Posted on 02/16/2004 1:34:03 PM PST by BroncosFan
Because they only thrive where no objective standard of accomplishment is used to measure them.
Since I'm a historian, my take on it is this: in the early 1950s, McCarthyism had many universities firing professors who were innocent or, usually at worst, marginal socialists (often not "card carrying communists"). While I think there were many CLEAR communists operating in the system, I don't think it was close to the number that were ostracized. However . . . .
Once that period ended, the universities felt they had to "make up" for their previous actions, and swung radically the other way, now essentially arguing that NO ONE'S politics could be considered when hiring them. This ensconced many of the leftists who then, being good leftists, never once had a similar notion of fairness about other peoples' politics. In other words, although the universities once played fair, once the leftists got in a majority, all that stopped.
A second, more destructive feature, involved the left's domination of the disciplines, editorial boards, and grad schools insofar as it involves the writing and refereeing of articles and dissertations. Without getting into too much academic mumbo-jumbo, it cam down to this: METHODOLOGY DEFINED THE APPLICANTS/STUDENTS. For example, doing "biography" or "military history" (in my discipline) was no longer considered "cutting edge." Instead, the leftist profs demanded leftist methodologies---quantitative/social history (instead of old fashioned business history or biography), race/class analysis (instead of old fashioned straightforward ideological history). So "conservative" students politically now had an even tougher time because to "get in the club," you had to adopt methodologies that were abhorrent to your very nature. I've served on many search committees where applicants with what we would call "traditional history" topics are immediately weeded out as "not deep enough" or not "cutting edge enough."
Again, speaking only for the discipline of history, the ONLY way a conservative can survive is to 1) be good enough in the methodologies that you can master them while simultaneously using them to undercut leftism (as many economic historians have done); 2) go into business history (one of the few fields relatively untouched by this stuff); 3) be black or a "protected" minority, then you can do whatever the hell you want and they can't say anything; 4) lie---basically look like a liberal for 6 years until you get tenure then do what you want.
My personal approach was a combination of 1 and 2, combined with a publication record as a graduate student that even liberals could not ignore. Even so (and I like my employer), I did not end up with offers from Berkeley or Penn, but from a small midwestern school. I remain convinced though that talent cannot be repressed, even by leftist ideology.
The author does make a lot of good points, but one I'd like to make is the separation of intelligence theory. Some people who may be intelligent in certain areas (literature, music, art, etc.) do not necessarily have good common sense. The best presidents tend to be the ones who have a good idea of what is best for the country and are not dissuaded by cheap pseudo-intellectual trendy arguments. They knew right from wrong and weren't afraid to suffer the consequences.
In my mind the worst political leader of the western countries was Pierre Trudeau. He was an intellectual who thought he knew it all. He was witty and humorous...and a far-left lib. He actually thought far-left liberalism made sense. In contrast Bill Clinton was just an opportunist. He knew that the far-left theories were nonsense, but he loved the acclamation that came with associating with the intellectual "elite". That is why most college profs loved Clinton. He sucked up to them big-time. Here was a pres who understood their cockamamie socialist claptrap and fooled them into thinking that he actually believed that leftist garbage.
I think however that one of the most important factors was not addressed. This has to do with the growth of higher education into a major industry, and its absolute dependence on government funding. Giant public universities, of course, receive direct government appropriations. Tuition and fees cover only a fraction of the cost, and even these are mostly paid from various forms of government financed financial aid. Even the great majority of small private institutions would have to close their doors tomorrow if their students were suddenly ineligible for federal grants and loans.
It is therefore in the collective interest of university faculty and administrators to favor public, as opposed to private, enterprise; and to advocate positions that expand the role of public enterprise. The enormous size of the modern higher education system then comes into play. In many fields, the objective of advocacy is to create a need for large numbers of graduates of that field.
In my field, geoscience, this is not a consideration. All of our graduates can have good jobs for the asking, some in vital government services whose legitimacy has been established for generations, and some in private industry.
This is not the case in some of the most popular fields. What political position must one adopt, for example, to legitimize the employment of large numbers of "diversity studies" graduates?
For example, the study of cultural interaction and its consequences is obviously legitimate in an academic sense, but is it profitable in ways that would turn a small and arcane academic interest into a major industry? If one can convince society that bigotry is rampant and must be addressed by degreed specialists at every level, then such a transformation is possible.
Yes, having to produce or maintain an actual physical product, or provide a time/quality sensitive service, would expose them to being critiqued (or being fired) by their customers. With their air of intellectul superiority, its no surprise that so few of them engage in productive activities that would require them to compete on terms with the rest of us whose work is often tangible and is constantly evaluated. Their insular world allows compensation sans the risks associated with production.
As far as military/diplo history was concerned, I managed to slip in two papers on Winfield Scott and was told each time something to the effect of, "Yours is the only research paper we've seen on a general that doesn't excorate its subject. Try not to do this anymore."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.