Academic Disputations
Having taught in institutions of higher learning from 1960 to 2001, I can report that James Piereson's account of the universities' transition from liberalism to leftism is both insightful and generally accurate ("The Left University," Oct. 3). I do, however, want to quibble with his assignment of blame. Faculty governance was the rule in the 1950s, but control was seized by the universities' administrative officers in the 1970s. To carry out federal mandates on affirmative action, these administrators took two steps. First they pressured existing departments to hire more blacks and women. Then, when this measure did not yield the numbers wanted, they created whole new departments and programs staffed entirely by favored minority groups.
Lacking the customary credentials, the new faculty in these departments proceeded to argue that the usual standards served only to perpetuate white patriarchy. Thus were born the commitment to "diversity" and the rationale called "multiculturalism." Codes to restrict criticism would come later, along with squadrons of "diversity officers." It is true that a few radical members of the faculty actively supported this transformation from the beginning, and their numbers increased as time went on. As a consequence, many departments of social science and literature are now entirely dominated by leftist radicals.
The only part the majority of faculty played in this revolution, however, was to have let it happen, partly because they figured they could not stem the tide and would drown trying, partly because they preferred to spend their energies on the research and teaching by which they would be salaried and promoted. To say so, of course, is not to absolve them of all blame, but perhaps it diminishes their guilt a little bit.
Max Hocutt
Northport, AL
To characterize the entire university as being "liberal" because of some vast left-wing conspiracy fails to explain how this argument applies to the huge sectors of the academy that deal with physics, mathematics, biology, architecture, engineering, medicine, dentistry, etc. Even if one accepts that 72 percent of mathematicians hold liberal views, how is their presentation of a quadratic equation affected by their liberal bias? Furthermore, how does one increase the proportion of conservatives in, say, the comparative anatomy or genetics department, if their view is that "intelligent design" makes the very purpose of such departments moot?
Could it be that many conservative ideas actually don't hold up under the intense critical analysis of the university? Or perhaps, could the paucity of conservatives on campus be in part because most conservatives are more interested in the glitter of the financial marketplace than the marketplace of ideas--with its relatively meager financial rewards?
Carl Mezoff
Stamford, CT
James Piereson presents a history of the evolution of the American university into the seemingly leftist bastion he thinks it is today. Although Piereson refers to the Founding Fathers and their desire for a "republic of letters" in America, he overlooks one of the earliest and most important proponents of a distinctively American education--Dr. Benjamin Rush, an ardent revolutionary, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and founder of several American universities, including my own Dickinson College.
Piereson incorrectly attributes the politicization of American colleges and universities to the emergence of the modern liberal movement in the late 19th and early 20th century. Politicization of higher education by various parties is unfortunately a longstanding American tradition. Rush fiercely criticized the first president and the faculty of Dickinson College in the early 1800s for corrupting students' minds with "Federalist" ideology.
It was well known that other colleges and universities, before and immediately after the Revolution, also were criticized for advancing political ideologies--for or against the war with England, Federalist or Anti-Federalist.
Piereson asserts that the Founding Fathers intended for American higher education to be "a republic of letters"--classically focused on broad learning in history and philosophy and the study of ancient languages and politics "in order to apply the lessons of the past to the practical problems of the present." Piereson wishes for the resurrection of a republic of letters in hopes that it will improve America.
From the very beginning, Rush envisioned an American approach to education that would not simply duplicate "the republic of letters" as it was understood for centuries in England (based on an invincible admiration of the classical world) and even by his good friend Thomas Jefferson. In fact, Rush judged Jefferson on certain educational issues to be too greatly enamored of the "Old World" and not fully prepared to move into the "New." For Rush, the English classical curriculum mimicked by the colonial American universities before the Revolution was moribund, "unchanged for 250 years," and little but "monkish studies"--thus not truly American in content or spirit.
A distinctively American college for Rush had to be based on a dynamic liberal education--the unfettered nonpolitical pursuit of truth and knowledge that would ultimately be entrepreneurial and useful. He argued vociferously for the study of modern languages, rather than Latin and Greek.
He also insisted on the inclusion of the modern sciences--particularly chemistry--knowing that they would create new knowledge necessary to fuel industry and commerce, the economic and competitive foundation of the new nation. And he simultaneously acknowledged the incompleteness of the American democratic experiment at its founding and called for the study of Native American languages and cultures and advocated broader opportunities for women and African Americans. Change, inclusiveness, and adaptability were key components of the earliest conceptions of a distinctively American education, according to Dr. Rush.
Let us then fully appreciate this aspiration for a distinctively American higher education by this true patriot and founder of the country and contrast it with Piereson's incomplete and selective framing of what he calls "the left university." For in seeking to disclose and disarm a pervasive "left university," by returning to the "republic of letters," Piereson would have us, educationally at least, still within the oppressive embrace of Europe.
William G. Durden
President, Dickinson College
Carlisle, PA
Who's the Malingerer?
In reviewing my book 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America ("Public Nuisances," Oct. 3), Joe Queenan confirms his well-earned reputation as a consummate wisecracker and displays his trademark charm by calling me a "seasoned malingerer"--a compliment I appreciate (even if I don't quite understand it), since with Queenan it could have been a lot worse.
Queenan's main gripe seems to be that I included on the list of those who are cheapening our culture a number of culprits he does not think should have ever made the cut. He writes, for example, that I attack "academics who are not household names." So? These are people who bash America every chance they get--and also teach our kids at some prestigious universities. Maybe it's me, but I think they're doing plenty of harm, even if they're not as well known as J-Lo.
He's also unhappy because I attack an Internet blogger that "no one has ever heard of." He's referring to Markos Moulitsas, a guy who runs one of the busiest and nastiest left-wing sites on the web ( www.DailyKos.com). After four American civilian contractors in Iraq were shot, burned, and mutilated before their dead bodies were hung from a bridge, "Kos" wrote, "I feel nothing over the death of the mercenaries. . . . Screw them."
And then there's Matthew Lesko. In case you don't know, he's the ninny who wears lime green suits covered with question marks and shows up in late night cable TV commercials telling us that the government has loads of "free money for you!" What kind of ridiculous list is this, Queenan wonders, if a nitwit like Lesko is on it?
As in the other cases, though, Queenan misses the point. Matthew Lesko isn't simply annoying. As I write in the book, he "caters to a mindset that believes there's not only a free lunch, but free dinner, and free midnight snacks, and a takeout bag if you're still hungry later on." Hey, I never said he was Osama bin Laden or some serial killer. And besides, he's No. 99 on the list.
Last, I think we need a rule--maybe a federal law--that says if you're going to review a book you have to actually read it first--the whole thing, not just a little here and a little there. I mention this, because in his entire piece, Queenan does not devote so much as one word to the central premise of the book: that our culture is a lot meaner and angrier and more vulgar than it used to be. Not a word!
Years ago, I interviewed Joe when I was at CBS News. I liked him and thought he was smart and funny. Now, seeing him completely ignore the main point of the book, I can't help but wonder: Who's the real "seasoned malingerer" here?
Bernard Goldberg
Miami, FL