If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.
— Ward Churchill, from his September 11th essay
Under normal circumstances, a two-bit academic radical like Ward Churchill would never gain national notoriety, nor garner any attention outside of his Colorado campus and the academic-activist speaker circuit.
But when he was invited to speak at Hamilton College in February of last year, Professor Churchill’s earlier words (about the victims of the 9-11 attacks in New York) created a perfect storm in the blogosphere.
I’m sure he would have preferred the relative anonymity of his earlier stature. After all, he had a nice little racket going — a tenured position that gave him a platform from which to launch his radical revolutionary sorties, his stature as an authentic “Native American” voice, a series of lucrative speaking gigs, a sideline of plagiarized art works, and a sinecure in a nice, hermetically sealed academic environment. Who could ask for more?
His notoriety focused attention, not just on his outlandish views and alleged fraudulent activities, but also on the entire “tenured radical” phenomenon in the modern academy. How many other Ward Churchills are there? Is it likely that he toils alone in his tower of radical pedagogy?
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) had reason to ask the same question. After all, it represents those who (aside from the government) collectively raise the funds to pay for the tendentious nonsense that passes for humanities education in America’s universities.
Last month ACTA published its report, How Many Ward Churchills? (pdf format). As ACTA President Anne D. Neal says in the Foreword:
Is there really only one Ward Churchill? Or are there many? Do professors in their classrooms ensure a robust exchange of ideas designed to help students to think for themselves? Or do they use their classrooms as platforms for propaganda, sites of sensitivity training, and launching pads for political activism? Do our college and university professors foster intellectual diversity or must students toe the party line?
To answer these questions, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni went to publicly available resources — college and university websites, electronic syllabi, and faculty web pages. And what we found is profoundly troubling. Ward Churchill is not only not alone — he is quite common.
By this, we do not mean to suggest that issues of alleged plagiarism, dubious claims of ethnicity, or inadequate credentials — problems specific to Ward Churchill — apply broadly to all academics. What we do mean to suggest is that the extremist rhetoric and tendentious opinion for which Churchill is infamous can be found on campuses across America. In published course descriptions and online course materials, professors are openly and unapologetically declaring that they use their positions to push political agendas in the name of teaching students to think critically.
None of us is really surprised to find that Ward Churchill has many comrades working alongside him in the academic cloisters. If you pay any attention to the History or Sociology sections of Barnes and Noble, or have a kid in college, you can’t help but be aware of the prevailing academic fashions.
But what is surprising about the report is the scope of the problem, the sheer breathtaking extent of the penetration of the Little Churchills into every corner of what used to be known as the Liberal Arts. The smelly little orthodoxies are everywhere, spreading a thick blanket of ideological smog over our college campuses.
Many young people receive little or no education in their high schools. When they arrive at college, their minds are blank slates, ready for the Little Churchills to write their manifestos on. With no alternative ideologies offered, these youngsters emerge from college unable to think for themselves, unable to form a coherent argument or debate ideas other than by name-calling and yelling slogans. They are the shock troops for the radical graybeards, the Hitlerjugend of the 21st century left.
Reading the ACTA report makes me glad that my son, the future Baron Bodissey, is a chemistry major. Mathematics and the sciences are largely exempt from the ugly cant that infests the humanities courses.
One of the notable features of the classes listed by ACTA is how much alike they all are. According to the report:
Our survey revealed a remarkable uniformity of political stance and pedagogical approach. Throughout the humanities and social sciences, the same issues surface over and over, regardless of discipline. In courses on literature, philosophy, and history; sociology, anthropology, and religious studies; women’s studies, American studies, and ethnic studies; global studies, peace studies, urban studies, and environmental studies; education, political science, and economics, the focus is consistently on a set list of topics: race, class, gender, sexuality, and the “social construction of identity”; globalization, capitalism, and U.S. “hegemony”; the ubiquity of oppression and the destruction of the environment. In class after class, the same essential message is repeated, in terms that, to an academic “outsider,” often seem virtually unintelligible. What is that message? In short, the message is that the status quo, which is patriarchal, racist, hegemonic, and capitalist, must be “interrogated” and “critiqued” as a means of theorizing and facilitating a social transformation whose necessity and value are taken as a given.
Our review of college and university courses revealed a remarkable level of homogeneity. As individual disciplines increasingly orient themselves around a core set of political values, the differences between disciplines are beginning to disappear. Courses in such seemingly distinct fields as literature, sociology, and women’s studies, for example, have become mirror images of one another — a fact that colleges and universities openly acknowledge in their practice of crosslisting courses in multiple departments.
With the elimination of the traditional “core requirements” in most colleges, a Liberal Arts major can emerge from her respected institution holding a baccalaureate yet almost entirely lacking in education. Oh, yes, she is well-versed in the vocabulary of postmodern cant, and is ready to do battle in the trenches of race-class-gender warfare, but it is an open question whether she actually learned anything while in college.
The ACTA report summarizes the course offerings in the different disciplines, outlining the themes that are common to all of them: coursework as sensitivity training, “Social Justice”, “Whiteness”, “Hate Studies”, “Queer Theory”, animal rights, and so on. The ideal humanities course covers all of these topics and crosses the boundaries of all the academic disciplines to do so. From the instructor’s point of view, teaching a college course is an opportunity to fire up his young charges to go out and mount the barricades to “speak truth to power” and fight for “social justice.” Any education that occurs along the way is an accidental byproduct, and may even be counter-productive.
Appendix B to the ACTA report is a full listing of all the courses surveyed in the report. Each is offered at a major university, and is representative of courses in its field. The published description is taken from the course catalog, or from listings on the internet.
This is where the real meat of the report is found. I cheerfully read the entries aloud to Dymphna, but she soon made me stop, pleading a weak stomach.
I love being filled with loathing, so I persevered. But a cup of strong coffee is recommended if you want to read the whole thing, because your eyes will tend to glaze over after the first three or four. They all sound alike, and after a while the litany of transgressive gendered oppression whiteness colonial racism community activism imperialism social change blurs into a meaningless background drone.
Here’s a representative entry, from Princeton:
American Studies 320: Asian American Cultural Studies: Remembering Race, Domesticity, Globalizations
Grace Hong, Department of English and Program in American Studies
This course will exam how “Asian American” texts remember the history of exclusion, bars to citizenship, racialized and gendered labor exploitation, dispossession of property, and U. S. imperialism and militarism in Asia differently than the American literary canon does. We will study the construction of an Asian American literary canon in the 1970s, as well as later Asian American feminist, queer, and post-colonial contributions.
After reading a few of these, you say to yourself, “You can’t make this s**t up!” These course listings are like lefty Mad-Libs, with a predictable script and blanks to be filled in. Like little kids, these Radic-Libs have a very limited vocabulary, but instead of filling in the blanks with “poop” and “booger” and “underwear”, they use “racist”, “gendered”, “justice”, “transgressive”, “imperialism”, etc.
To prove it to you, I’ll design one of these courses myself. Below are four course listings. Three are real courses from major universities funded in part by your tax dollars. One is a Gates of Vienna creation. Can you tell which is which?
SOC 31: Prisons: The American Way of Punishment. Prison as a place of confinement, punishment and rehabilitation is the focus of this survey of the history, philosophies, structure and operation of corrections in the United States. The course critically examines the concept of prison as a total institution and its panopticism as a model of social control that extends to other social contexts. The course will explore the world of inmates and their strategies of subcultural adaptations to and resistance against incarceration; as well as the role of the prison staff. Particular attention will be paid to how gender, race, economics and politics structure prison policies and dynamics. Specific topics may include cultural representations of prison life, implications of current sentencing practices, privatization and the prison-industrial complex, incarcerated mothers, capital punishment, juvenile justice, and alternatives to incarceration.
ARHI 186wBK. Whiteness: Race, Sex, and Representation. An interdisciplinary interrogation of linguistic, conceptual, and practical solipsisms that contributed to the construction and normalization of whiteness in aesthetics, art, visual culture, film, and mass media. Course questions the dialectics of “blackness” and “whiteness” that dominate Western intellectual thought and popular culture, thereby informing historical and contemporary notions and representations of race, gender, sexuality, and class.
English 341: The Etymology of Oppression. This course examines the development of the English language as an instrument of the Anglo-Saxon power structure. Topics include: the removal of gender from English nouns, and how this process accelerated the suppression of the Feminine in thought and discourse; the Great Vowel Shift, and how the replacement of diphthongs with monophthongs helped enforce oppressive masculine power-oriented language structures by removing the softer and more intimate vowels; the development of eccentric, irregular, and inconsistent word forms and spelling, which created a despised and subservient class of “ignorant” and “illiterate” people, ripe for capitalist exploitation.
Sociology 384b: Black Marxism. The growth of global racism suggests the symmetry of the expansion of capitalism and the globalization of racial hierarchy. In this context, global racism works to shatter possibilities for solidarity, distort the meaning of justice, alter the context of wrong, and makes it possible for people to claim ignorance of past and present racial atrocities, discrimination, exclusion, oppression, and genocide. By concentrating on the works of Black Marxist intellectuals, this course examines the discourse of confrontation, and the impact of Black Marxist thought in contributing to anti-racist knowledge, theory, and action.
In The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America, Roger Kimball famously said:
To an extent scarcely imaginable three decades ago, the long march through the institutions promised, or rather threatened, by the leaders of the counterculture has finally been accomplished.
That was six years ago. Since then the Long March Through the Institutions has continued unimpeded, with 9-11 not even a speed bump along the route.
How did it get this way? When I was in college in the early 1970s, subjects like History and English were still taught in the traditional fashion. We studied poems, analyzed style, read original sources, cross-checked alternative sources, and generally behaved in a scholarly fashion (assuming we wanted to pass the course). Oh, there were the with-it young professors, the wannabe hippies with longish hair and a hip vocabulary, teaching Marcuse and Verlaine and generally being subversive of the system. But they were the exception, not the rule, and they were mild by today’s standards.
So how did we get here from there?
To start with, those cool young professors with their hippie-envy nurtured and encouraged the radicals among my cohort, bringing them in as graduate teaching assistants and then adjunct professors, finally putting them on a tenure track. There were so many of them! All those dope-smoking smash-the-state baby boomers, moving up and into the faculty, practicing their subversion by institutionalizing it.
The hippies are bald-headed graybeards now, but they are firmly entrenched in a well-funded and lucrative shakedown racket, and they will be very difficult to dislodge.
Time was, they wanted to stick it to The Man. Then they became The Man, and now “speaking truth to power” means talking to yourself.
So, as Lenin said, “What is to be done?”
None of the pernicious nonsense described in the ACTA report will be easy to alter or remove. In order to persuade the universities to change, we will have to hit them where it hurts: in the pocketbook. Unfortunately, in addition to the generous federal and state subsidies, the tenured radicals are funded by a network of liberal trusts and foundations which are inherently sympathetic to their agenda.
That leaves the alumni and the parents to have an effect. If you are sending an occasional check to your alma mater, you might want to grab a current course listing and examine it, and possibly reconsider your gift. Drop a letter to the president of the institution, and let him know why your modest contribution is being withheld. Multiply your case by a few thousand and believe me, the University will sit up and take notice.
And parents who must pay the outrageous tuition fees have the choice of which institution will receive their check. If your kid isn’t going to major in the sciences or business, you might want to consider a private college like Hillsdale or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts. They don’t have the cachet of Princeton or Dartmouth, but they’ll give your child a real education, which is more to the point. Not only that, they may even be cheaper.
Aside from that, all we can do is to keep the glare of publicity on all the Little Churchills. Just keep turning over the rotten logs, exposing the wriggling grubs to the light of day.
As Ward Churchill himself must have noticed by now, it’s hard to keep running these little rackets when everybody is watching you.
Hat tip: Fjordman.
In the case of Churchill, a committee of 6 tenured Professors reviewed the allegations of plagarism,fabrication, etc. and found enough to recommend his suspension, with one member voting for dismissal. I can live with the Liberal message but as in the case of Ward, it goes way beyond using the Unversity as a political podium and enters into the realm of subverting scholarship and centuries of academic tradition. I suspect other radicals/American hating Liberals have some faulty scholarship as well. That is where they need to be ‘hit’ – that is what can get them tossed from their podiums.
They got Capone on tax evasion…
From a certain point of view, it follows that the liberal professors would be predisposed to academic indiscretions. After all, the traditional academic ethics are very pre-PC (you know, traditional patriarchaly objective stuff like opposing plagurization and fabrication). Therefore extreme liberals (hippies), with their belief in deconstructionism, subjectivity and mind altering chemicals will be prone to tripping over their won little churchills.
In any case, when he said that about little Eichmans, Churchill was merely expressing the politically correct/culturally marxist line of thinking from Adorno’s “Authoritarian Personality” and the “F-scale” applied to any successfull corporate manager. He just missed that a unindoctrinated audience may read it.
Advice to a young person about to enter college:
For the next 4 years whore, drink, gamble, do anything, anything except attend your classes.
Hey, allow me to introduce to you the Postmodernism Generator: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo
Just reload the page to get a new text. They are created on the fly.
The more stupid these pomo types get, the more easily their writings can be replaced by random generators. I mean, it’s not that hard to write meaningless garbage, neither for a human nor a computer.
Great post, Baron.
Here’s the deal…these people hire each other. That’s why so many of them sound alike.
BTW, guessing on the fake course wasn’t that hard. yougave it away by using the term `whiteness’.
All in all `academic freedom’ has become little more than a cover for sedition.
There are a couple of ways to handle this, IMO.
One tool is David Horowitz’s Bill for Academic Freedom, and his outing of many of these creeps in his book `The Professors’.
Monitoring the lectures of these people and publicizing what they are teaching is another valuable tool, as are lawsuits involving prejudicial treatment of conservatives.
Another involves legislation to eliminate tenure and subject teachers to annual performance reviews..and to put hiring decisions in the hands of people outside academia with a written mandate of diversity in thought.
And of course, the key tool involves legislation for vouchers and school choice..so that students hit the university with a proper education and are thus more moonbat-proof. Unfortunately, our President seems to have forgotten about that little item.
Freedom Fighter —
Don’t be too confident about which one of those course descriptions is mine. My mimicry job is superb (or so says Dymphna).
Only those who know me well (Wally, this means you!) will recognize which one is artificially concocted.
I’ll give y’all about 24 hours to guess, and then I’ll tell you which one it is.
Mathematics and the sciences are largely exempt from the ugly cant that infests the humanities courses.
I exhort high school students to major in a hard sciences for this very reason, but it’s not entirely true. Yes, they will actually learn a useful skill. But they’ll hear plenty of cant too.
A few years ago, I left the Army for a PhD program in biochemistry at an Ivy League university. While my spouse was deployed, and colleagues of ours were being injured or killed:
In a class called “Protein Structure and Function,” a professor of biophysics (and a Code Pinker) spent a class, on the anniversary of 9/11, opining on the inappropriateness of violence and the need for restraint against al-Qaeda.
At a Christmas party at my boss’ house, I overheard another biophysics professor ranting about how Christianity and Islam equally inspire violence. I questioned whether this was really true, whereupon he turned purple, shook his finger in my face, and screamed about US soliders killing women and children in Afghanistan.
At a seminar given by a genetics professor, his first powerpoint slide was a picture of George and Jeb Bush, next to a pair of monkeys in a similar pose. Just to lighten the mood, you know, and of course, the whole room howled. Didn’t occur to anyone that there might be reservists in the audience, and this was their commander-in-chief.
The IT guy for our lab was fixing my laptop one day and made a rude comment about redneck war-mongering Republicans. I thanked him, closed the screen, and made sure he saw the bumper sticker on the lid — a dog peeing on the word “Liberals.”
Your son won’t have to fight as hard for an education in the chemistry department, but he will have to endure discrimination and bigotry. 90% of the scientists I knew voted for Kerry or Kucinich, and view all others as sub-human, undeserving of common courtesy.
Students’ only options are to fly below the radar, never letting anyone know what they think; or grow a thick skin real fast, and be prepared to defend themselves daily. Maybe scientific scholarship hasn’t been compromised — yet — but the climate of the entire university has been despoiled. Professors can be found in all fields who regularly abuse their authority and the mentor-student relationship.
In the end, the atmosphere was so hostile, I left the PhD program and went back to the Army. I’m only a master, not a doctor, but I’m much happier now. 🙂
Please oh please tell me that you wrote the English course description. Somehow the idea that somebody with a PhD in English wrote “the replacement of diphthongs with monophthongs helped enforce oppressive masculine power-oriented language structures by removing the softer and more intimate vowels” is just too horrible to contemplate.
P.S. I honestly can’t tell which course is the fake one. FF, Whiteness Studies is the big fad these days — the focus is on why being white is bad, and teaching whites to “not be white” anymore.
But I’ll take a stab at it — I’d guess The Etymology of Oppression is the fake one, because it describes something concrete and sounds too technical.
“English 341: The Etymology of Oppression” is the fake. Women’s Studies, probably, but surely the Faculty of English hasn’t wandered into a Chomsyesque porridge like this.
Some British universities may still be OK. When I graduated (1990) I had no idea of, or interest in, the political leanings of any of my tutors, who were all acknowledged experts in their field (Medieval History, University of St Andrews, Scotland). Mind you, they were actually interested in history per se, rather than trying to understand why Whitey oppressed everybody better than him.
Plenty of Americans there too, some good friends amongst them, so have a look at it. It cost more for them than it did for the Brits but was still cheaper than the US.
Mind you, there are lots of awful universities in the UK too. Avoid anything that was founded after 1890.
I agree with the a couple of the above posters:
English 341: The Etymology of Oppression
That one just sounds like something you’d do…
“and now “speaking truth to power” means talking to yourself.”
Oh, yes and they want everyone to know it. They flaunt it, wear it, believe it and use it to try and destroy and polute the minds of the young people sent to them for an “education”.
They are no more than uncommon criminals, being paid for their poluting of the very ones who they should be cherishing and giving a good, solid education without their vile pukings that soil our children’s minds.
The Etymology of Oppression offers an interesting course description. Of course, most if not all the changes mentioned are the result of radical liberal interventions. So I’m assuming this is just your subtle/sly way of making a joke.
Your son won’t have to fight as hard for an education in the chemistry department, but he will have to endure discrimination and bigotry. 90% of the scientists I knew voted for Kerry or Kucinich, and view all others as sub-human, undeserving of common courtesy.
That’s too sad for words. But then we put scientists on a pedestal they don’t deserve. They have preached for so long about their “objectivity” that we replaced a religioius priesthood with a belief in scientism as the answer to transcendent questions. A categorical error if ever there was one…
As for our chem major son, I think he may have found the perfect answer for his needs. I have been trying to talk him out of a PhD since it seems to me that spending that much time in the upper reaches of academia will limit him, no matter how hard he tries to build a wall against the seeping poison. In his final year, he will be rooming with three other conservative/libertarian seniors — just for a refuge.
But academically, he’s decided to get a master’s in oenology — he’ll learn the chemistry, the business and the agriculture of wine-making. What a great solution!
It may provide food for thought that in the Soviet Union, similarly, the hard sciences were something of a refuge for dissident intellectuals, such as physicist Andrei Sakharov and cyberneticist Valentin Turchin. (I think the USSR also had a kind of “affirmative action” in the form of quotas limiting Jewish enrollment in universities.) Of course the sphere of employment controlled by the ruling ideological elite was more comprehensive in the USSR than in the West.
I started as an English major, and switched to a specialist in physics after a year because quite frankly the endless idiocy was just too much for me. I got sick of entire classes being wasted with the ridiculous opinions of professors, or the even more ridiculous opinions of indoctrinated students. Not only that, but there was no challenge: I could start an essay three hours before it was due and get an A. The only reason I wanted to study English was that I wanted to write science fiction, and figured English would help. One year cured me of that.
As far as scientists being left-leaning in their political opinions, I’d say, yes, BUT. You have to keep in mind that most scientists (real scientists, not sociologists or cultural anthropologists) don’t really spend a lot of time thinking about politics. They prefer to think about their work, so when it comes to politics, they tend to adopt whatever are the easiest positions to hold, ie, whatever takes the least effort and time to think about and defend. Politics is a low priority to them; time and energy spent on it is wasted.
This has already been part of the charm of scientists, at least to me. Their agreement with radicals on basic issues strikes me as, “Yes yes, that’s all very good. Capitalism’s horrible. Bush is a terrible human being. Now, as I was just saying about eighth dimensional calabi-yau shapes, I think if you study the total set of possible topologies, you’ll notice striking similarities with the standard model….”
One final note: the degree to which a given science is politicized seems to be in direct proportion to how ‘close’ it is to the humanities. I remember taking a course in the anthropology: the first semester was physical (ie biology and evolution), while the second was cultural. The first semester, not a peep was heard about political opinions. The second, politics – dressed up as ‘science’ – was virtually the only thing on offer. Unsurprisingly, my first semester marks were higher than my second semester marks by about 20%.
p.s. I’d vote for the etymology entry. It’s too clever for a real-life lil’ churchill to think up.
ST, sorry to say, I find science is corrupt. It is more subtle than in the humanities but it is definitely there. The most egregious examples are the so-called scientists supporting the eco-alarmists on global warming. However, the rot goes all the way through. High school text books are corrupt and inaccurate and packed with errors of fact. Peer review systems are used to enforce the current dogma not reward original ideas. When I got my PhD in Chemistry, I went to work for industry, and the science was good, I just didn’t understand company politics. From all my reading after I left school, it is just as well I didn’t go into academia. It would have been as short-lived a career as my industrial one was, just for different reasons.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
It may provide food for thought that in the Soviet Union, similarly, the hard sciences were something of a refuge for dissident intellectuals,
Well the most obvious reason is that there was no entreprenurial career path. Many of those people who would have been smart savvy successful businesspeople ended up being smart savvy successful research scientists.
Aw, jeez — I wasn’t as slick as I thought!
A lot of you sussed me out: the fake course was indeed the etymology one, because etymology is my specialty.
But I thought I had slathered on enough cant to hide it. Oh, well…
Nice article – but the term “Little Churchills”? Eichmann was a WW2 figure as was another Churchill, “Little Churchills” of this ilk wouldn’t be so bad. Also have difficulty thinking of Ward Churchill as being a “Greater Churchill” of any description.
Well, like I said, the degree of politicization is proportional to the hardness. Climate scientists, for all that their models involve a lot of difficult theory, rigorous collection and analysis of data, etc, are still not much better from asking the local withdoctor what the weather will be like.
To be honest, I was just following along with what everyone else said. On my own, I had absolutely NO idea what the fake was.
Good point. I’ll confess, the title of the article through me for a loop at first, because I still associate ‘Churchill’ with the great war leader, not the odious little snake.
I think you could split scientists in to two groups. There are practical scientists, and then there are theoreticians. The theoreticians are the ones we have to worry about, because they can easilly turn in to pseudo-scientists, or become dogmatic about their theories Theoretical science is useful, it’s just that it’s become more widespread than empirical science. The models used by climate theoreticians ae based on theories about climate that often have little relevance to observed results. You’ll find that these theoreticians, who believe rather than study, are more often the kind of scientists who will fall in to the trap of politicising their work, largely because their work doesn’t stand up to a rigourous scientific method; politicising it removes the need to make it stand up to criticism. It’s the pseudoscientific version of shouting “racist!” at anyone who disagrees with you.
Lest we forget, the social theory of marxism was originally called a science, based on an old notion of science being about proving rather than disproving theory. The scientific method is being abandoned again in favour of this older, less relioable theory; once a man has taken in the “science” of marxism, they can see proof of the opression of the working classes on every single page. And again with global warming; everything they see becomes proof. The inconvenient truths are disgarded because they din’t prove the theory.
There’s a site here that everyone interested in science should read. It shows just how far our science has fallen in recent years.
Incidentally, I got my first version of my above rant about the scientific method from a book on the history of christology. Is it possible the church is becoming the sole guardian of knowledge? Again?
Baron, your ability to pass as a pomo prof is frightening. Just before I was going to throw in the towel and conclude that you were playing a trick on the readers by not including any fake course description at all and that they were all unreal-world (i.e. “university”) examples, I recalled Dymphna’s mention of Northumbria et. al. in another post and spotted some very faint fingerprints on the etymology one.
Alas, in too many schools even science, mathematics, and engineering majors are swept up in the net of multi-culti PCism via so-called General Education requirements. GE programs often include a mandatory Race, Alternative-Cultures, Gender and Ethinicity (RAGE) class (aka “White Men Are Evil classes” among the genuinely oppressed members of the student body). The studied “race” is anything but Caucasian, the “culture” is never Western, the “gender” is never a straight male, and the “ethnicity” is never that of the English-speaking assimilated American — unless the goal of the “professor” is to bash rather than praise-to-the- skies. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that the RAGE poison easily seeps from departments one could consider “the usual suspects” to other General Ed. classes in other departments and then from there the contagion rots out much as of the other curriculum in the department it can reach. The humanities departments are, as another commenter has observed here, especially vulnerable to the left-wing RAGE brain rot — oh, and the “education” department too.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I guessed the etymology course, too, but because the description actually goes against “progressive” patterns. First, feminists have decried the use of the gendered woman-excluding “man” and “he”. My second point is a bit iffier and I’ll submit to correction on it – it seems to me that irregular spellings are to a significant extent ultimately created by less educated classes, not imposed on them.
And I agree that we should not call other radical professors “little Churchills” if possible. That’s an insult to Winston. I know Ward claimed to be an Indian. Did he ever take an Indian name? If so, let’s use that.
What about “Little Wards”?
The more I read about other schools and departments, the happier I am in my current academic position. My university used to be a military college and still has a very active ROTC program and has a fairly evenly politically divided student body (faculty are another matter altogether). That has resulted in a student body that is confident in its political views whether they are liberal or conservative. Neither side tolerates the fringes very well and the mainstream enjoys debating each other in an intelligent, calm, collected manner. I will admit that some of the conservatives do take a great deal of delight in opening up topics in some classes just to annoy their professors.
My primary ground rule for class discussions and debates is no ad hominem attacks. If that occurs, I shut off discussion and we go back to the powerpoint. After a couple of times of that, the class usually figures out that they need to eliminate the name-calling and stick to the arguments (they prefer the discussions to the lectures!) I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the response and, it appears, so have the students.
“We studied poems, analyzed style, read original sources, cross-checked alternative sources, and generally behaved in a scholarly fashion (assuming we wanted to pass the course). “
Thinkstow that thes thinges be nat ydoon in a course informede by, exempli gratia, criticale race theorye? How wolde the course “Asian American Cultural Studies: Remembering Race, Domesticity, Globalizations” investigate yts declarede subiectes withouten close readynge, carefulle historicale contextualisation, and comparisoun to othir contemporary literatures?