Studying English taught us how to write and think better, and to make articulate many of the inchoate impulses and confusions of our post-adolescent minds. We began to see, as we had not before, how such books could shape and refine our thinking. We began to understand why generations of people coming before us had kept them in libraries and bookstores and in classes such as ours. There was, we got to know, a tradition, a historical culture, that had been assembled around these books. Shakespeare had indeed made a difference—to people before us, now to us, and forever to the language of English-speaking people.

Finding pleasure in such reading, and indeed in majoring in English, was a declaration at the time that education was not at all about getting a job or securing one’s future. In comparison with the pre-professional ambitions that dominate the lives of American undergraduates today, the psychological condition of students of the time was defined by self-reflection, innocence, and a casual irresponsibility about what was coming next.

William M. Chace, ‘The Decline of the English Department’ , The American Scholar online

My stress, my experience. All very well for me, because I went on to teach it.  But for all the others, while there’s no evidence that their degrees in English led to blasted lives, the traditional liberal writ had long ceased to run. English Departments at their height – as Chace points out, a height briefly occupied in the middle years of the 20th century -  were preparing students for a world which no longer existed.

 

elephants-graveyardElsewhere in the university, it’s notorious that the bones of Marx and Freud, are kept over in the English Department. (It won’t be long before the remains of Foucault and Derrida join them.) What for some of us is still astonishing, even after all these years, is the situation summarised by Professor Mark Edmundson in a recent Chronicle of Higher Education. (Hat tip, as so often, to Arts and Letters Daily.)

? the student who has heard the teacher unfold a Marxist reading of a work probably doesn’t get to study Marx per se. He never gets to have a potential moment of revelation reading The Manifesto or The Grundrisse. Marx too disappears from the scene, becoming part of a technological apparatus for processing other works. No one asks: “Is what Marx is saying true?” “Is Foucault onto something?” “Is what Derrida believes actually the case?”

Overstatement, maybe, but close. There’s a good reason, of course. To discuss at university level whether what Marx says is true involves actually reading Marx and his principal commentators. No time for that, so the student accepts the lecturer’s summary – as often as not itself based on secondary sources – and then they all set to work ‘applying’ the ideas, as Edmundson says, like paint.

Its intellectual squalor is not the worse aspect of such a practice. As Edmundson says, it removes from students the possibility of discovering the text for themselves and making their own kind of sense of it. Such responses to the text are said to be ‘insufficiently theorised’. Now there’s language as magic.

 

Date the following passage.

In the past, a rising class was aware of something valuable enjoyed by others which it wished to share; but this is not so today. The leaders of the rising class are consumed with a contempt for everything which does not spring from their own desires, they are convinced in advance that they have nothing to learn and everything to teach, and consequently their aim is loot?to appropriate to themselves the organization, the shell of the institution, and convert it to their own purposes. The problem of the universities today is how to avoid destruction at the hands of men who have no use for their characteristic virtues, men who are convinced only that ‘knowledge is power.’

If you said 1969 you have everything on your side except the facts. These are: that the author is Michael Oakeshott, writing in The Cambridge Magazine and that he wrote this passage in 1949.

 

In universities, it’s no longer possible to discuss a book of the type formerly known as a work of literature as if all the people in the room might have an equal and similar interest in it. Nowadays books are divided like carcases into choice cuts and distributed to hungry scholars. (The genitals are particularly prized and fought over.) The rule for who gets what, however, is the inverse of what happens in the wilderness: the weakest and most disadvantaged species get the lion’s share.
And now according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, we have age studies. Apparently people who study it hate being asked how old they are.

 

This week’s squalid news from Griffith University is a measure of the rot in our tertiary system. First we have a university soliciting the Saudis for funds, as if petrodollars come without strings or the strings won’t be pulled. Memo to the VC: when the US military was encamped in Saudi for Gulf War I the regime tried hard to prevent Christian worship for the troops. This culture is a long way from understanding the ideal of disinterested scholarship.

Then when the story breaks (thanks to The Australian) the Vice Chancellor issues a public defence which leans heavily on Wikipedia – of all things – without acknowledgement. So now we can add dishonesty and sloppy scholarship to the list of failings. Finally, beyond parody, we have someone described as the Vice Chancellor’s principal policy adviser making the following ‘argument’: the University is not a secular institution because it observes Christian holidays, therefore it doesn’t matter if parts of it become Islamic.

Stupidity, naivete, ignorance, plagiarism, amateur scholarship and spin doctoring out of the Zimbabwe election playbook.

In recent years, academics in the humanities and social sciences have become besotted with the idea that there is no such thing as disinterestedness. When this kind of thing happens they argue that it’s all Power anyway, and anyway everyone powerful is awful and anyway we ought to fall over backwards to please Muslims right now because . . . well I forget that bit.

Those who believe that are invited to conduct a little thought experiment. You are on trial for your life before a panel of three judges. The evidence is complex and any decision will be based on a a careful appraisal of good arguments both for and against. What qualities do you want in those judges?

We should be asking ourselves this week, what kind of qualities do we want in university senior management? Has the Vice Chancellor of Griffith shown those qualities? If not, what are we going to do about it? For we are all shareholders in the university enterprise and we can and should demand standards from these people. ‘Academic freedom’ does not extend to corporate executives – and what Vice-Chancellor nowadays would reject that description?

Theme Tweaker by Unreal