Monday, January 19, 2009
I told you that the
Chicago St. Louis Phoenix Arizona Cardinals were a team of destiny. But did you believe me? Nooooooo. Or maybe yes. I’m not sure. But I do know this much: I live three hours from Philadelphia, close enough to know that the failure of the Eagles’ defense to anticipate the Warner-Fitzgerald attack is entirely the fault of Donovan McNabb.
And speaking of Philly, I’ve now tried twice—once early Saturday morning, once early Sunday morning—to post a nice constructive comment on Erin O’Connor’s blog, because Ms. O’Connor was so kind as to reply to my post about Jason Rantz and ACTA, and even to leave a trackback on this notoriously untrackbackable blog. Ms. O’Connor chides me for being snarky and for using the epithet “wingnut,” and although I plead guilty to the charge of snarkalariousness in the nth degree, I have to say that I have always found “chiding” to be a most deplorable discursive mode. It arises from anger, it’s not conducive to sincere inquiry or exchange, and when academics or others who make any sort of intellectual claim do it, it really serves them badly. Just my humble opinion, of course. (No, actually that’s what Ms. O’Connor said about snark, in comments. But still.)
Anyway, I’m not sure why my attempt to comment at Critical Mass has met with a double fail. But I’ll simply assume that my reply to Ms. O’Connor was captured by her
snark spam filter, and I’ll reproduce it below, in the hope that we can keep a civil conversation going:
Well, I thank Ms. O’Connor for the kind (and civil!) words, and I quite agree that Ms. Neal did the right thing in that debate. But I do think a limited defense of snark is in order. I’m not of the David Denby school that says Snark is Everything That is Wrong with Today’s Society Today—though I suppose that much was already clear. More important, I actually am trying to offer people a discursive mode of dealing with people like Jason Rantz. Because, you see, when someone like Rantz comes along and says, “All you need to learn about immigration law I can teach you in this one sentence: it is illegal to enter our country without permission, bypassing our laws,” he’s demonstrating that he’s not a serious interlocutor on the subject, and doesn’t merit a serious response. The good lord Moloch gave us snark for just such rhetorical occasions. Likewise, every once in a while David Horowitz says things like
radicals like Berube can’t be bothered to actually read or respond rationally to anything that ruffles their progressive feathers, let alone be concerned about the fact that their entire political focus since 9/11 has been in getting our terrorist enemies off the hook.
And how should one respond to such a provocation? Well, another man might’ve been angry, and another man might’ve been hurt. And another man might try to ignore it (that never works) and still another might’ve done the Grover Furr-patented “Horowitz = Goebbels!!1!!” dance. Me, I’ve gradually decided that the way to deal with vile smears like this is to ridicule the wingnuts who utter them. (And I use the term “wingnuts” precisely as our Founding Fathers intended.) Because people like Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Rantz are chiefly trying to gin up some outrage, and too many academic leftists are all too eager to oblige them.
By contrast, when Ms. Neal shows up at a conference and decides to drop the “How Many Ward Churchills” nonsense in favor of a serious discussion of student engagement and academic standards, I’m happy to take part. Ms. Neal, smart as she is, knew perfectly well that the ACTA-pamphlet approach wasn’t going to fly at the National Communication Association, and as a result, we actually did have a productive exchange—even where we disagreed (e.g., we agree that tuition costs have placed college out of reach for far too many families though we offer different reasons why). Reasonable conservative critiques of higher education (or anything else) are perfectly OK by me; Horowitzian smears and ignorant Rantzian rants aren’t. Personally, I enjoy debating stuff with smart people who disagree with me—even on my blog! Mr. Drake, you’re welcome to comment anytime. Feel free to stop by. And Ms. O’Connor, thanks again for the reply.
So that’s my comment on Ms. O’Connor’s gracious reply to my post. Just for the record. But I do think that once you get past my snarkitude (if you can), the major point remains: conservative intellectuals have a lot of work to do if they want to disavow the Palin/ Plumber wing of their constituency in the US.
OK, enough of this for now. I have to compile a dreary Works Cited and then get back to writing about important things, like hockey and karaoke. In the meantime, We Are All Arizona Cardinals Now.
Update: Almost forgot! Even though I actually have no rooting interest now that my Giants are done for the year, I do love it when this happens. Pull quote: “the Arizona Cardinals over the Philadelphia Eagles in next Sunday’s NFC Championship Game? Put it this way: Tim Tebow and the Philippians have a better chance of strip clubbing with Pacman Jones.”
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Diversity and dangerality
From one of my far-flung correspondents covering the Wild Wild World of Wingnuttery comes the news that the powerful Family Security Matters consortium, whose sworn mission “is to inform all Americans, men and women, about the issues surrounding national security; to address their fears about safety and security on a personal, family, community, national and international level; to highlight the connection between individual safety and a strong national defense; to increase civic participation and political responsibility; and to empower all Americans to become proactive defenders of our national security and community safety,” has finally released its Third Annual List of America’s Most Dangerous College Courses.
As you might imagine, these courses are a pretty scary bunch, and all the usual suspects are here. “Nonviolent Responses to Terrorism,” check; “Immigration Law,” check; “Introduction to Gender and Sexuality Studies,” check. Yes, these are definitely the courses that make your modern wingnut shiver under the covers. The research methodology of Family Security Matters is actually far more rigorous than that of U. No., who famously
compiled had his elves compile a list of dangerous professors whose “danger” was measured largely by things they’d said or written out of class; FSM, as befits its high seriousness, has a stringent vetting process for their determination of dangerality:
1. The course must focus on the issue or issues detailed in the syllabus or class description. That is, a math course with a professor who may rail against President Bush or President-elect Barack Obama will not be considered;
2. The course must also express an agenda far beyond any honest or accurate academic cause. That is, professors who teach courses that lie, manipulate facts, propagandize students, or express a dishonest and fact-deficient extremist view on the class topic, will be considered;
3. Courses will be evaluated as if the reader of the course description was an incoming student. That is, they will judge the course only by the contents of the syllabus and whatever info they can reasonably find about the professor; and
4. Courses that may be required as part of a “core” curriculum will also be considered if they offer nothing more than to stroke the ego of the professor’s fascination with silly topics that offer little academic value to students.
You can see why an introduction to gender and sexuality would run afoul of at least three of these criteria. As Jason Rantz (if that is his real name) points out,
There is no need to take a course for an entire semester to get an introduction to gender and sexuality studies; in fact, I’ll introduce you to it right here. Gender and Sexuality Studies, whether here at Brown or elsewhere, is where confused students with a chip on their shoulders (usually hardcore Feminists and gay-rights activists) go to vent and get a degree which will not prepare them for the real world or help them get a job. An angry Gender and Sexuality Studies graduate with no job? Look out—that’s dangerous.
Occasionally, however, Mr. Rantz bends the rules in extraordinary cases, as when a professor has a website:
Introduction to U.S. Political Culture at the University of Oregon: While Professor Joseph Lowndes does attempt to at least appear fair—he offers a few conservative texts to counter the overwhelming liberal papers students must suffer through—it’s hard to take seriously an academic who, on his personal website, calls former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin “a kind of George Wallace in drag.” No fair-minded student would go to this professor for any lecture on political culture.
And as for that course on immigration law, well, Mr. Rantz doesn’t seem to see the need for courses on immigration law:
All you need to learn about immigration law I can teach you in this one sentence: it is illegal to enter our country without permission, bypassing our laws. Get in line, and we’ll welcome you—so long as you do not have nefarious purposes, of course.
You know, folks, with all the wingnut huffing and puffing about Teh Librul Professors, you rarely hear what a properly Wingnut U. would look like. That’s why smart people like Mark Bauerlein can get away with saying, “Bérubé takes potshots at David Horowitz, but fails to deal with more serious conservatives, like, uh, a bunch of dead people and maybe E. D. Hirsch.” (That’s a rough paraphrase, but I can assure you that good ol’ Brad DeLong got the point.) First of all, the problem is way way deeper than U. No.; there is in fact an entire cottage industry of wingnut complaint about higher education, and lots of it looks and sounds pretty much like Jason Rantz’s List of Scary Courses. Second of all, the wingnut complaint about higher education is a lot like the wingnut complaint about government: they may say they want in, but at bottom, they hates it, they hates it, and just as Dubya appointed Heckuva Job Brownie to head an agency he couldn’t care less about, so too would the Jason Rantzes of the world teach courses on immigration law that consisted of the sentence “it is illegal to enter our country without permission” and supplemented by three hours a week of watching Lou Dobbs. (Thanks for clearing up that confusing stuff about F and M student visas, I-129 forms for temporary workers, I-140s for longer visits, and the difference between residency and citizenship! And thank goodness Professor Rantz’s course skipped over that silly stuff about “naturalization.” That would never help me get a job in today’s society today!) Just imagine Joseph T. Plumber as a Distinguished Professorship of Wartime Journamalism, and you’ve got your basic wingnut university.
Hmmm. This brings up a point I’ve made a couple of times before, but just for the hell of it, let me give it another shot. What follows are my remarks to Anne Neal of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni at our National Communication Association debate on “diversity in higher education” last November (for
all both of you who wondered what exactly I said back then). The final paragraph, I think, has some relevance for people who make Lists of Dangeral Courses, and for more serious conservatives in academe who really should get around to noticing that people who make Lists of Dangeral Courses are a bit of a problem for their side.
I want to open by saying something you might not expect me to say. I don’t particularly like the rhetoric of diversity. I’ve got nothing against ideological diversity on campus, within reason, of course: no Holocaust deniers in the history department and no Intelligent Design advocates in the life sciences, on the grounds that we have no business hiring such people any more than we should hire astrologers or faith healers. But “diversity” is a sloppy concept. It is contentless, for one thing, which is why the right has been able to deploy it so easily, complaining that universities foster every kind of diversity except diversity of opinion. And for another thing, the primary reason we talk about diversity goes back to Lewis Powell’s rationale for affirmative action in the famous Bakke decision of thirty years ago (and I hope we can talk a bit more about that, because, as I point out in What’s Liberal, a good deal of conservative complaints about the political leanings of faculty are premised on a spurious analogy to affirmative action). That opinion, you’ll recall, basically substituted the term “diversity” for the term “justice,” and made diversity the catch-all catchword for every kind of campus initiative ever since. For example: I currently serve on a task force that is trying to make Penn State more accessible, in class and out, for students with disabilities. (A subject you don’t often hear mentioned in these debates.) But the rationale for the formation of this task force, which is charged basically with getting people to obey a federal law, is that it will enhance diversity at Penn State. I’ll take that rationale if I have to, but given my druthers, I would prefer to talk about doing justice to students with disabilities, just as I would prefer to talk about doing justice to women and minorities who were barred from institutions of higher learning for centuries.
That said, let me explain why I do not always trust ACTA as a player in these debates. I actually think their goals are legitimate; they are one of many advocacy organizations in higher education, and they seek to move colleges and universities in a more conservative direction. They make their case to trustees, alumni, legislators, and the general public, and I make mine. But too often, the way they make that case is illegitimate. For instance: in its landmark 2006 publication, How Many Ward Churchills?, ACTA claimed, on the basis of published course descriptions, that an astonishingly wide variety of subjects are inappropriately “politicized.” Here are two examples of the kind of intellectual work ACTA sought to associate with Ward Churchill:
Penn State University offers “American Masculinities,” which maps “how vexed ideas about maleness, manhood, and masculinity provided rough-riding presidents, High Modern novelists, Provincetown playwrights, queer regionalists, star-struck inverts, surly bohemians and others with a means to negotiate—and gender—the cultural and political turmoil that constituted modern American life.”
An anthropology course at the University of Illinois asks, “Are racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and other stereotypical ideologies of ‘the Other’ inevitable and universal, or do they have local histories and alternatives?” The course description informs students that the purpose of the class is to “challenge you to interrogate the cultural and historical foundations of the widespread ideologies that define ‘other’ populations,” which are “groups defined by ethnicity, ‘race,’ gender, health, religion, and sexual orientation.” (The professor’s use of scare quotes around the word “race” is itself a political statement, a common shorthand for indicating that race does not exist except as a social fiction.)
The Penn State course is included in How Many Ward Churchills?, I imagine, because there seems to be something rather queer going on in its examination of masculinities; the Illinois course is there because . . . well, it’s not entirely clear, because most educated people don’t see anything wrong with interrogating the historical foundations of racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism—or, for that matter, with putting “race” in scare quotes, because most educated people are aware that we’ve now learned enough about genetics to know that our use of the term race has no basis in biological fact.
ACTA is also the group that responded to 9/11 by collecting an array of statements made on American college campuses in the wake of the attacks, statements that included the following: “ignorance breeds hate,” “hate breeds hate,” “our grief is not a cry for war,” “an eye for an eye leaves the world blind,” and “if Osama bin Laden is confirmed to be behind the attacks, the United States should bring him before an international tribunal on charges of crimes against humanity.” Again, why such statements should be cause for alarm is not clear—unless the goal is to mount a kind of campaign of vengeance against students and faculty who quoted Gandhi or opposed war as a response to the attacks. I am reminded here of David Horowitz’s decision to include in his list of the 100 most dangerous professors in America one Caroline Higgins, a professor of peace studies who happens to teach at a Quaker college.
Now, these ACTA pamphlets could be called many things, but “intellectually honest” isn’t one of them. What I’ve cited here are not examples of legitimate criticisms of American higher education; they are appeals to what might politely be called a low-information conservative constituency, that is, people who can be counted on to be outraged that there are literature courses that deal with masculinities and anthropology courses that deal with the historical origins of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and so forth.
I think everything depends here on what kind of discursive community ACTA is trying to participate in. If we see ACTA as being one among a variety of conservative advocacy organizations, and this kind of campaign as being one version of Washington politics as usual, then fine—you can go ahead and accuse professors of palling around with terrorists and chastise us for not wearing flag lapel pins. We know how that game works; we understand its standard operating procedure. But if ACTA wants to be a legitimate player in debates over curricula and the direction of entire academic fields, well, then it actually has to try to make the case, in a detailed and substantive fashion, that literature courses should not examine American masculinities and anthropologists should not assign books like George Fredrickson’s Racism: A Short History. [Note to people reading this on computers: check out Timothy Burke’s comment in this thread, which is what I was reading when I wrote this bit.] And ACTA will have to abandon the easy but disreputable tactic of smearing such courses with an all-purpose Ward Churchill brush.
I’ve said that I’m not opposed to the idea that campuses should be ideologically diverse places. I believe that in many ways they already are, especially when it comes to actual research agendas and actual classroom instruction. But I also acknowledge that fields like mine are overwhelmingly populated by liberals and leftists of various kinds, and I argue in What’s Liberal that I would indeed like to have more conservative colleagues in literary study. It would be good for students, good for faculty, good for “diversity”—but it would not be good if it were mandated by a legislature or an external advocacy group. And here’s why: if conservatives want greater representation on college faculties, they should go about it the old-fashioned way: they should earn it. That means more young conservatives going to graduate school, doing the research or the fieldwork, writing the dissertations, hunting for the jobs. As I’ve said before, I would actually like to see a world in which more young conservatives took the arts and humanities seriously—and I think it’s just bizarre the way the arts drop out of these debates entirely.
There’s a self-selection problem here, of course: if you imagine society being divvied up into various areas of activity—the clergy, the military, the world of high finance, the world of small business, education, the environment, and the arts, say—it’s not hard to figure out where the liberals are going to tend to wind up. There’s also a weeding-out problem: some conservatives have come to the conclusion that it’s not worth the time and effort to get a graduate degree in a field dominated by the left. But whatever difficulties young conservatives might have in such fields, they pale in comparison to the difficulties faced by the first women who entered academic fields a generation ago, and who faced not only ideological opposition but an entrenched sexism, up to and including routine sexual harassment, which young academic women today can scarcely imagine. It took women a generation to transform a handful of academic fields like literature and anthropology. Conservatives could do it too—if they really wanted to.
But this last point touches on a much larger question, a question that contemporary conservatism will have to answer for itself, without any help from me. Complaining about the preponderance of liberals and leftists in the arts and humanities and social sciences has so far allowed the right to dodge the question of how many young conservatives are actually interested enough in education in arts, humanities, and social sciences to devote six or eight years of graduate study to these subjects. The really curious thing, however, is that there is also a preponderance of liberals and leftists in the sciences, and no one can plausibly suggest that this is due to selection bias—as if physicists are looking for new Ph.D.s who bring a multicultural approach to superstring theory and biologists are subtly biased in favor of geneticists whose work criticizes Western imperialism. The problem here—the elephant in the room, if you will—is that there is now an entire wing of the conservative moment that is opposed to science, be it the science of climate change or the science of stem cell research or the science of evolutionary theory. This is also one reason the Republican party has lost so much support among educated professionals with postgraduate degrees: these people are quite aware of the fact that this wing of the conservative moment fears and distrusts educated professionals with postgraduate degrees. Call it the Palin wing, for now. And this is one reason I say I want to see more conservatives in academe: I would like very much to see the conservative movement repudiate its anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, anti-Enlightenment, anti-rationalist wing. I would like to see more conservatives in the academic tent, knowing how the business works, with more of a stake in the enterprise. That would be change I could believe in.
Note: The preceding talk has been post-partisanly approved as being part of a “reasonable, cordial, and constructive exchange.”
Monday, January 12, 2009
Deep thoughts in deep snow
Conservatives in Hollywood can take some solace in the fact that The Dark Knight offers a ringing endorsement of fascism. Also, there were some films in 2008 that promoted the heterosexual agenda, and there are still plenty of good roles for older man. We will not be afraid of the liberal thugs!
In more important news, there’s a crazy good race going on in the Wizbang category of “very large but not really really huge blog,” which just happens to be the category this desultory blog still inhabits, according to Technorati (but what do they know? They put my authority at 776, and I don’t feel like a 776. Still, you must respect my etc.) As I write, the top three are:
Jesus’ General 3,583
Bitch PhD 3,326
The ever-fluctuating margins in this one have been positively Coleman-Frankenesque at times. The point is that your vote will matter, which is why I’m urging you to head over to Wizbang and vote for . . . uh . . . wait a second, this is kinda hard. I’ve been the honored guest of the General, I’m an official alumnus of the Pandagon Institute of Very Large Blogging, and two years ago I challenged the indispensable Dr. B to a procrastination contest, the results of which are still not clear.
Well, looks like there’s only one thing to do. You know the Wizbang rules: you can vote once a day. The voting closes at 5 pm Eastern time tomorrow, so we need to act now. Let’s make sure this category ends in a perfect three-way tie! It’s only right and just.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Every day is a snow day
But this one’s on a Saturday, when Jamie would be home anyway. Yes, well. The other day I had a Bright Idea: we would go to a noon showing of Akeelah and the Bee at our local State Theatre, which is a great venue for movies and concerts and things. Last month, I actually went to the showing of “The Dark Side of Oz,” the mashup in which there are allegedly a hundred or more “concordances” between The Wizard of Oz and Dark Side of the Moon. I found three! And all I had to do was to watch the movie for the four hundredth time and listen to that dang album two and a half times. (Well, that wasn’t all bad—it does have three songs on it, after all, and I did wind up spending a few amusing moments checking out a couple of the Pink Floyd / 2001 masterpieces on the YouTubes, as well as a live performance of “Careful with that Axe, Eugene,” which you don’t hear much on the radio anymore.) A neighbor and I talked briefly after the show. “I still don’t get it,” she admitted. “Did you see all these connections?” “To misquote Sigourney Weaver in Galaxy Quest,” I replied, “I didn’t know people could get that stoned.”
Anyway, Janet insisted we walk the nine blocks to the movie in the snow, which made sense, because (a) it was fun and (b) the roads are terrible for driving. The only problem was dealing with Jamie, who tends to fuss about things like this by saying “I think it might be better to take the car” and asking “are we driving or walking?” a couple of dozen times. But he was great! The only problem was that when we got to State Theatre, they were kinda mystified as to why we were there, because the movie is scheduled for Saturday . . . February 14. I suppose I forgot to check into that part.
So we had lunch, got Jamie a haircut, hung out in a bookstore, walked home in the snow (more fun!), and then shoveled our sidewalk (more more fun!). Again. And while I was shoveling, a got an idea for a Fun Game.
When you’re urging someone to stop bothering you, which “off” is your favorite? There’s “back off” and “lay off” and “bugger off” and “piss off” and “f*ck off” and “shove off” and “step off” as well as the more polite “knock it off,” of course. This should make for a most piquant comment section!
Thursday, January 08, 2009
More current events
Oh, and don’t forget to vote for me in the 2008 Wizbang Weblog Awards! I’m nominated in the category, “Most Desultory Blogger With A Technorati Authority Ranking Between 700 and 800 and a NYC Metropolitan Transportation Authority Ranking Between 1540 and 1560.”
And in real life, I’m frantically revising (yet again!) an unwieldy manuscript and fighting off a cold and recovering from the fact that yesterday was yet another “snow day” and seeing a physical therapist for the ligament I tore in my elbow. In my elbow! I’ll be back next week or thereabouts with real posts about important things—things like karaoke and hockey and paternalism and unfathomably bad movies and just-barely-tolerable songs. But I gotta get some dead-tree writing done while the year is still young.
In the meantime, I hear there is a foot-ball contest of some kind this evening. But if 2008 proved nothing else, other than the trivial bits about the collapse of the global financial system and the election of America’s first black president, it’s that college football needs a three-round playoff system involving the top eight teams. That way, when Utah becomes national champion after defeating Texas Tech 23-17 in the final (after each school has defeated Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, USC, Florida, and Penn State in the first two rounds), everyone can complain about how arbitrary the system is, just as they will when the Chargers face off against the Cardinals in the Super Bowl next month.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
While a million thoughts go racing through my mind, I find I haven’t said a word. Possibly that’s because I have nothing very useful or hopeful to say. But I was glad to see this item over the weekend. It ain’t perfect, but this whole J Street thing seems to be a start. More of them and less of AIPAC, please. And here’s hoping that the incoming administration is listening.
On a related note, Neve Gordon and Jeff Halper raise a legitimate question, albeit—to gauge from the comment thread—one that people tend to answer in disparate ways. Funny how that works.