keeping politics out of academia." This pretense, of course, isn't based on a solid, objective criterion for what qualifies as "politics": from the theory of evolution and psychological analysis of gender dysphoria to climate science and renewable energy, demagogues and ideologues have found various ways to attempt to undermine the credibility of scientific and academic fields they deem undesirable for one reason or another.

Essentially, any scholarly research and scientific facts deemed inconvenient by demagogues and pseudo-intellectuals could easily be dismissed--and face opposition from followers of said demagogues and pseudo-intellectuals--under the guise of promoting freethought and accuracy, or under the banner of any number of bombastic but hollow claims. And because much of the public is misinformed or uninformed about exactly how academia works, it is relatively easy to propagate hyperbole and inaccuracies about how it functions compared to fields that are more familiar to most laypeople.

It seems to me that these attacks on academic research and researchers largely amount to shooting the messenger. When someone claims that a course on evolution has a "liberal bias," for example, the underlying idea is usually that to eliminate this "bias," the course must not teach evolution as a scientific fact--thereby ignoring long-established facts and findings of biology. It is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario for academics, then: either forgo intellectual and scientific integrity or keep facing accusations of "bias," "politicizing academia," "campus politics," etc.

So, essentially, it is not scholars that the demagogues and their followers have a problem with but rather the findings thereof and the facts revealed and studied by scholars. The scholars are merely the messengers of facts and knowledge that are inconvenient and politically problematic for certain people, and what better way to propose an alternative version of facts than to attempt to poison the well and undermine the credibility of those who spend their whole lives studying and expanding their and others' knowledge of facts?

"Shoot the messenger to undermine the inconvenient message--whether or not it is accurate and honest." That seems to be the motto of some public figures and their followers nowadays, and academia is one of the primary targets of this simple yet pernicious motto.

I think a lot of it is dependent upon the subject matter in question. I honestly don't believe there's that much dispute over "facts." Most political arguments I see are about conflicting values, not facts.

Apart from that, most people will believe that which can be shown to them. As Reagan used to say about Americans: "We're all from Missouri, the 'Show Me State'. You have to show us, not tell us."