Home | Away

Unintentionally revelatory

In today’s Inside Higher Ed, UC-Irvine doctoral candidate Brian Thill has an open letter in response to Andrew Jones, the Bruin Alumni Association, and UCLAProfs.com.  I’m sure you remember them—they’re the ones who are scandalously underpaying undergraduates for the lecture notes and audiotapes of liberal UCLA professors.  You are hereby invited to read the whole thing, as we say in the blogging industry, but for those of you with busy daily schedules, here are the final two paragraphs:

I cannot remember the last time I proselytized (according to your definition) in class, if I ever did; nor have I found it necessary to offer a disquisition on any of the particular subjects you consider off-limits or ideologically suspect, but this has nothing to do with the fact that I think your entire approach is wrong. In fact, all of what I have said thus far is really only a relatively minor criticism of your ideas, the faulty assumptions behind them, and the dangers inherent in your approach to solving this perceived problem. In the end, the greatest weakness in your investigative project is that your own ideological investment in curtailing academic freedom to express views you disagree with has blinded you to a whole set of profound crises that are in fact debasing higher education and shortchanging generations of hard-working students.

While you target professors whose political views conflict with your own and attempt to paint a shocking portrait of the corrupt ideologies that are eating away at the very foundations of higher learning, you ignore the legitimate problems most students face and instead direct your energies toward the worst sort of partisan whining and straw-man argumentation. If you were genuinely interested in preventing students from receiving a “debased education,” you might want to devote some of your estimable energies to dealing with the following crises in education: the increasing burden of debt being carried by students; the skyrocketing costs of attending college (from tuition increases to the lack of affordable housing); restrictive immigration policies that prevent many excellent international students from attending American universities; the corporate takeover of the university; and so much more. In order for me to continue to talk about these issues, however, I may find it necessary to mention something other than Shakespeare, Harold Pinter, or the assorted subjects you are willing to grant me license to discuss. If I do, perhaps I can monitor myself, and provide you with all the materials you need to add another profile to your archive. For the sake of convenience, please make the check out to “Cash.”

Well, it didn’t take long for my old pen pal (and admirably early riser) KC Johnson to reply to this.  At 6:18 this morning, he chimed in to say,

A few months ago, I wrote a column for IHE analyzing responses to allegations of bias in the academy. The piece argued that defenders of the academic status quo often proved the critics’ case in their attempts to explain why we ought not to be concerned about the increasingly imbalanced ideological nature of the contemporary academy.

I should note that I consider the reasoning behind much of the analysis on the UCLAprofs’ to be intellectually sophomoric and the site’s tactics to be needlessly confrontational. But Prof. Thill’s column doesn’t exactly provide reassurance, and it reinforces the argument of my IHE piece. On the one hand, he writes, “I cannot remember the last time I proselytized. . . in class, if I ever did.” On the other, he claims the freedom to spend class time to such matters as the Bush administration’s “restrictive immigration policies,” “the corporate takeover of the university,” and “so much more.”

Such views, of course, are defensible political positions (if minority ones), welcome within an intellectually diverse community that features honest and open debate. Yet that Prof. Thill does not consider spending class time in an English course advancing such arguments to constitute proselytizing is, unintentionally, revelatory.

Now, I’m not going to get all “personal” with KC here, and suggest that he sometimes has trouble paraphrasing other people’s essays.  That would be so 2005.  Besides, I have a very hectic week in front of me, part of which involves writing a talk on—guess what?—recent attacks on academic freedom.  So I’ll turn this one over to you, dear readers.  I can count five things wrong with KC’s reply (four major things, one minor), but who knows?  There might be more.  Until tomorrow, I leave matters in your most capable hands.

(Oh, and in the meantime, check out this most illuminating letter to the editor on Andrew Jones from back when he was a student at UCLA and his unofficial slogan was apparently “Hate Me Because I Hate You.” I wonder if you could fit that on the back of a vintage XFL football jersey.)

Posted by on 01/23 at 11:49 AM

  1. OK, I’ll bite (being a dog and all).  Both the joy and the bane of “fisking” (such a 2002 term, I know) is the “cut and paste” feature available on all widows browsers simply by highlighting the text you like, and then using a “control c”, folowed by dumping same text wherever you like and preferably out of context, through the use of “control v” (that would be pressing both the control key, and the v, or the c, at the same time...)

    Thus, we take a sentence:

    “If you were genuinely interested in preventing students from receiving a “debased education,” you might want to devote some of your estimable energies to dealing with the following crises in education: the increasing burden of debt being carried by students; the skyrocketing costs of attending college (from tuition increases to the lack of affordable housing); restrictive immigration policies that prevent many excellent international students from attending American universities; the corporate takeover of the university; and so much more.

    The sentence says nothing about suggesting that its writer means to discuss this in his own liberal arts lectures (can we do something about that name?  I mean it gives up the game before we start...) In fact, it is written in the imperative voice, meaning that it is directed at someone else, and suggesting, perhaps, politely, that they might, if they were, you know, actually interested in some meta-picture beyond their own parochial agenda, of being interested in those things.  (I believe the expression is… no wait-- the magic of fisking lets me “cut and paste” it…

    If you were genuinely interested in preventing students from receiving a “debased education,” Here’s where I have to fault the good almost Dr. Thill… why would the recipients be genuinely interested in preventing students from receiving a “debased education”? 

    The academic thought police are simply trying to balance the equation:  with so many students majoring in “liberal arts”, and not nearly enough in “conservative arts”, one must ask, where’s the balance?  Well?  Where is it?  We ask the same thing in biology and other sciences: the damned scientific establishment is trying to give us “correct” explanations based on “evidence”.  Where is the balance of those trying to give us “good sounding” explanations based on “faith” and superstition?

    I repeat: where is the balance?

    Posted by the talking dog  on  01/23  at  01:22 PM

  2. Nowhere does Thill call these policies Bush’s, and nowhere does he claim to address them in class.  He merely suggests that they are more worthy of an honest person’s attempts to level the academic playing field. 

    I’d point out all the other errors, but I’ve got to go teach my philosophy classes about why they all need abortions and that instead of bombing people we should just give them all a great big hug.

    Posted by Robin  on  01/23  at  01:29 PM

  3. I’ve got to go teach my philosophy classes about why they all need abortions and that instead of bombing people we should just give them all a great big hug.

    Bless you, Robin.  You know you’re doing the Lord’s work.

    Posted by  on  01/23  at  01:40 PM

  4. He writes: “Such views, of course, are defensible political positions (if minority ones), welcome within an intellectually diverse community that features honest and open debate.”

    I wonder in which corners of which intellectually diverse communitues one is permitted, in his view, to discuss such matters. Must I take a course called “Political Issues in Higher Education” in order to legitimately discuss them?

    If that’s the case, I think I’ll rename my composition class “ENG 103: Why I Deserve My Own Parking Space Even Though I’m An Adjunct.”

    Posted by ms lynch  on  01/23  at  02:17 PM

  5. I see that the accurate KC Johnson lists under his achievements “ two volumes of LBJ transcripts, which Norton published in May 2005”. I wonder if they are “unintentionally revelatory” as well.

    Posted by  on  01/23  at  03:27 PM

  6. Nowhere does Thill’s letter address the question of whether discussion of immigration policy and the corporate takeover of the university is or is not “prozelytizing.” He simply says that he cannot remember the last time he proselytized (according to their definition) in class, and later suggests that if they were genuinely interested in students receiving a “debased education,” they would be tackling the issues named above.

    I would catch other errors, but now I have to indoctrinate some more students with my class on “Latin American Radicals from Cortés to Borges.” Gotta keep those conservatives out of Spanish 101, you know.

    Posted by Idelber  on  01/23  at  05:03 PM

  7. If Pen Pal Johnson’s characterization of his argument to IHE is accurate (I’m not too lazy to click the link, I’m too lazy to offer even a dubious excuse …), I accept his statement of 6:18am as proof that it is possible for unartful argument to score intellectual own goal. While it is convenient for his 6:18am argument that Prof Thill spends class time proselityzing, it is unfortunately revelatory against that same argument that Prof Thill clearly writes: “I cannot remember the last time I proselytized …”

    On this basis I find it reassuring that Pen Pal Johnson observes “Prof. Thill’s column doesn’t exactly provide reassurance”.

    Posted by  on  01/23  at  05:19 PM

  8. Someone already pointed out Johnson’s assumption that Thill blames his list of educational crises on “the Bush administration.” Additionally, in order to do the above manuevering, Johnson leaves off the first few crises listed by Thill--"the increasing burden of debt being carried by students” and “the skyrocketing costs of attending college (from tuition increases to the lack of affordable housing).” With students of all shapes and sizes and political bents complaining about these issues, it’s difficult to argue that these are the “political positions” of unpatriotic liberals.

    Posted by S  on  01/23  at  05:45 PM

  9. This raised a flag for me right away:

    KC Johnson is a professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center.

    That, along with the time at which he wrote his post, which Berube was ever so careful to point out, is unintentionally revelatory.

    Posted by  on  01/23  at  06:04 PM

  10. "Now, I’m not going to get all “personal” with KC here, and suggest that he sometimes has trouble paraphrasing other people’s essays.  That would be so 2005.”

    wll, tlst y ddn’t ccs hm f prdng y, lk y dd wth Rgr Smn!

    (Translation): Well, atleast you didn’t accuse him of parodying you, like you did with Roger Simon!

    Posted by  on  01/23  at  06:10 PM

  11. Actually, I thought I was saying that Rgr Smn messed up—by outdoing—my attempts to parody former Democrats who were converted to wingnuts by 9/11.  I doubt Simon’s ever read a word I’ve written, which makes the correspondence all the stranger.  And more unintentionally revelatory, too.

    Anyway, back to topic.  So far, so good.  We’ve got most of the major wrong things, and the minor one—KC’s promotion of Thill to professor—doesn’t really matter.  There’s also a missing word, most likely “discuss,” in the phrase, “he claims the freedom to spend class time to such matters,” and this too would be immaterial—if not for the fact that, as you all have noted, Thill never does claim to spend class time discussing such matters, much less “proselytizing” about them.

    Now, does anyone want to take up KC’s “disclaimer” sentence, namely, “I consider the reasoning behind much of the analysis on the UCLAprofs’ to be intellectually sophomoric and the site’s tactics to be needlessly confrontational”?

    Posted by  on  01/23  at  06:51 PM

  12. Selectively misquoting material to support one’s own biased viewpoint. Not very collegial of our old friend KC, is it?

    Posted by  on  01/23  at  07:07 PM

  13. that site’s tactics ARE needlessly confrontational. all i did was open a web browser, type in the url, read the stuff on the page, and there i was, being confronted right and left (or, more specifically, left to right). surely they could have found a chummier way to solicit information? and why did they have to post the results of their searches? that makes it seem like they don’t agree with the stuff those professors are teaching.

    Posted by  on  01/23  at  07:57 PM

  14. Now, does anyone want to take up KC’s “disclaimer” sentence, namely, “I consider the reasoning behind much of the analysis on the UCLAprofs’ to be intellectually sophomoric and the site’s tactics to be needlessly confrontational”?

    You mean aside from the implication that he thinks an erudite and sneaky McCarthyism would be just fine?

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/23  at  08:32 PM

  15. Oh geeze, I didn’t know there was going to a test.  OK, how about this.  KC hasn’t shown that the political views he (mis) summarizes are minority views.

    Posted by  on  01/23  at  09:02 PM

  16. "Now, does anyone want to take up KC’s “disclaimer” sentence, namely, “I consider the reasoning behind much of the analysis on the UCLAprofs’ to be intellectually sophomoric and the site’s tactics to be needlessly confrontational”?”

    Curse you M Berube” Just because i went for a hike today and only just now got online, is no reason that you should focus attention on the only sentence that leaped off the monitor at me.  In my graduate “way back machine” days w/ Mr. Peabody and Sherman, i drifted down to the south side of UCLA (the science half of campus) and audited a course in what was then called “environmental psychology” where in, the brilliant Professor ( Albert Mehrabian, Ph.D.) outlined his theory of “loading” phrases to influence (we now say spin don’t we) semiotic consensual acceptance.  Ever since (and years of theapy later-jk) words like “sophmoric,” “tactics,” and “needlessly” leap out at me.  KC has “loaded” his sentence in such a way to reveal to his own supporters that he supports Jones, Jones work, and his underlying determination!  But Chris Clarke said this so much better than i already too.  The word for me below is “week” but what it should read: “weak!”

    Posted by  on  01/23  at  09:18 PM

  17. You mean aside from the implication that he thinks an erudite and sneaky McCarthyism would be just fine?

    No, Chris (and spyder), I think that just about covers it.  Though it’s also possible that instead of an “erudite and sneaky” student-rat website, KC would have preferred a polished and nuanced one, or perhaps a mature and welcoming website.

    Emma Anne—good call.  I hadn’t even thought of that.  And now that I have, KC’s phrasing is even shoddier than it first appeared.  KC hasn’t shown that the political views he (mis)summarizes are minority views:  true enough, but first he has to show that they’re distinct “views.” It is possible, for example, to favor restrictive immigration policies or to oppose them; that would entail having a “view.” But KC seems to be taking issue with the very idea that post-9/11 restrictions on the admission of international students to the US are restrictive, suggesting that this in itself constitutes a minority “view.” The curious thing here is that most US citizens have no idea what those restrictions are, and so yes, in a nuanced and sneaky sense, anyone with a view on them could be said to have a “minority view.”

    Posted by Michael  on  01/23  at  09:39 PM

  18. Well this isn’t surreal or anything: No, Thill isn’t a professor (GO UCI!) and yes, I think his reasoned approach far more effective than say my earlier satirical approach, or even Mr. Answer Man’s.  (No offense, Michael.) Brian neatly points to the problem with the conservative view that conservative readings of certain literary texts even exist.  One of the IHE commenters objects to Brian’s characterization of The Grapes of Wrath, but how could someone teach that novel without mentioning, say, socialism?  Or what about Lewis’s Kingsblood Royal?

    Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman  on  01/23  at  10:57 PM

  19. I may find it necessary to mention something other than Shakespeare, Harold Pinter, or the assorted subjects you are willing to grant me license to discuss.

    i very much doubt any of the “academic freedom” crowd would be willing to grant thill license to discuss pinter.  and yes, i am aware shill’s phd is in english.

    Posted by  on  01/23  at  11:11 PM

  20. Oh, cripes, do we really have to go over this tired ground again, Scott?  Literature is not about socialism.  It is about literature.

    Also maybe about beauty.  It depends.

    Posted by Michael  on  01/24  at  12:31 AM

  21. Dr. Michael Berube,

    I have to forward our divorce papers over to Ralph Luker immediately.  He’s already yelling at me about this post.

    Posted by  on  01/24  at  01:31 AM

  22. But what if it turns out that the concept of socialism is beautiful?  Then your argument just bites itself in the ass.

    Unintentionally revelatory, as so much in this world is.

    Posted by Adam Kotsko  on  01/24  at  01:31 AM

  23. But what if it turns out that the concept of socialism is beautiful?

    Oh, be Realistic.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/24  at  01:33 AM

  24. Anthony, I’m so sorry.  Please tell Ralph that I put you up to it, whatever it is.  And though I know you have to do this, still, I’ll always cherish the way we bonded over KC and his occasional troubles with paraphrasing other people’s essays.

    Adam, damn it to hell.  I knew I shouldn’t have thrown in “beauty” at the end.  ‘Cause inevitably (or, say, within about an hour in a comments section on a blog) someone comes along and says, “wait a sec, that’s a symbol of the morally good,” and then hey presto, you’ve got socialism.  Let the ass-biting begin!

    Posted by Michael  on  01/24  at  08:56 AM

  25. h, th ss-btng bty f sclsm! t’s ngh t mk grwn mn cr! Nd Stln lkd bt, t.

    (Translation: Oh, the ass-biting beauty of socialism! It’s enough to make grown men cry! And Stalin liked beauty, too).

    Posted by  on  01/24  at  10:53 AM

  26. Truth, beauty. Beauty, truth.

    Just keep repeating that mantra for seventy-times seven minutes and Cleanth Brooks will magically appear.

    Posted by DocMara  on  01/24  at  12:02 PM

  27. NY Stdnt makes a fine point.

    Stalin, too, discussed beauty...and may have even enjoyed it.  So no free pass to leftist English professors limiting themselves to aesthetic appreciations of literature.

    Really the only solution to the problem is to head these people off at the pass.  Loyalty oaths and political tests for the lot of them!  It’s apparently the only way to keep politics out of the classroom.

    Posted by  on  01/24  at  01:42 PM

  28. the increasingly imbalanced ideological nature of the contemporary academy

    Imbalanced how, exactly?  In comparison to what?  How do we determine what would be a proper ideological balance?  Should we quiz prospective hires?  If so, how thoroughly should we quiz them?  May we use polygraph tests to ensure accuracy?  What counts as an ideology, exactly?  If 84% of Nebraskans believe in miracles, should 84% of the faculty at the University of Nebraska?  In each department?  If we have surplus registered Democrats over and above their presence in the general population, what is the preferred method for making them go away?

    So many questions, so little time.

    Posted by  on  01/24  at  02:01 PM

  29. LOS ANGELES, Jan. 23 - A 24-year-old conservative alumnus who announced earlier this month that he planned to pay students at the University of California, Los Angeles, to tape-record the lectures of left-leaning professors backed down after U.C.L.A. officials informed him on Monday that he would be violating school policy.

    All the good efforts seem to have been reduced to the threat of litigation.  I am guessing that only law professors truly appreciate the beauty of tort text; but when Andrew had it carefully explained to him, he understood all too well that he was encouraging students to violate their own university contracts, and was in danger himself of misusing intellectual property that didn’t belong to him.  I do doubt he ever once considered aspects of the problem from a moral or ethical perspective.  I am really surprised that KC wouldn’t have made this legal criticism as his only issue with Jones’ work??

    Posted by  on  01/24  at  02:54 PM

  30. Perhaps university professors should change their party affiliation en masse to skew it radically the other day.  They can vote for whomever they wish, at least while anonymous balloting is still deemed compatible with national security.

    One might say then, “Well, Republican party affiliation in itself doesn’t tell you very much at all.  After all, such reasonable people as Ralph Luker are registered Republicans.” To which one might reply: “Yeah, that’s true of the Democratic party, too—only moreso.”

    Posted by Adam Kotsko  on  01/24  at  03:38 PM

  31. Thank you, Adam K., for pointing out this potential escape route for those radical professors!

    Since it is incredibly easy to change one’s registration, campus radicals will be able to easily evade any efforts by MiniTru to restore balance to the academy that are based on current voter registration.

    The only solution is to make all faculty swear an oath that they are not now, nor have ever been, members of the Democratic Party.

    Posted by  on  01/24  at  05:28 PM

  32. Michael: As a tribute to Stephen Fry, never say “Damn it to Hell,” but rather “Damn it to Hell, Marjorie.”

    Adam: In some places one still has to be a “professing Christian” to teach about certain topics, and it puts the professing back into some professors who never had it before. I think that hypocrisy is always the flipside of loyalty oaths, and at some point some version of your suggestion might actually come to pass.

    Posted by  on  01/26  at  12:11 AM

  33. I’m just pissed that after teaching at UCLA for the last several years, I haven’t made it on to this notorious list.  What’s a self-respecting liberal gal got to do?!

    Posted by  on  02/05  at  01:38 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Last night everything broke

Previous entry: Arbitrary but fun Friday: Great American something

<< Back to main