Thursday, November 18, 2004

here is an article in the NYT about studies on the political composition of academia. i was struck by a statement in the first paragraph:

BERKELEY, Calif. - At the birthplace of the free speech movement, campus radicals have a new target: the faculty that came of age in the 60's. They say their professors have been preaching multiculturalism and diversity while creating a political monoculture on campus.

the 'birthplace' of the free speech 'movement'? forgive me for thinking so, but i believe that started on the east coast over 200 years ago.

this was my favorite passage:
One theory for the scarcity of Republican professors is that conservatives are simply not that interested in academic careers. A Democrat on the Berkeley faculty, George P. Lakoff, who teaches linguistics and is the author of "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think," said that liberals choose academic fields that fit their world views. "Unlike conservatives," he said, "they believe in working for the public good and social justice, as well as knowledge and art for their own sake, which are what the humanities and social sciences are about."

so only liberals care about the public good and social justice, as well as knowledge and art 'for their own sake' (a claim of which i am highly skeptical--in a highly politicized environment, scientia et ars gratia artis et scientiae amantur numquam). come on, folks. seriously. are these incredibly broad generalizations even helpful? am i really to believe that the situation is that simple?

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?