From the Volokh Conspiracy (via an e-mail yesterday from Eric Blair) comes yet another bit of disturbing news relating the academic world. What is specifically disturbing is the mindset that many self-described "liberals" have toward views with which they do not agree, as evidenced by this mindless screed (re-posted in part at the Volokh Conspiracy by David Bernstein) from a blogger named Kathy G. at Crooked Timber:
"Nor do I believe that conservatives should never receive honorary degrees. There are conservative scholars who do work that is respected within academia—many economists, for example—and they would not be inappropriate candidates for such an honor. Nor would I have a problem with conservative pundits, so long as they're sane and genuinely distinguished (which these days admittedly narrows the field to practically zero), such as the late William F. Buckley. I'll even grudgingly accept the reality that conservative Republican elder statesmen are regularly awarded these things. Though even here there are limits—while personally I wouldn't protest the awarding of a degree to George H.W. Bush, even though I find him pretty hateful, far-right lunatics like Cheney, Dubya, and Jesse Helms should be entirely out of bounds.... as much as conservatives may whine and scream to the contrary, liberalism and conservatism are not moral equivalents. Because, on the one side you have the thinkers and activists who have advanced freedom, social justice, and human rights, and on the other, you have those who have attempted to thwart all those things." [emphasis mine]
What has Kathy G. in such a tizzy? Well, it seems that Washington University (located in St. Louis) has decided to bestow an honorary doctorate upon conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, best remembered for her successful campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment during the 1970s and early 1980s.
Reasonable people may disagree about whether or not Schlafly deserves such an honor, but to say that liberalism and conservatism are not moral equivalents, characterize them in a laughably cartoonish fashion, and then demand that Washington University (or any other institution of higher learning) conduct itself as a political re-education camp is very revealing of the mindset of many a liberal in early twenty-first century America. Not long ago, actor George Clooney expressed much the same sentiment when he said that he could not think of any issue that liberals had been on the wrong side of.
I have no idea who Kathy G. is or what she does for a living, but her attitude has regrettably become commonplace across academia. Professors are denied tenure, students are harassed, and research is skewed to promote an aggressively leftist agenda. Those who dissent are categorized as evil, stupid, or worse.
Given this reality, it is no surprise that growing numbers of people nowadays are coming to regard college as a waste of time. What reasonable conservative would want to put themselves through four years or so of political indoctrination and have an enormous student loan debt at the end, without having become demonstrably more knowledgeable in the process? Or for those conservatives who have considered going through or have gone through graduate school, is it worth it to spend years running through an ideological gauntlet wherein a single hostile leftist advisor or colleague can ruin your career? Sometimes I wonder.
It's funny that Kathy G. should single out men such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Jesse Helms and accuse them of having spent their careers obstructing freedom, social justice, and human rights. The fact is, those three men have done more to advance freedom, social justice, and human rights around the world in their lifetimes than Kathy G. could ever dream of doing. No doubt, she would be happier if the millions of people around the world who are able to enjoy their freedom because of Messrs. Bush, Cheney, and Helms were instead still bowing and scraping to Communist dictators, Baathist tyrants, and Islamist fanatics. Idiot.
0 comments:
Post a Comment