printEdgar Allan Poe’s “The System of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether” tells of inmates in an asylum who overpower their wardens, tar and feather them, throw them into underground cells, and proceed to have “a jolly season of it” without them. After reading what follows, you have to wonder: What are we waiting for?
“The [Cultural Marxists] have taken over the hiring process, instructing academic departments to merely provide them with unranked lists of acceptable candidates for interviews. They will then choose which candidates are invited for campus interviews after a proper, politically-correct vetting process. We have been told to ignore whether or not a candidate’s research interests are similar to others in the department. Scientific synergy, like everything else, plays second fiddle to achieving the correct conglomeration of skin colors on campus. …
Atheists, communists, and abortion activists are all welcomed at Loyola College, but there is one category that is not: defenders of capitalism – the system that allows the parents of Loyola College students to accumulate enough wealth to pay those hefty tuition bills every year, and which provides the means of success for the College’s non-stop fund-raising drives. Defenders of capitalism may exist on campus, but it is clear that such views are not welcomed or appreciated.”
“Tales From an Academic Looney Bin” is a must read, as is “A (Not So) Funny Thing Happened To Me in Baltimore” by Walter Block.
This article really hit home with me. Being in the depths of arguing with my political science professor, about the free market.
Pretty much everything is being countered with ‘well X disagrees with you’ on either economic or ethical theory. I cannot even try to argue minimum wage laws, as he apparently thinks that they increase productivity and labor (!!!)
The real problem that I find is that modern academic thought seems to be rooted in nihilism more than a quest for knowledge (epistemology). What I am seeing is a denial of almost all ethical and economical thought unless it supports either interventionism or socialism.
I have been told that because of my young age, and my (current) lack of degree, I apparently cannot understand what is largely right or wrong, or economical theory. This is rubbish. If I cant understand economic theory and simple right or wrong, why am I supposed to learn it in college?
Quest for truth, as you found out when that Marxist referenced you – is defined as being arrogant, rude, impolite, and incorrect. I am not taking this out of context, or inferring this; I have been told by many that this is exactly what I am. Some admire the resilience, but others merely seek to break you down until you either agree with them, or come to the conclusion that reality is bogus.
I associate a lot with Ilana, because I am very quiet, mild, and easy going. What offends people (and now, professors) is that I don’t change my moral, ethical, or capitalistic beliefs because I think they are bedrock and ethical, all things considered equal. Not changing your beliefs – or being open about changing them – is considered by the elite to be akin to being rude, and impolite. Apparently, according those who are more histrionic than this author, merely disagreeing with someone is a personal insult.
Some intuitionists, as well as the brilliant Michael Huemer, have said that three things are out of the range of philosphers to debate on; 1) communism is bad, 2) capitalism is more ethical than communism, and 3) reality is objective.
These days, in academics, even arguing those three is apparently grounds for ridicule.
Thank you so much for posting this, Ilana.
I see very little science in what is often called “social” science. Treating “blacks” or “women” or some other group as an ensemble of identical particles as I would treat electrons or neutrinos is to deny any aspect of individual behavior and individual choices. One often starts with nonsense and ends with even more nonsense – such as the concept of “equivalent work” whereby a librarian “should” be worth more than an electrician. And suppose every hundred years one took the “smartest” 10% of “blacks” or “Scandinavians” – had them reproduce and the others eliminated and did that for a few millenia – to breed smarter “blacks” or “Scandanavians” …. it would not, per se, demonstrate much other than man’s capability for violence and the evil of groupthink. If the benefits of centuries of pogroms and holocausts is “smart” Jews, I’d just as soon turn down such honors. Ironically, the “controversy” says that something was “offensive” without even defining (a) WHAT was offensive and (b) WHY it was offensive – this, sadly, is also illustrative of the lack of objective justice common in socialistic and authoritarian cultures.