Posted on 11/10/2004 3:16:36 AM PST by jalisco555
conference announcements rarely appeal to your work I submitted a perfect paper to a national conference that had to do with artworks that reflected one's childhood. Silly me. How did I know that they were probably expecting papers on child abuse, emotional trauma etc.? I sent along my happy childscapes of love and family closeness. I don't even think they read my cover letter. I never even got the courtesy of a polite rejection letter (along the lines of "there were so many excellent papers submitted...blah, blah." Of course, only a few papers are accepted at conferences like this, so maybe there were other reasons for my rejection. As noted elsewhere in the article, we conservatives develop thick skins.)
When a Duke University philosophy professor implied last February that conservatives tend toward stupidity, he confirmed the public opinion of academics as a self-regarding elite...Professors cannot conceive that any person trained in critical thinking could listen to George W. Bush speak and still vote Republican
Now I understand why they think all of us are stupid, including those of much greater intelligence than I: George Bush and John Ashcroft and Clarence Thomas etc. It's not because conservative arguments don't make rational sense, it's that they've rarely been exposed to them...they've rarely stretched their own brain outside their cocoon. Same thing with the two German postdocs who saw Thanksgiving as 'American Genocide Day.' Says a great deal about how Europe thinks too, n'est-ce pas?
Now I'm trying to think of whom to send this to at my university. I know a far-left philosopher. Can he open his mind to these ideas? We'll see. Thank goodness I have tenure.
My wife is a member of the humanities faculty of a large northeastern university and I get to attend lots of faculty parties. The amazing thing is that they use jargon in social settings as well as teaching settings. Words like "patriarchal society", "hegemony" and others are actually used by these people. The Pauline Kael observation is also very apt- no one admits to having voted for Bush. When they found out that I did they were incredulous, as if I'd admitted to being a cannibal.
I'm glad you liked the article. I'm curious how you feel about the whole concept of tenure. Doesn't it create the very situation that is described in this article? People with lifetime job security appear to have created a guild in which no one but the proper sort can be admitted.
That is a good point. From my point of view, I do feel freer to speak out conservatively. (In fact, in the hall at school yesterday a student and I were admitting we were both conservative, even as another--liberal--prof walked by. We looked over our shoulders a bit, but weren't worried. I said "Different opinions, that's what it's all about anyway.")
Actually, at my school now they have post-tenure review. Thus professors can be in trouble if they haven't produced much since their last promotion.
But I don't think it weeds out many professors. I used to be against tenure, thinking one should prove oneself every year. But now I am relishing the freedom to speak out as a conservative, especially with the support of freepers. And the unions at my college are pretty strong and won't tolerate getting rid of tenure. They whined as it was with the post-tenure review.
It's a shame that people have to wait all those years before feeling safe enough to express their opinions. I think that more than a few just give up and leave academia altogether which is a real shame. I'm glad you stuck with it.
BTW, I've been coming here for six years now. It's a great place for moral and intellectual support. The range of opinion and knowledge here really belies the liberal stereotype of conservatives.
No, military counts for zero in this world. My resume says Army instead of USAF, but same thing. We're pretty sparsely populated huh?
But you bet your butt I take Vet's Day off as a floating holiday every year (I work at a private, so work most holidays). Hope you do too.
As President of my own consultancy, I take whatever time I think I need.
Of course, it's just me and I am not missed.
;-)
"I think most academics think that a person that prizes the life of the mind will take change in the world seriously and regards mental flexibility as essential. I think that both of these areas would be regarded as more liberal than conservative."
I'm still wondering about it. Sometimes I don't get the mind-bending of philosophers very well, but I thought that philosophy would make him look at the article from a broader viewpoint, and perhaps open his mind (since he is often involved with college committees.) Does he mean that liberals are more broad-minded with more flexible minds? I think the article posited just the opposite.
BTW, I've been reading FR for 5-6 years, but not on a regular basis. My husband has had the greatest time posting for all that time (or longer). Now I know why. It's great to "meet" everyone on line, or at least connect ideas.
I guess I'd take that argument more seriously if I hadn't personally observed how close-minded and frozen-in-time is the thinking of so many people on the left. Take social security. There is literally no "mental flexibility" on the left on this important social issue. All the original thinking is from the right. Where is the mental flexibility with respect to affirmative action? I could go on and on. I hope this sort of thing is changing. I have a son who is an undergraduate at a big university and he tells me there are lots of conservatives among his fellow students so maybe the next generation of academics will take back the universities.
You are absolutely right about the lack of "mental flexibility" on the left, not the right. I have often found that what the left accuses the right of is more true of the left than right: i.e. the "lies" by their presidential candidate, "racism," etc.
I guess the only solution for such closed-minded academics is retirement; and your son's observation offers hope: an incoming flux of conservatives. It's overdue time for that pendulum to swing.
One more thought, re liberals only keeping company with liberals. I had one liberal friend in history; but we don't even have lunch any more. I never even had a political debate with her. I should have; I wouldn't have lost anything. She disapproved of some "politically incorrect" things I said in the class she visited and wrote accordingly on an evaluation. Luckily it didn't have repercussions; but I haven't seen her since. She couldn't stand the challenge to her orthodoxy.
Isn't that the truth. Right after Derrida died I tried to read some of his work (my wife has a lot of post-modern books) and could make no sense of it. Obviously these folks have no interest in speaking to anyone else but fellow academics. That's why there has been such an explosion of history writing by non-academic historians. There is a hunger for well-written non-fiction among the the general public but most academicians seem to scorn this audience, preferring jargon and theory to telling a compelling story.
As to the whole mental flexibility argument I can't really improve on what the author of this article had to say about the liberal cocoon. I'm sure you had to really sharpen your arguments to get where you are, a challenge your liberal colleagues never had to face.
I think this explains a lot (like, for example, DU).
I agree. Look for the absurd notion that Ohio went for Bush due to rigged voting machines to become the conventional wisdom there.
Stanley Fish long-ago destroyed the English Department at Duke University. For that alone, he should be studied as an example of arrogant Know-Nothingness and a prime example of deconstruction and PC nihilism can destroy sound literary analysis and make great literature devoid of its greatness. In time, I think this will happen. For now, Duke is a wasteland for intellectual diversity.
The danger, of course, is that we look into a mirror to make sure we don't fall into the same traps over here at FR. I think we're somewhat safe -- there is enough disagreement on issues that people are forced to defend many of their beliefs and assumptions.
makes me glad I got out of Academe when I did...about 10 years ago...sounds like it's a lot worse now.
I agree. My college years were from 9/59 to 6/63. I got a B.S. in chemistry, but it was a liberal arts college with heavy requirements in arts/humanities/social sciences. Almost all my non-science professors made it known in one way or another that they saw it as their job to "educate" us as to how our conservative parents were wrong and parochial. As you say, the "conservative imbalence" was well on its way to correction even then.
That certainly is a risk but I agree it's unlikely to happen. Our ideas are still sufficiently heterodox that we must keep our arguments sharp to prevail in the wider world. We have a long way to go in persuading people before we run the risk of becoming intellectually lazy.
Linking "the life of the mind" to "change in the world" doesn't make any sense. How are these related?
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.