Scarecrows
First things first.
Madanthonywayne said:
When did I make that comparison? The guy calling them water buffalo just wanted them to be quiet. He wasn't inciting a riot.
You are correct that he wasn't inciting a riot. I read that wrongly. Rather, he was just jumping on the bandwagon and had the misfortune of being identified.
Thus, I owe you an apology. Obviously, political conservatives, who have never hurt anybody on the face of the planet, are the most unjustly persecuted people in the world. Because, as you point out ... well, you
almost had a point about running to the dean. You missed it, though, when you tried to exonerate conservatives.
Now, then:
Stop with the straw men!
• • •
More straw men.
• • •
An endless parade of strawmen.
I think it's funny, given the "water buffalo" straw man, and the "suggesting books" straw man, that
you should complain about straw men. Of course, when we pause to look at the dismissals, we see that "straw men" is simply your excuse for not facing up to things.
Thus:
(1) To return to the spirit of the '60s, man, does not mean teaching intolerance and bigotry.
(2) Your dismissals of other suspect theories, most lately as "straw men", and formerly by complaining, "I thought you were going to take me seriously," are simply dishonest.
As to the first point, you're complaining that someone got called out for being dishonest. "These books are too polarizing, thus I propose
these polarizing books instead." Let's do it "like the students and young profs did in the '60s, man!" Really, that's beyond simply disingenuous.
There is a difference between the two versions of "polarizing". For instance, the idea that "homosexuality is determined before birth" is a polarizing claim despite the growing scientific evidence. It is polarizing because certain
recipients of that information don't want to accept it. This is the sort of polarization that Savage complained about regarding Jared Diamond and Richard Dawkins.
To the other, though, there is the kind of polarization that does not originate with the reader, but rather with the writer. This polarization occurs because it is what the writer intends; the work is intended to be exclusionary and condemning. This is the sort of polarization about Savage's suggestions of Kupelian, Horowitz, and Santorum.
The first kind of polarization, there's not much to be done. There are places you can still go--Texas textbook adoption board hearings, for instance--where the idea that blacks were treated unjustly in American history is still polarizing. This is the kind of polarization Savage accused.
The second kind of polarization is inflicted on the audience. And there's not much to be done inasmuch as people will continue to produce such crap, but the mere fact of its existence doesn't mean it should be part of the curriculum.
As to the point about "straw men", it's a really poor hiding place, Madanthonywayne. You might not like the implications of what you're asking, but that only erodes your credibility even more, because it's not about some abstract "ideological equality", but rather about advancing your own ideological agenda.
The odd theories are introduced in consideration of your whining about "censorship". Some theories aren't accepted because they're insupportable (e.g. the world is flat). Others aren't accepted because they demand presuppositions that are insupportable (e.g., it was sheerly a lack of political will that prevented the United States from winning the war by bombing the dams, flooding the land, killing even more civilians, and creating yet another human disaster). That this thesis comes to the fore during the Iraqi Bush War is generally not a point people are missing. Because we could "win" the war in Iraq by simply nuking the place. Right? I mean, a few miles-wide explosions will do the trick. And apparently we don't nuke Iraq because we lack the political will. Do you see how much the argument turns on its head?
Another comparison: It makes a certain amount of sense, in the short term, for a tyrant to wipe out the opposition. But does it make the slaughter
right? Is the short-term profit justified in light of the long-term outlook? Because when you wipe out the opposition politicians, the press, the academics, and the liberal and moderate clerics, you destroy the information flow that tempers society against radicalization. Exonerating the tyrants is a bit beyond the pale. But if it profits your political party for the time being, why
not make the case that the exoneration of tyrants is a thesis unfairly discriminated against by the vast liberal conspiracy?
The fact that a thesis is "conservative" doesn't make it objectionable. The fact that a thesis is unsound or insupportable, however, is.
These other theses you don't want to talk about, they're unsound or insupportable, problematic in many ways. And
that is the comparison. Because you're arguing that it is
liberal discrimination that excludes unsound theses. I posited my objections to the conservative political thesis, and you actually made the point:
Madanthonywayne said:
Max,
I think you're right. War is hell. In trying to make it more humane, we simply drag it out. Really, the thing to do is fight like a madman. Kill everything that moves. Get the damned war over quickly, and people won't fuck with you again.
(
#94)
Historically, then, what you've suggested is that the United States, having manufactured a pretense to dispatch its military, should then have committed massive human atrocities, so that people who hadn't fucked with us would know (if they were alive, at least) to not fuck with us again.
And ... you
don't see the problematic points in that thesis? Killing large numbers of people under false pretenses so that the dead--who never fucked with you in the first place--don't do it
again?
At some point, "counterintuitive" is a reasonable criteria for dismissing a thesis.
Thus, you argued on behalf of a thesis that just doesn't work. In order for it to work, you justify Pol Pot, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Idi Amin, to name just a few.
So, presented with other similarly problematic theses, you backed away:
Give me a fuckin' break. No one is suggesting that kind of nonsense. (#81)
• • •
No one's advocating any of the crap you mentioned. I thought you were going to take me seriously? (#123)
• •*•
More straw men ....
.... An endless parade of strawmen. (#143)
What we're left with, then, is that the theory
you support should be included despite its problems, because diversity demands, but other problematic theories you're not as much of a fan of should still be excluded.
Which is more than a bit hypocritical, and at least slightly pathetic.
Since you're a fan of straw men, let's cover a couple of your own:
I've read Freakanomics, and it's a great book ....
.... One of the guys who wrote Freakanomics writes for the New York Times, for pete's sake! The New York Times is now too conservative for you?
Freakonomics wasn't that important to the argument. According to the Alliance Defense Fund's letter, "Several OSU faculty ... e-mailed the Committee, criticized Mr. Savage's suggestion, and disputed the polarizing effect of the originally suggested books." (It does not appear that, among the appendices, ADF included that e-mail. Rather, their exhibit picks up
afterward.)
You're casting
Freakonomics in a role it does not play.
I wouldn't be afraid to read any of them. I've read the communist manifesto, The Anarchists cookbook (cool book), lots of off the wall stuff. It's interesting, I want to know how the other side thinks.
It doesn't matter whether or not you're afraid to read any of them. I've read plenty of books I would never include on any curriculum except to make the point to students that this is sloppy, irresponsible, or downright delusional scholarship. (e.g.
The Antichrist, by Lawrence M. Nelson; what was it you said about knowing how the other side thinks?) But
I'm not going to prescribe it to the entire freshman class at any university. The question of what you're willing to read is beside the point. And I think you know that.
Moving on, sort of.
What I don't understand is your calling this guy a zealot for recommending a few books. One of them, apparently, offends you for being anti-homosexual. So you think it's justified to bring the guy up on charges? Who's the zealot?
If we pause to consider the phrase, "
for recommending a few books", we see how dishonestly you must present your case in order to have one.
Hi Donna and all. I am wondering if when Hannibal says "the university can afford to polarize, and in fact has an obligation to, on certain issues" he means the book chosen should necessarily present views in line with the University Human Resources policies or the University mission statement? As a librarian, I wouldn't agree with the imposition of any test of academic orthodoxy. In my view it would be good for students who tend not to read to e given the choice of a book that actually interests them. But if we are decided that we want to engage our students in the kind of exchang of ideas on which the "secular" university is founded, then let's choose something that confronts the accepted wisdom of Ohio State University! Like students and young profs did in the '60s, man!
In that spirit, here are four more suggested titles ....
.... I haven't read all of these, but I would like to, and am sure they could spark significant discussion on campus.
(
Savage)
And the response to Mr. Savage:
Scott, I entirely concur with Norman's reply to your email below. Indeed your argument seems to me misguided and unproductive. It seems you are launching a private campaign that has little to do with our freshman book discussion. The idea behind selecting such a book is, as Norman notes, to introduce students to the academic environment of the university, getting them engaged with the intellectual ideas and debate and with the excitement that goes with the pursuit of knowledge. Selecting one book does not mean that all others are somehow neglected or suppressed, so it seems perverse to suggest that there is some active attempt to promote some notional "OSU" orthodoxy against which you are valiantly struggling. Some of the books you suggest seem inappropriate for the freshman program for the reasons I've already mentioned. It is no stifling of free speech to point out that an author is a quack, if the author is clearly basing an argument on bigotry rather than actual fact. And while such a book might make for an interesting focus of discussion, this freshman program seems not the place for it, unless we are prepared to spend the time (and give the freshmen the supplementary reading required) to debunk the falsehoods. Furthermore, I would rather have our freshmen's first experience of the university focused on the positive pursuit of genuine knowledge rather than the negative debunking of quackery. Certainly, attacking lies is a legitimate goal of scholarship, but it shouldn't be the primary one. I tend to find such activity (as here) rather depressing, however useful and necessary. In my field, for instance, there are a host of nut-cases out there, some quite respectable in other respects, who persist in arguing that Shakespeare's plays were written by anyone but William Shakespeare. Since the general public has an almost limitless appetite for nonsense, such twaddle continues to get credence, even from respectable organs like PBS and the New York Times. It's the responsibility of serious scholars to debunk the quacks, but it's hardly the most productive or interesting area of Shakespeare scholarship. And I would certainly oppose choosing a freshman book arguing that Shakespeare was Marlowe, or the Earl of Oxford, or Atilla the Hun, since it would convey to students that the most interesting thing about Shakespeare was this biographical pseudo-debate, rather than the 37 magnificent plays and odd poems that have engaged people for centuries.
On the matter of homophobia, I think you should be rather careful, Scott. OSU's policy on discrimination is not simply a matter of academic orthodoxy, but a matter of human rights. Re. Kupelian's book, would you advocate a book that was racist or antisemitic, or are you arguing that homosexuals are not in the same category and that homophobia is not therefore a matter of discrimination but of rational argument? And what are we supposed to make of the fact that Kupelian's Armenian family died in the holocaust? Does this mean that he then has the right to spout bigotry about other minorities with impunity? As for Dr. Reisman, Norman's response seems sufficient. Your championship of intellectual freedom seems more than a little peculiar.
At the risk of suppressing further intellectual freedom, might I suggest we simply proceed with our vote on these books?
(
Hannibal)
And then there's also that note from Norman:
I would add, however, that whatever book we choose should have some scholarly merit. The anti-gay book Scott Savage endorses (below) falsely claims that "the widely revered father of the 'sexual revolution' has been irrefutably exposed as a full-fledged sexual psychopath who encouraged pedophilia." This is a factually untrue characterization of Dr. Kinsey and his work on every point (including "widely revered father of the 'sexual revolution'"). By any scholarly standards, regardless of whether one is more conservative or liberal, this kind of claim is a Jerry-Springer-style anti-factual rabble-rousing that has no place in any university. I am frankly embarrassed for you, Scott, that you would endorse this kind of homophobic tripe.
(
Norman)
Shall we go on?
Also from Norman:
You mis-characterize my objection, Scott: it is simply that the book is not scholarly and is designed to be incendiary. I'm not in the least against people reading and discussing such books; I am against a university introducing its students to higher education by way of such books. Our goal here is not to "confront the accepted wisdom," to incite controversy for controversy's sake, but to introduce students to a level of scholarship and academic rigor they most likely have not encountered before. The rank of a book's popularity on Amazon.com has no bearing on this question.
I do wish you had quoted the full description of the book from Amazon.com when you recommended this book to all of us, rather than stopping where you did. Then all involved could make a more informed decision ....
.... The so-called expert you cite in favor of this book holds a PhD in Communications; she is a fringe scholar who has actually appeared on Jerry Springer and who makes a living trying to bash Kinsey (everyone agrees that his work has many flaws, but to call him a "sexual psychopath" departs from the accuracy typically expected of scholarship) and who argues that mass media in the U.S. is engaged in a widespread conspiracy to recruit young people to homosexuality. If Judith Reisman is your idea of someone who has "more scholarly heft than most anyone I know at MOSU," and you think that popularity on Amazon.com speaks to academic merit, then I will actively warn my students away from relying on your expertise as a librarian in helping them determine sound sources for their academic research.
(
Norman)
The debate is actually blistering. Rather, one side is. What is interesting is that in its letter to the University, the Alliance Defense Fund omits certain material that would have been written by Mr. Savage.
One truly curious bit in all this is that the ADF letter--seemingly randomly, but I'm reading through it again--makes this about
religion:
By taking action against Mr. Savage as a result of his religious point of view, OSU also violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... Any adverse action taken against an individual because of his status in a protected class, or association therewith, is illegal and actionable ....
(
French)
The letter goes on to
demand a cessation of the investigation, censor the entire campus in order to make sure nobody says anything bad about Scott Savage, and issue a public apology.
And to update you: Savage was cleared of the harassment charge, and in March of this year
filed a lawsuit against his accusers. Which is a shame, because it seems he's conned the university again:
Bromfield Library director Beth Burns confirmed that Savage is considering a counterclaim against the university. The controversy, which OSUM dean and director Evie Freeman characterized in a faculty meeting as a “colossal misunderstanding due to the use of email,” last month took on a life of its own in the media, thanks in part to press releases from the Alliance Defense Fund that charged that universities are hostile to Christians and conservatives.
Several weeks earlier, however, according to the faculty assembly's public minutes, one of the complainants, OSU associate professor of English Norman Jones, told colleagues he had personally worked things out with Savage. Jones contends he was not against Savage's choice of conservative books but that Kupelian's book simply did not meet sufficient standards of academic rigor.
“I feel like [Savage] and I are more on the same page than I had realized,” Jones said at a faculty meeting, according to the minutes. “His language [in email] called into question my academic credibility. It's clear that he deeply regrets his statements.”
(
LibraryJournal.com)
Nonetheless, it's good to know that you object to professors making jokes about Republicans, but endorse crimes against humanity as well as attempts to indoctrinate college students into homophobia. We see where your sense of justice lies, Madanthonywayne.
Maybe if Savage's lawsuit moves forward, we can finally see what all is in his e-mails, and maybe even the minutes of those meetings. In the meantime, would you accept it if a university made mandatory reading of a book explaining that conservatives are inherently evil and ruining America?
It was never specifically about recommending books, and you've been quite dishonest in your efforts to pretend otherwise.
I am not asking for affirmative action, but an end to censorship.
You want to censor what professors can say in their classes. You advocate hate literature as mandatory reading material in universities. I wouldn't call it an end to censorship. I wouldn't call it affirmative action, either. I'd call it hatred.
You see 99% left wing profs and can't admit that politics was part of the criteria in their selection?
It's not that, Madanthonywayne. It's the gross exaggeration you assign liberals while trying to mitigate the conservative bias. When you propose hate material--as Savage did--and then demean your colleagues' professional reputation--as Savage did--people start to wonder what your motive is. It is most likely for the best that the harassment complaint was ruled to be without merit, but you're more interested in promoting a conservative agenda than you are in promoting a healthy society.
I don't want more politics, I want less.
You might actually believe that, but it doesn't seem true according to your performance in this discussion.
I want a campus with more diversity of opinion than a re-education camp. Is that too much to ask?
Given that you've argued against professors making jokes about Republicans while arguing on behalf of the inclusion of hate material in a college curriculum, I'd say it's too much to ask of
you.
Of course, it's interesting you use the phrase "re-education camp". Especially in light of the savage, even tyrannical approach to warfare you've advocated.
And then, of course, there's the bit about killing professors who aren't nice to Republicans.
Oh, and if it's not too much to ask, when one of your arguments runs out, don't just change the subject. It makes you look really desperate.
