Edward Feser: Why Are Universities Dominated by the Left?

Tech Central Station ^ | 02/13/2004 | Edward Feser

[cornelis]

gone good

[cornelis]

To some degree the future exists in the form of hope and desire, both for the left and the right, for Hanson and Steyn. Throughout history, that hope comes in two distinct forms, one which thinks of it as immanent, the other as transcendent. Fancy words, I suppose, but that's what they are called. The Marxist, for example, has an immanent hope for a Utopia in this world. The Christian, for example, a transcendent hope for a Utopia in another, across the grave. This distinction is popularly ignored. It can be understood by reading about Socrates, or can notice it in the difference between medieval and renaissance culture.

You can also see why this distinction is important, for example, in some of the "realism" of the right--, in Fukuyama's immanent marxian conservativism.

[Freedom4US]

Part of the problem for a late 20th century student, or 21st century student I suppose, is that while the physical trappings of a classical education remain - all those ivy covered towers - the core of many schools was gutted long ago. They don't bother to explain this at the inbrief, though. It will soon become apparent to the student once classes start that any semblence to the days of yore are long gone. All hail "diversity" and a hard-leftist ideology that pervades nearly everything, even a geology text.

How is it, do you suppose that a Catholic university or myriad of other schools founded upon Christianity or other grounded values could hire, say, atheist communists as faculty? Does this even sound like a good idea? Yet this kind of thing was done in the 50's and 60's in what seemed then to be a magnanimous gesture of open-ness and transparancy. Ooops.

[Freedom4US]

Yes - Gramiscian and fabian socialists, driven from europe durin the 30's and 40's, who took up shop here. Just in time to wreak havoc in the 60's I might add. Not one in ten is probably aware it even happened. Years ago, the great Sen. Danial Patrick Moynihan, upon reading the latest socialist screed from some young staffer blurted out "That's fabian!"; but the poor deluded souls were unclear on the concept, and took it as a compliment.

[valkyrieanne]

It's a lot simpler than this writer makes it out to be.

During the Vietnam War, especially in the days before the lottery was instituted, men got an exemption from the draft as long as they remained in college. That got a lot of men, especially liberal and anti-war ones, into college.

What kept many of them in college and beyond was the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and a deep recession with inflation and unemployment. Many men who had escaped Vietnam, then drawn "good" lottery numbers, stayed in college and got PhDs.

Why? Because the graduate student stipends which they lived off of *weren't taxed.* That's right - they avoided the war, got paid to be grad students in many departments, and didn't pay taxes, either. It was a sweet deal.

Many of these PhDs minted in the mid-late 1970s are now the tenured professors, dispensing liberalism with NO consequence whatever to their job security.

[valkyrieanne]

One more point: as far as "rejecting a university education," in many cases it's the smartest thing a young person can do, especially if they're planning on going into debt for a degree that doesn't produce much in the way of a job.

[cornelis]

I can agree that a university education is overpriced. On the other hand, to make a university education superfluous because it doesn't get you a job seems to brush aside the distinction given by "vocational education."

Michael Oakeshott once wrote a good essay on the damage that is done by equating higher education with vocational education.

As you can see, there are more problems lurking here than just sweet deals for the pacificists.

[DeFault User]

Excellent article. As I started to read it I thought of some of the reasons he later lists and explains, but Feser does a much better job of it than that which came to my mind.

One aspect that needs further emphasis is the self perpetuating nature of such failed ideology. Older professors who have tenure and are department heads set up their own kingdoms and hire sycophants who later rise through the ranks replacing the old guard. Younger professors who are independent thinkers either kowtow to the old guard or leave.

Back in the 60's I knew of one such group of young professors who were sick of the clique who had taken control of their department. They were the backbone of the academic reputation of the particular department but had no voice in how it was run. They left en masse for another university that instantly gained credibility in that field given the reputations of all the young guns they hired at once. Grad students followed them to their new home halfway across the country, leaving the old university with the dregs. There is some hope, but such faculty rebellions happen too infrequently.

[VOA]

The modern professoriate is best understood as a kind of priesthood, and its religion is Leftism.

Not suprising seeing how a lot of the university structure was birthed by church bodies.

Given the sad events with the recent church sex scandals, it's also notable
that some prominent universities, despite all their PC culture, vote down
codes of faculty conduct forbidding intimate relations with students.
(I know this happened maybe 5-10 years ago at the University of Virginia.)
Power, security and sex...pretty attractive qualities in an institution.
Even if the last one is only the obsessive goal of a few stray sectors of the community.

[cornelis]

pacifists ;)

Incidentally, Willmoore Kendall wrote an essay once on pacifism and called it a heresy. It's in a collection of essays called The Conservative Affirmation in America, published by ISI.org Incidentally, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute has been very helpful in encouraging excellence in higher education.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

BUMP!

please add me to your list.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

BUMP!

please add me to your list.

[GSWarrior]

Please include me on your ping list.

[CasearianDaoist]

Yes, this is true, but true as well is an actual political infilftrationengineered right out of Stalin's USSR, complete with paid agents and working plans. Hard to prove but true none the less.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

hmmm...the dreaded double-post.

[Joe Republc]

Excellent article!

At times, I've been an academic-wannabe, but the thought of getting at PhD with a wife and 3 kids has been daunting.

Frankly, much of what is said here stereotyping the motives and background of professors rings true to me. I've done well in school and structured settings, but very uncomfortable in more chaotic situations found at parties, offices, etc.

I'm looking forward to the second part.

Also, I'd LOVE to see this same author address why the left dominates the entertainment and news media.

Thanks!

-- Joe

[foreverfree]

Part II appears today.

foreverfree

[Tolik]

Yes, thank you.

It is posted here:

The Opium of the Professors--The second of a two-part series on universities and the Left.
TCS ^ | 02/16/2004 | EDWARD FESER
Posted on 02/16/2004 9:34:57 AM EST by SJackson
 

[Comintern]

If you think about it, It all stems into D&D. Wisdom vs Intelligence. If you are a priest then you are very Wise. If you are a Wizard then you are very Smart.

Any Ways, They both be considered, Geniuses. Both apart of the Psyche. We tend to forget one more area of the Psyche, ONE center of things. One with great Charisma. One with great charisma sees things completely neutral. They understand both Radical views. Yes, If you are smart or wise, you are a radical. Charisma is either, great looks, and you get along with everyone, or, and I repeat, or, you are Incredibly smart and wise, and you understand all view points and you fit nowhere. If one has either physical charisma, Strength and Dexterity combined, or mental charisma, Intelligence and Wisdom combined they are the complete center of society, They care for all and resent all in unity. These people cannot agree with anyone, they are lost. They go to neither heaven or hell, they aren't Liberal or Conservative. They are the Independents out there, the ones who do not really care. They are bored by Moral Debate so they get high, or, meditate.

[centurion316]

ping