Posted on 07/08/2003 5:42:07 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
What exactly is social ecology? Perform a quick internet search of the term and you might get the impression that its what you get when you mix socialism, anti-modern utopianism, and environmentalist fear-mongering. The Institute for Social Ecology offers this definition:
Social Ecology n 1: a coherent radical critique of current social, political, and anti-ecological trends. 2: a reconstructive, ecological, communitarian, and ethical approach to society.
The same search will also uncover an essay republished on the Anarchist Archives website titled What is Social Ecology? The answer according to the essays author, Murray Bookchin, seems to be the study of societys growing environmental crisis, a crisis that he believes results from - you guessed it - capitalism. According to Bookchin, the present market economy, structured around the brutally competitive imperative of grow or die is one of the root causes of environmental degradation and characteristic of a grim social pathology. In short, these descriptions present a picture of social ecology as a field overrun by leftist activism and based on scientific and economic theories of questionable validity.
Its no surprise then that David Mintzer, a student at UC Irvine, detected an unmistakable bias in his universitys Social Ecology department. The Irvine Review, the schools conservative student paper, reports that out of the twenty books Mintzer has been assigned in his various Social Ecology courses, not one has offered an alternative to the leftist, anti-market perspective. Angered by such a flagrant lack of balance, Mintzer, a student legislator, decided to sponsor a resolution condemning the extreme leftist slant of the departments curriculum. On May 6th, Mintzer introduced his resolution in the legislative council of the Associated Students of the University of California, Irvine (ASUCI).
The resolution declared that many professors, whether intentionally or unintentionally, deprive students of the knowledge to argue both sides of the issues by presenting one-sided academia. The resolution also affirmed the ASUCIs support of a balanced and unbiased education in the classrooms and their eagerness to work with the administration and other appropriate groups to address this important issue. Incredibly, the resolution passed 9 to 0 with 2 abstentions. Such a vote might not be unexpected from a campus conservative group, but coming from the schools undergraduate student government, the nearly unanimous decision is remarkable.
Not surprisingly, the resolution prompted a less-than-enthusiastic response from the School of Social Ecologys dean, Ron C. Huff. Huff sent an e-mail to the faculty and staff of the Social Ecology department informing them of the anti-bias legislation. The e-mail was highly critical of Mintzer for failing to first meet with department chairs or the faculty representative to discuss his concerns. Huff opined that Mintzers actions had called into question the integrity of the schools faculty without their having an adequate chance to respond. Huff termed the situation most unfortunate and offered his belief that it is always best (and most fair) to address concerns privately before airing them publicly.
While David Mintzer declined to comment to Campus Report, Nathan Masters, a fellow UC Irvine student posted a message to www.campusnonsense.com defending Mintzer and decrying the deans heavy-handedness. To me, this seems like an attempt to blacklist the student, as he has now been identified to all of his instructors as a conservative, a heretic.
At the very least, Huffs response is a dodge, an attempt to shift the discussion from the schools perceived bias to the alleged impropriety of one students actions. By singling out Minzter for criticism, Huff conveniently ignores the fact that 9 students out of an 11-member body voted to censure the school for its overwhelming bias, and none of the students was willing to come to the schools defense. Thats a pretty strong statement. Deaf Huff would be well advised to start listening.
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
The sad part is that these charlatans were not even intelligent enough to disguise the course of "study" with ambiguous titles and course descriptions.
As for Huff, he only wanted the opportunity to meet privately with Mintzer to browbeat and undoubtedly threaten him in an attempt to quash this beacon of intellectual clarity that the students of UC Irvine are finally having. As Groucho Marx once said (paraphrasing from memory), "you can leave in a huff, or a minute and a huff, just leave!
Congratulations Mr. Mintzer!!
Indeed. And this is the reason most really serious historians regard history as a discipline in the humanities rather than as a "social science". I remember rows about this some 30+ years ago when I was a graduate student in history. The social science types simply didn't know how to respond when we reminded them that, unlike their pretensions to science, history was quite content to have a classical muse, Clio. They kept look for "laws" that would predict behavior. Stuff and nonsense!
Oh, well, those who think in the world can be divided among those who want all encompassing systems of thought (l'esprit d' system) and those who prefer to build knowledge systematically (l'espirt systematique). Modern science, what we know as the scientific method, of course, is the classic application of the systematic approach. English philosophy (Locke, Hume, Smith, Mill, etc.) is essentially a systematic approach, as is Kant. Leibnitz, Descartes and Spinoza, and the Thomist scholastic synthesis all are systems, as are Hegel and Marx. Classical liberalism and capitalism are expressions of the systematic spirit, socialim of the spirit of system. Somehow, liberal thought was transmogrified between 1900 and 1945 from systematic to a yearning for an all encompassing system in which all questions were answered.
The worst of the social "sciences" is probably sociology, followed closely by anthropology and political "science". I would guess "socio"biology is right in there.
In other words, we should embrace the Wahhabi version of Islam.
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.