Doug Campbell's reference to my classes and allegiance to open, academic inquiry is puzzling, and distorted. Puzzling because--as I write--I'm looking at a recommendation Doug wrote in my behalf where in lauds my willingness to enage in civil, rational dialog with those who don't share my view. He commends my commitment to modeling this for our students.

Here's where distortion enters in:

*I mention OUR students because I arranged for Doug to team-teach an honors course with me in war and peace studies. I deemed it essential & challenging for Doug to share his perspectives with our best students. Funny thing: there's no mention in his essay.

*Doug and other veterans frequently appeared in my other classes to share their views. Not worth mentioning.

*Doug alludes to the panel on academic freedom, but somehow he forgets we were on the same proverbial page: we find the repression of students' academic freedom odious.

*He forgets much else: As a senior, tenured faculty member I supported his efforts. . I did so because his views must be heard. This is why we co-authored papers, and this is why I wrote a strong, enthusiastic letter of support to his department.

Surely, based upon Doug's professed allegiance to fair and balanced inquiry, I will soon see  a retraction and apology on  these pages.

I rarely post comments to articles, but Professor Ron's response to this article, in which he was referenced, interested me.  At the end of the day, it's none of my business, but as a third party I figured I would give my two cents on the matter as it has been made public on the comments on the article. 

It would seem to me, unless I am mistaken, that Professor Ron seems to sidestep the actual incident in his response.  From what is written in the article, the student in question was not giving what could really be considered an informed opinion, and instead launched an ad hominem attack on Professor Campbell.  Now, I'm not a philosophy expert (I'm an ancient history scholar), but I always thought that, in the area of philosophy, ad hominem attacks are not really looked upon in a positive light.  The student in question did not offer any real evidence for her comments except (in Professor Campbell's opinion) her own biased perception of a subject in which, it seems, she has no expertise.

Moreover, it might have helped that Professor Ron, in his response, could have perhaps given his own specific account of this incident if he wanted readers to see his side of the story.  Professor Ron states in his response 'Funny thing: there's no mention in his essay' of Professor Campbell's co-teaching of the course.  What I find to be funny, is that there is no real specific mention of these events in Professor Ron's response.  Indeed, as there is no mention of this, it leads me to believe that this incident happened as Professor Campbell described it, and that Ron essentially allowed Campbell to be ambushed.  If they were teaching the course together, Ron could have at least backed up his fellow instructor rather than allowing the student in question to escalate the situation, as sooner or later this might serve to undermine the authority of both professors in their own class.  If anything, Professor Ron owes Professor Campbell an apology for allowing the class to get that out of hand and not correcting the student for launching the ad hominem attack in the first place.

By the way, as Professor Ron mentioned that there were other veterans who spoke during the course, it would be interesting to know if they were treated in the same manner that Professor Campbell claims to have been subjected to (indeed, that might have been 'worth mentioning' by Professor Ron in his response).

If Professor Ron really values, as he says, academic freedom and free academic debate, then he should really think about teaching his students how such a debate should be carried out, as it seems that some of the students in this course have no idea how to do so. 

On a side note, it always amuses me that some students in these situations cry things like 'Nazi,' in order to try to win an argument when they think things are not going their way.  I guess the student's definition of the term has less to do with the actual (and distasteful) tenets of National Socialism and more to do (incorrectly) with anyone who is or has been in a military uniform, as well as 'I'm losing this, it's time to use a name to completely discredit this person.'

It seems to me that nothing in Ron's rebuttal is contrary to the account that Doug offers about the nature of his exchange with their student and Ron's apparently unwillingness to support his colleague. In an academic environment in which students are coddled by administrators who impart to them the idea that a being victim is the road to power, what do you expect? The sobbing student was a passive-aggressive bully who finally faced someone who could stare her down, a professor who actually cared that she had used her mind poorly and that the purpose of education is not to "feel good" about the opinion to which you are entitled. When we let these student unthinkingly emote and praise them for "sharing," we are not acting like their professors who care about their minds and souls. We are acting like fellow sharers in a focus group. And, worst of all, we harm them by our negligence.

Having done my undergrad at an engineering school, I just wanted to offer Doug a message of hope: there are institutions of higher learning that place the utmost priority on teaching analytical/critical thinking.  As I read more of these sorts of stories, I'm slowly becoming convinced that most "universities" and "colleges" do nothing more than suck up students' tuition money while wasting 4 years of their lives. 

And given Ron's petulant response to his portrayal in this article, I'm beginning to understand why so few students are capable of critical thinking.  I had to re-read Ron's response to Doug's article to finally realize that Ron is so self-absorbed that he completely missed the thesis of the article and somehow inferred the whole thing was an attack on him.   How could one expect a professor so lacking in critical thinking and so full of himself to actually educate students? 

I think this is why the engineering schools have dodged putting out such mush.  There's no way a guy like Ron could hack it teaching Calculus, DiffEq, Thermodynamics, Orgo-Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics, Semiconductor Physics, Statics, Statistics & Probability, or any of the other myriad requirements for the various engineering degrees.  No, the profesors who can teach that stuff have content they need to teach and no time for proselytizing.  Doug, you need to updgrade.

Doug's posting and your commentary raise some final questions.

*Why does Doug recount an episode that occurred 15 years ago as if it happened yesterday?

*Why didn't he--in the interest of being fair & balanced--inquire about my recollection of the incident? Had he done so, he would have learned that others joined me in ciriticizing the student after Doug left.

*Here's what's astonishing: Like Doug, none of you commentators consider the fact that, subsequently, Doug wrote a strong, enthusiastic recommendation on my behalf to the University of North Carolina. He lauds my commitment to intellectual diversity, civil & meaningful dialog with those who don't share my views, and acumen for rational discourse. In short, he contradicts the claims made in his posting. Doesn't this give you second thoughts about Doug's claims and character?

*I also got him a job team-teaching an honors course with me--an excellent venue for his views. Why is this--along with all my other efforts providing a forum for his views--being ignored? 

*Finally, Doug's recent note to me follows:

******************************

From: Campbell, Doug
Sent: Tue 4/28/2009 10:00 AM
To: Hirschbein, Ron
Subject: RE: Your hit piece

Since my opinion means so much to you, Doug, here it is: I suspect that you're so eager to ingratiate yourself to the NAS that you'll stoop to any means: recounting a half-truth about an episode that occurred 15 years ago as if it happened yesterday,  Worse yet, in your quest for NAS acclaim, you fail to mention all that a good and faithful friend has done over many years to provide a forum for your views.

Guess the cliche is right: "No good deed goes unpunished!"

*

Concerning Ron’s latest comments about my article; there has been some water under the bridge since Ron and I first collided, but the facts of incident remain the facts. You may judge for yourself Ron’s motive for identifying himself. I standby my conclusions concerning the events described and what they represent. In our exchange of emails, Ron at first “didn’t recall” the event. Then in a later email Ron acknowledged the event but still failed to grasp that the article was not about him, but about some very severe problems within higher education. When Ron is ready I will again attempt to rationally discuss these problems with him.

Having been both the local president of the faculty union and now as a university administrator, I find Ron's posting of an e-mail to be an "interesting" choice to say the least.

Dear Mr. Doug Army Guy,

            The other day your piece “The Classroom Without Reason” landed in my email through a chain of forwarded messages. Until this morning I had no idea what the NAS was, but found your essay on its blog site. Because all aspiring writers welcome and indeed crave public feedback for the creative efforts, I have decided to put aside my books here at Duke University to offer my own insights into your piece. As an actual graduate student, studying at a university other Americans have actually heard of, I found much of your piece a little hard to believe based on my own experiences with some pretty left-wing professors and students. As I see it, the point of academia is to take note of the simplified caricatures society produces - whether by the media, a variety of counter-cultural knownothings, or crusty intellectual posers like yourself - and try to complicate them by pealing away their layers of obfuscation. If you haven’t figured it by now I have no intention of sticking to the rules of “reasoned debate” as you and the NAS describe them because I find it nowhere in your self-serving polemic, and I fear that an actual demonstration on my part would send everything I have to say clearly over your head. So here goes.         

Duke University was recently cited by David Horowitz (another nutbag I’m sure you have a shrine dedicated to in the shower), as one of the ten “most dangerous” liberal faculties in America. You might be interested in the fact that many of the grad students here are former military officers. One of our incoming students next year is an Air Force officer himself. There are many specialists here who study military history and military culture. Their aim is to understand the military as a sophisticated social institution, like the university, that presents problems continuous with themes social scientists have long considered important, such as the rise of the modern state, demography, economic trends, the history of the family, and wider social hierarchies. Their interests are not in advertising the military as an isolated bastion of unique values and heroic ideals mere "civilians" could never appreciate, nor are they concerned with waiving peace signs. Both represent boring ideological agendas that inevitably lead to the same conclusions devoid of any sophistication. Any young historian knows that a project simply painting the military as a brainwashing tool for the government would get laughed out of any seminar by all scholars, no matter what their politics are. The consensus in history and the humanities, perhaps the only issue academics actually agree on, is that exceptional research projects generate more questions than conclusions, opening doors for further research and the refinement or disposal of traditional paradigms. Polemical works always gain more attention from the media, and this is precisely why many historians are insufferable snobs when it comes to best-sellers because it often suggests that a scholar has forsaken nuance and complexity for narrowness and stale homogeneity in their research. This is not always the case, and the ideal is to communicate complexity to as broad an audience as possible, but the inclinations of audiences should have no say in how the subject is historically researched and represented.  

But let’s quit the bullshit and get at the real concerns motivating rightwing insecurities about the state of universities. It is not difficult to see this as just an updated version of an ancient fear among daddy-worshipping morons concerning the presence of effeminate 'faggots', 'commies', and women in positions of higher learning, and oh God forbid, positions of actual influence upon our youth! This has nothing to do with "rational debate", it is merely an expression of paternalistic insecurities that always come to the surface and assume new forms as the traditional coordinates of public authority in society are renegotiated and debated. It took place during the civil rights era, when minorities sought to expand the boundaries of the public sphere, and it continues today as Americans have fewer children, gay culture is public, an astonishing number of women have acquired positions in public life, including university professorships, and Americans debate their new civic identities in a post-Cold War world lacking a clearly defined evil counterpart.

Paternalistic discourse offers emotional security to those who view pedagogy as a one way street ultimately ending with the student's awakening to the moral truths already known to their teachers. This of course, is not really teaching, it is an idealized model of paternal authority, of daddy’s fantasized pedagogical relationship to his children; a clean transmission of one's virtuous self to another. Using the family model of pedagogy, i.e. "paternalism", as a source of moral authority to critique university 'brainwashing' and the lack of open rational debate in classrooms carries its own ironies. The phrase "Go to your room" is not an invitation to discuss the meaning of virtue in Plato's Republic. Attending Sunday school is not a choice many kids make freely. The university is where most young adults apply and assess the disciplinary boundaries and values they were trained to recognize while living under a household. Perhaps the real concern underlying conservative diatribes such as yours is that many universities may be working too well in demanding students to ask questions, reflect upon their unexamined assumptions, and consider the troubling possibility that experience and understanding are not always one and the same thing. Experiences are always colored by cultural and personal assumptions that we often wield like swords as natural truths capable of withstanding any assault. The truth is there is no Excalibur, and the point of the university is not to teach students how to forge one. The real aim is to teach students how to examine their own ideological toolkits they carry with them, and unconsciously use on a daily basis to frame problems and engage with the world. How we frame problems shapes how we act in the world, and the last eight years of American politics should effectively illustrate this truism. Our assumptions have consequences.   

Rejecting this as a purely "academic" conclusion has suited an anti-intellectual agenda with a long history in American culture. Now the anti-intellectual critique (of which your piece is a part despite your posturing), takes this agenda seriously enough only to use it as a gold standard universities are not meeting. Universities have apparently turned into breeding grounds for a politically correct "false consciousness" among teachers and their sycophant students. This critique is simply a shift in strategy, a maneuvering for authority that while deploying a new rhetoric, still uses the traditional moral authority of family pedagogy to reinstitute similar hierarchies in public institutions. The aim in practice, beyond the carefully strategized rhetoric, is to restrict the intellectual diversity now present in universities and reestablish old canons of established authority in scholarship. You and the NAS claim to be defending “Western Civilization” in academic institutions. I still have no idea what this means, and what it is that Western Civilization needs to be defended from. My area of specialty is the Italian Renaissance, and in my four years of graduate study on this topic, and as an instructor at the University of South Florida, I have come to appreciate the contested status of this term over the centuries. Though you would prefer to fix the essential meanings of the “West” to pursue your own ideological agenda in the present, no respected historian today would deny that the shifting meanings of the West from Aristotle to Foucault were developed through constant dialogues, encounters, and conflicts with those considered non-Western. What the West stands for has always been a matter of debate both inside and outside of Europe, but to presume that non-Westerners were never involved in those dialogues as active participants would require that we stick our heads in the sand. Placing the “West” within this wider frame of historical interactions does not threaten its values or its relevance in the university rather, it makes it more relevant by revealing its multiple origins, and thus enriching its possibilities as a resource for engaging in political dialogue with the world.      

The accusations of "collectivization" and homogenization are, ironically, impassioned reactions to the reality of university trends moving in the opposite direction towards diversity in both the range of scholarly concerns and the composition of university populations. This has also translated into a more informal classroom and academic culture in contemporary universities where younger scholars from more diverse backgrounds tend to eschew the "sage on the stage" routine of older tweed-jacketed professors, in favor of open class dialogue and debate in which the instructor acts as an experienced moderator. In other words, in both structure and practice, university cultures reflect the diversification of the public sphere in American culture since the Second World War, which has greatly softened the university professor's cultivated veneer of authority, and reduced the distance between students and instructors. Many who attended college in the 1950’s would probably find this atmosphere a bit unsettling, however, the effect has not been to homogenize thought in the university, but to loosen the forms of paternal authority and academic "gatekeeping" that prevented diversification.

Smugness and self-satisfaction will always be a part of university landscapes, but how does this actually separate the domains of higher learning from any other social arena? I witnessed more pretentious social climbing, pathetic pandering to authority, and dismissive arrogance among middle managers in lowly retail jobs than I ever did among accomplished scholars in a university setting. What I appreciated most from my advisors is that they all consistently refused to outline my research for me, or even to help me decide on a topic. This was always my independent task and their input was almost exclusively restricted to advice on writing and presentation. There is little glory in scholarship; the hours are long and the pay not all that great. There are other more lucrative opportunities to satisfy the ego, and winning the slight admiration of a few students is hardly a meaningful endgame for any scholar willing to put up with the lengthy struggle to produce new knowledge. “Brainwashing”, therefore, requires a level of effort and planning that few if any scholars would ever be willing to put into their work. The benefits are just not that interesting for personalities attracted to lonely recesses, personal independence, and the creative challenge of producing new knowledge even if it will only be appreciated by a small number of readers.

Moreover, and this perhaps irritates me the most, is your incredibly arrogant disregard for the capacity of students to weigh the value of their instructor’s opinions against their own, and to maintain a healthy dose of critical distance in the classroom. There is much that goes on in the minds of students that you are not aware of, and it is your hubris that encourages you to believe that any student who expresses values different from your own must be a victim of some other pedagogical sorcery, rather than a critical and judicious thinker in his/her own right. Why, General Doug, do we never hear any of the details of your presentations that supposedly elicited these irrational reactions from academics and students? My impression is that you are someone who takes pleasure in inciting audiences, but then gets defensive and tries to paint himself afterwards as a victim of a witch hunt. I was sixteen once myself General Doug, I know how insecurity can generate some of the most ingenious tactics of manipulation when you lack the emotional resources of an adult.   

My point, Mr. Doug Army Guy, is that there are other more meaningful targets to attack if you insist upon exposing society’s many ills. You might want to consider, however, that the most logical reason for the proliferation of liberal attitudes on university campuses lies in the fact that books of a higher quality than those you cited are hardly in short supply there. I think we found your real culprit General Doug, get the bonfires blazing if you really want to do something about it. I look forward to hearing the responses of your pissant cronies as they derail my lack of professional decorum, obvious indoctrination, or failure “to understand your thesis”. Your supposed thesis was not all that interesting, the passions that motivated it and what it aims to conceal, however, are quite interesting indeed.

Sean Parrish

Duke University History Department                       

Reading this thread reminds me what it must have felt like to watch the fiddlers (on either on the left or the right side of the road) while Rome burnt. Sean, and anyone else who might care about the vitality of liberal arts education, please read The Last Professors (Fordham UP, 2008) by Frank Donoghue.

Thanks "vpiercy". I am familiar with Donoghue's book, though the critique it offers is hardly original, and certainly not as interesting as Bill Readings' classic "University in Ruins" (1996). Since you seem to have an interest in "decline and fall" varieties of historical interpretation, I would start with the Marxist tradition of criticism against  the "corporate university". Readings' book provides a nice bibliography. As for me, I find it difficult to reconcile the broad conclusions these kinds of books offer with my own experiences at the University of South Florida and Duke University. Between 2005-2007 the U.S.F. History department hired six new tenure track professors in American, European, Latin American, Southeast Asian, and Ottoman History. In the short time that I was there the tenured and tenure track faculty increased by 25%. My own experience as an adjunct there came as a result of a personal invitation from my thesis advisor to teach her undergrad course while she was already scheduled to be on sabatical leave.  But I suppose the university should have hired another tenure track early modernist to teach this class that was not scheduled to be offered in the first place. In creating a temporary adjunct position the university offered a young grad student the opportunity to gain valuable teaching experience and offered an added course for students.

Since last year Duke History, which has always hosted a very small student body, has hired three new early modern Europeanists, and two Indian Ocean scholars to buttress its already strong tenured faculty in American and Latin American History. Two of them, John Martin and Enseng Ho, are already well-established senior scholars hired as full tenure faculty. As far as I know Duke History does not hire adjuncts, nor does it shuffle teaching responsibilities down to its grad students. None of this is intended to completely debunk the "corporate university", but to suggest, as I did in my long retort to General Doug's piece, that those who tend to paint with broad brushes often do so from the margins, not the centers of the modern university experience. The competition universities cultivate can generate great scholars as well as an endless stream of axes to grind, there is nothing new to this. Universities, however, did not generate the unprecedented number of applicants at thier doors, this is the result of a wider shift to a knowledge and information based economy that has fueled an education cult in American culture that presumes the university to be the only legitimate vehicle of "success" available. to young people. Different universities have responded in different ways to meet these new demands. The results are not always perfect across the board, but when have they ever been? The Rome is burning rhetoric may be satisfying in presenting a complete picture, but it ultimately reflects a conservative nostalgia for bygone days always ill-defined and poorly remembered.      

Thanks "piercy". One can always spot a closet conservative when he tries to colonize the so-called "middle road" in a debate. Glory be to Glenn Beck. I am familiar with the book you cited, though the critique it offers is hardly original and as old as universities themselves, see P. Grendler "The Universities of the Italian Renaissance." Since you seem to have an interest in "decline and fall" interpretations of history (how shocking), I would point you to Bill Readings' now classic "The University in Ruins" (1997). There you will also encounter an interesting recap of the long history of Marxist criticism against the "corporate university". I do find much of what these broad portraits have to say difficult to reconcile with the fact that U.S.F. expanded its tenure track history faculty by 25% between 2005-07, and expanded into the terrains of Southeast Asia, Ottoman, and Brazilian history. Duke in the last year has hired five tenure positions, three in early modern Europe and two Indian Ocean specialists to add to its aready strong faculty in Latin American and U.S. History. In other words the departments I have worked with have been enjoying significant growth in tenured faculty. I have never seen an adjunct walking the halls at Duke, and quite frankly there aren't enough classes for professors to dump thier undergrad courses onto grad students. My own experience as an adjunct at U.S.F. was the result of a personal invitation from my adviser to teach her course while she was already scheduled to be on sabatical leave. But I suppose the university should have hired another tenure professor to fill a course that was not going to be offered in the first place. 
Universities did not create the massive number of applicants knocking down thier doors, the transition to a knowledge and information based economy did, which has in turn buttressed an education cult in American culture that treats the university as the only legitimate vehicle of "success" for young people. Universities are adapting to new pressures and demands in different ways, just as they always have. Nor do they all follow a logical pattern of either "decadence" or "progress". Liberal Arts education is not going to disapear, its value has been questioned by pratical minded penny pinchers since the late middle ages and by God here it is still being questioned. The real debate is the kind of civic culture liberal arts education is intended to cultivate, one based upon heirarchy and deference to tradition, or one based upon flexible dialogue between the widest possible survey of participants. If General Doug's version of liberal arts education in the university is left uncontested, then more entering students will reject the value of liberal arts education and the move towards the vocational, corporate university will continue because fewer students will demand its presence in the university. Perhaps it is the authoritarian top-down perspective of how societies and institutions work that scews how conservatives and counter cultural critics think about these issues. The significant variables in the shape of institutions are more often the social pressures from the bottom up, not the decisions of old farts in suits deliberating in a secret room. Images of Rome burning may offer a satisfying complete image, but they almost always stem from an uninformed nostalgia for a more pure past ill-defined and poorly remembered. So you see piercy, the real debate is between the fiddlers, why don't you spare us your facade of neutrality and join in?                    

I agreed with the first part of your piece about the student who argued with your characterization of military culture despite the fact she was completely ignorant on the subject. I liked the part when you said, “So let us review. You have no personal experience or knowledge of the military. You have not studied the military. You cannot explain why you disagree with me."

Then I got to this:

“I believe the arguments presented in those articles are scientifically sound, and I am not at all convinced that human-caused global warming is occurring,” I replied.

I couldn't finish your article after reading this. Your stance against the case for human-caused global warming is not very different from the student's stance against the military: it comes from a position of ignorance (and, likely, no small amount of prejudice). You've been misled by those articles much as the student was misled by her philosophy teacher, and like her, you offer no evidence or reasoning to back up your beliefs, only that you "believe" this and you're "not at all convinced" of that. Furthermore, your position goes against scientific consensus, much as the student's position goes against your expert assessment on the nature of military culture.

Unless you are a qualified scientist who has honestly studied all the evidence for anthropogenic global warming and found it lacking, your stance is the height of arrogance. You think that reading a few articles (probably from political magazines, as opposed to peer-reviewed scientific journals) gives you authority to proclaim man-made global warming to be a lie, against decades of research by thousands of scientists who say it is, in fact, real. It is not my opinion, but a fact, that a large majority of scientists, particularly those working in the climate field, have formed a consensus that anthropogenic global warming is reality. How are you different than that student who refused to let herself be swayed by, and showed open hostility to, the assessment of an expert with firsthand experience?

To “A Giant Slor”,

I appreciate your comments and questions. Respectfully, I think you have made some incorrect assumptions because of your decision to not finish reading the article. I recognize that the subject of global warming is hotly debated and sometimes the level of exchange is rather low. Other than the sentence you quoted, I said nothing more concerning global warming. The article did not argue for or against any position on global warming. You wrongly implied that I have shown hostility to those who argue that global warming is real and human caused. You wrongly implied that I do not recognize expertise. I do recognize expertise, including the expertise of those within the climate field that argue soundly that humans are not a significant factor in global warming or that recent climate variations are natural occurrences. Based on these scientists’ well argued positions, I am still not convinced that human-caused global warming is occurring or if it is occurring that it is significant. I am impressed by sound argument and science, not by consensus. “Consensus” is not a scientific argument, but has been a tool use by some to discourage disagreement. Many notable scientists opposed a consensus opinion at one time or another, and were later proved correct. While I am not a climate scientist, neither am I ignorant concerning the subject or hostile to those with different opinions. Please note that the student in the first section of the article was hostile, angry, emotionally driven, ignorant and not interested in learning. The issue with the student in the section of the article where global warming was mentioned was not her belief or disbelief in global warming, but her surprising response, her personal motive for supporting the theory of human caused global warming and her attitude toward people and honesty in general. If you find time to finish the article I believe you will see the true point I was trying to make. Thank you for your feedback.

Doug Campbell