15 April 2011

The Truth About The Politicization Of Academia


A recent WAPO(!) article by Naomi Schaefer Riley has confirmed what most in America already knew (though a number of history bloggers are in denial):

"It is becoming harder and harder to find professors devoted to teaching traditional academic subjects for their own sake, to undergraduates who lack the basics in the humanities and the social and natural sciences. The academy has not become politicized because of a few radical professors. Rather, entire departments and university administrations see the goal of higher education as political." (Emphasis mine.)

And . . .

"Since the late 19th century, American university faculty members have been considered (in accordance with the German model) society’s experts . . ." (Yeah, that's the problem - Good Lord, don't results mean anything? The "experts" have left a train wreck trail of dismal failures.)

And . . . 

"The classroom became politics by other means." (No kidding.)

All this, and more, are reasons to discard any notion that academic historians are objective when it comes to their perspectives and analysis of the WBTS or any other aspect of American history. Yes, some are, though I would argue everyone has a non-objective perspective with which they approach history. Bottom line: one should not accept premises, nor give someone the benefit of the doubt, simply because someone has an advanced degree and/or teaches at the college level. As a matter of fact, this could be all the more reason to be skeptical.

1 comment:

elektratig said...

Not directly on point, but you may appreciate this new article from the Claremont Institute on the pervasive nature of liberalism in academia.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1800/article_detail.asp