The Reticulator

From the History News Network:

Tony Judt: Notes the downside to multicultural studies

The historian Tony Judt, a self-described “old leftist” and the director of the Remarque Institute at N.Y.U., which examines Europe and European-American relations, said undergraduates often arrive unprepared from high school and seeking courses “in what we might have thought of as the old-fashioned approach” — broad surveys. But many young professors aren’t interested in teaching outside their narrow specialties, nor are they generally prepared to do so. And colleges are loath to reinstate the core curriculums they abandoned in the ’60s. “Because we lack cultural self-confidence, we’ve lacked the ability to say, ‘This is a good book and should be taught, this isn’t and shouldn’t,’ ” said Judt, who was dean of the humanities at N.Y.U. in the early ’90s.

Judt also denounces the balkanization created by interdisciplinary ethnic studies programs. Multiculturalism “created lots and lots of microconstituencies, which universities didn’t have the courage to oppose,” he said. “It’s much more like a supermarket — kids can take pretty much any courses they like: Jewish kids take Jewish studies, gay students gay studies, black students African-American studies. You no longer have a university, but a series of identity constituencies all studying themselves.”

If he’s an “old leftist,” maybe it isn’t my imagination that there once was a time when the left was not intellectually bankrupt.

It’s bad enough that premature specialization takes place at the college level, but you see high schools trying to play college and do the same thing. That’s a subject for another day, though, because there is something else to mention — something that the HNN article didn’t say. The article is excerpted from a NYT article, “Revisiting the Canon Wars,” by Rachel Donadio. Here’s an item that caught my attention:

But Fish thinks humanities professors bear some blame for their diminished standing. He’s at work on a new book, “Save the World on Your Own Time,” which argues that academics should teach, not proselytize. In his view, “the invasion of political agendas” into the classroom in the ’60s and ’70s was “extremely dangerous,” since it meant classrooms could become battlegrounds for political demagoguery.

So on the one hand you have the National Association of Social Work saying you can’t become a professional unless you proselytize, and this Fish guy saying not while the kids are still in college, at least. I know which side of the argument I’m cheering for.

Back in the very early 1980s I started a newspaper clipping file under the subject line “Academic Intolerance.” At the time it seemed ironic to find occasional examples of intolerance in institutions that were supposedly devoted to freedom of speech and inquiry. Since then the quantity and ferocity of the intolerance have increased to the point where the term no longer sounds oxymoronic.

I hadn’t known about this one, though, until I read Fred Thompson’s column today:

The head of Marquette’s philosophy department apparently didn’t get it. He took down Barry’s words and issued a statement that included the words, “while I am a strong supporter of academic freedom. I’m afraid that hallways and office doors are not free-speech zones.” Since then, the Marquette philosophy department has stuck to its stance that Barry’s words are “patently offensive,” despite the fact that lots of other doors had slogans pasted on them.

You have to wonder just how oblivious that department chair is. The hallways and office doors of academia have long been free-speech zones. For decades I have been reading offensive and objectionable political statements on the doors of academic offices. I can point to a whole bunch of objectionable statements on the doors of the offices and labs where I work now. But while I usually disagree with what’s posted, I think it’s a great tradition. I think of how Martin Luther got the Reformation started by posting controversial statements on a door where they could be seen by passers by.

I see that this particular example has already been blogged to death. But it reminds me that this blog for some reason did not yet have an “Academic intolerance” category. It now does.

And whether or not Fred Thompson would make a good president, it’s great that he is bringing up issues like this. It will be good for the campaign if he can keep it up.

I long ago threw out my old clipping files. Maybe I shouldn’t have done that, now that governments and other institutions are learning how to censor the internet. I still have my old clipping indexes, and some of them are in a form that would allow me to track down the articles, at least until the newspaper archives get censored, too.