January 04, 2004
MORTAR BOARDS, NOT MORTARS (via George E. Richardson):
Professors at war: Searching for dissent at the MLA (Scott Jaschik, 1/4/2004, Boston Globe)
This past week, about 8,000 professors and graduate students gathered here for the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association. Most came for job interviews, to catch up with old friends, and to attend some of the 763 panels of scholars. But among the panels on topics ranging from Hawthorne to Asian cinema to "The Aesthetics of Trash" were a surprising number of sessions dealing with the war in Iraq, terrorism, patriotism, and American foreign policy.Not that there was much actual debate. In more than a dozen sessions on war-related topics, not a single speaker or audience member expressed support for the war in Iraq or in Afghanistan. The sneering air quotes were flying as speaker after speaker talked of "so-called terrorism," "the so-called homeland," "the so-called election of George Bush," and so forth. [...]
The closest public challenge to the prevailing geopolitical views at the MLA came when one professor asked a panel that had derided American responses to 9/11 and Iraq what a good response would have looked like. She didn't get much of an answer, left the session, and declined to elaborate on her question.
But a young professor of English who followed her out the door to congratulate her did offer some thoughts on politics at the MLA. Aaron Santesso of the University of Nevada at Reno described himself as being "on the left" and sympathetic with much of the criticism of the war in Iraq. But he said that the tenor of the discussion "drives me nuts." "A lot of people here don't want the rhetoric to just be a shrill echo of the right," he said.
Just a few years ago, he noted, the Taliban was regularly attacked at MLA meetings for their treatment of women and likened to the American religious right. Now, there is only talk of how the United States has taken away the rights of the Afghan people.
Santesso said he gains a good perspective from his students, most of whom he characterized as "libertarian conservatives." Most of the debate at the MLA, he said, "would completely alienate my students."
Why do we let these people near our children?
Posted by Orrin Judd at January 4, 2004 11:36 PM
"Santesso said ... [m]ost of the debate at the MLA, 'would completely alienate my students.'"
It looks like excessive inbreeding leading to sterility, dependency on a specific environment and the dying off of such a population when the environment changes, applies to intellectual thought, too. You'd think the people who like to sport "Darwin Fish" would have figured that out by now...
I like the comment that most of the MLA attendees come "for the job interviews,...".
It must be like graduates trying to find a really cool position in a black studies or wymyns' studies' program.
Posted by: John J. Coupal at January 5, 2004 01:36 AMWhy do we let these people near our children? Innoculation?
Posted by: David Cohen at January 5, 2004 07:37 AMI dunno. Could ask the same about, say, Pat Robertson.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 5, 2004 11:36 AMThe good news is, kids these days don't believe much of anything they're told.
Posted by: Mike Earl at January 5, 2004 11:46 AMHarry must have strained a muscle reaching for that one.
Posted by: jefferson park at January 5, 2004 12:38 PMAt best -- for sake of Harry's analogy -- comparing Pat Robertson to these "educators" is like comparing a uniformed soldier with a terrorist (or leave at, say a spy): both can kill you, but the latter does it undercover. No one's kids have been exposed to Pat Robertson in the course of seeking to be exposed to something BUT what Pat Robertson preaches. That childredn may not be able to graduate from elementary, middle, and high schools; and/or satisfy language requirements in the pursuit of a real degree; without having to be subjected to these idiots is something else.
Posted by: MG at January 5, 2004 01:47 PMWrong on the facts, MG. In fact, ol' Pat's demon hordes were in the public schools -- steamrollering school boards that were (take your choice) timid and fearful or believed his crap, or both.
A friend of mine was Pat's first news director, and I could tell you stories.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 5, 2004 04:11 PMYes, they've done yeomen's work at the schoolboard level.
Posted by: oj at January 5, 2004 04:47 PMWell, if Pat would only fund the Charles Finney Chair of Theology (or even the Father Coughlin stool), then there might be an apt comparison.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 5, 2004 04:58 PMHarry --
The disconnect that exists between the "views of academia" and the views of the average student (or its parents, if appropriate) has been well documented. Worse, the ability that this group has to institutionalize those views is well out of proportion to their numbers, mostly because they are dispensed without scrutiny. To suggest that Pat Robertson is in the same category just does not explain the facts of American education: in essence, political correctness run rampart. Liberals have been for too long the "sole-source" producers of something called education.
Posted by: MG at January 5, 2004 06:01 PMYou must have been educated overseas or something.
I assure you, the mandatory public school Bible class in Virginia Beach was not the work of liberals. It was Robertson.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 5, 2004 08:34 PMSo there's a Black Book of Christianity demonstrating 150 million deaths during the 20th century?
Come on, Harry, you're bone pickin'. These Marxists on our college campuses are doing evil. When a Catholic convert goes to university and comes out a Marxist, that's a tragedy.
Posted by: Brent at January 6, 2004 02:00 PMClose, Brent. I recommend to you the chapter on the Christian churches in Vansittart's "Black Record."
I'd agree that when a Catholic goes in and a Marxist comes out, that's a tragedy; but it's also a tragedy when a Catholic goes in and a Catholic comes out.
I said I could tell you stories. Here's one. When Rev. Pat was filling up the blank hours between his assaults on gullible widows on his TV station, he ran Popeye cartoons. Only he would not use any that featured the Sea Hag, because she was a supernatural being and, obviously not an angel, necessarily a devil.
OK, now explain to me how that is any less crazy than the MLA.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 6, 2004 03:08 PM