ONE evening I was getting into the crowded lift at my local tube station in Central London, to go down to the train. As the doors closed a middle-aged gentleman squeezed in. I recognised him as a fairly distinguished professor of history from the University of London School of Advanced Study, where I directed the philosophy program. As we descended he suddenly blurted out to everyone and no one: ‘That's it; I've had it. What they're doing to our arts faculties is a complete disgrace.' We looked at our feet as he went on about the government, university administrators and the general ruin of intellectual culture.
I don't know what made him snap at that moment. But the professor in the lift has for me become a symbol of the view that the humanities are hard done-by and that they are in decline – or at least in an extended period of trouble – through no fault of their own, but because of bad decisions by others.
In less dramatic ways I have heard this analysis restated many times during my years in Australia: the academic humanities are doing a good job; they are fine, serious and important disciplines, staffed by able and sincere people. But governments and university administrators set impossible targets, demand crazy workloads, cut budgets, reducing staff numbers and imposing a stultifying managerial regime, and generally forcing the humanities onto the defensive.
There's a simple and morally necessary solution, according to this view: increase our funding, then leave us alone.
When I arrived in Australia, in 2001, this analysis seemed to cohere with a political assumption, even a political blindness. In the years during which John Howard was Prime Minister many humanities academics assumed that he was personally responsible for their situation. A Prime Minister is a terrifying adversary, but also cause for submerged optimism. Howard would (eventually) be defeated and – the thinking went – because he was the sole cause of the troubles, the good times would roll again.
There was in the humanities a generalised, and very honest, inability to imagine John Howard as anything other than an aberration, sustained by deceit and media manipulation, rather than as a man who was exceptionally adept at expressing widespread opinions.
Consequently, there was no self-examination: there was no hint that the humanities might themselves have contributed to their troubles, that they may have failed to win sufficient public respect and admiration to carry weight in national life.
I BELIEVE THE academic humanities require radical reform – not just in their institutional framework but in their intellectual self-conception, their sense of purpose, of mission even; in their habits of mind, their modes of admiration and the direction of effort. Ironically, such reform is needed to return the humanities to their grandest, most longstanding ambitions. Wisdom should be powerful in the world: that is why we teach, research, and engage the public.
And that is why this essay is called ‘Reformation and renaissance'. I want to show how reform is needed in order to accomplish something magnificent and serious. There is a tendency in the humanities to hear a call for reform as a threat. Calls for reform always seem to come from people who don't especially care about the humanities. I want to change that association and to connect the idea of reform to the pursuit of great educational endeavours.
“This is slavery, not to speak one's thought.” ― Euripides, The Phoenician Women
Sunday, October 20, 2013
John Armstrong: Reformation & Renaissance
Monday, October 14, 2013
The DiploMad 2.0: Is it 1854, yet?
The standard meme in a typical American history class or book, and in the media, holds that so-called third parties have no realistic prospect for success in the USA. The leadership of both major parties, naturally, agree with this interpretation and are eager to stifle any moves to create a party outside of the long established two party system--the Democratic party, by the way, has a legitimate claim to be the world's oldest political party. A quick glance through American political history would seem to support the conventional wisdom's argument against a "third" party. We have several examples typically served up to us as part of the cautionary tale. One of the most famous efforts was Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party, aka Bull Moose Party, which he launched in 1912, after becoming upset with Republican President Taft's failure to pursue TR's "progressive" agenda. TR's party succeeded in knocking the Republicans out of the White House for one of the few times since 1861, and putting in place the calamitous Woodrow Wilson. While the Bull Moose Party crumbled away within a few years, many of its platform planks eventually became accepted, e.g., women's suffrage, eight hour day, a form of social security. Another notable "third" party effort came in 1948, with the States's Rights Democratic Party, better known as the "Dixiecrats." Headed by Senator Strom Thurmond, this party argued, inter alia, for the right of Southern states to maintain racial segregation. Former two-time FDR Vice President Henry Wallace's hard left, pro-USSR Progressive Party--another "third" party effort in that same election-- also syphoned off Democratic votes in some key constituencies. Between these two "third" parties eating away at Democratic votes, Truman almost lost the 1948 election to Dewey, but managed to eke out a win. Both of the 1948 "third" parties quickly disappeared. There are other examples, of course, such as George Wallace's American Independent Party, John Anderson's Independents, Patrick Buchanan Reform Party, H. Ross Perot's Independent Party which also failed to win the White House but, nevertheless, had considerable impact on their respective elections and on post-election political developments. There are, of course, other examples of "third" parties.
Oops! Missing, of course, from this history of "third" parties is none other than the Republican Party, itself. Without going into a detailed history, widely available (see for example, Eric Foner's, Free Soil Free Labor, Free Men), the Republican Party began in 1854 with a mix of anti-slavery Whigs and Democrats appalled by the perceived collusion of the Whigs and the Democrats in allowing slavery not only to remain but to expand westward. The Republicans ran their own candidate, explorer and war hero John Fremont in 1856. Although the campaign lost to Democrat Buchanan, it succeeded in destroying the ossified Whig party and lining up the Republicans for victory in 1860 with Lincoln.
I am not saying--necessarily--that we are at the point of seeking the destruction of the GOP a la the Whigs. I think, however, that the GOP establishment needs reminding of their own party's origins. My gut feeling is that the Tea "Party" cum movement has been growing, despite the media's repeated announcement of its death and attempts to throw it in a grave. This movement still, as noted, is somewhat inchoate; that some might argue is a source of strength in that there is no single Tea leader who can be disgraced by the media, and, hence, bring down the movement. At various times the media seek to name a politician or another as leader of the Tea party, and go gunning for him or her. They fail to understand that unlike the Bull Moose, the Dixiecrat, or most other "third" parties, this is a movement driven not by a dominant personality but by everyday working and tax-paying Americans fed up with the state of the country and the quality of leadership and thought dominating our political discourse. I would like to see the Tea movement take over the GOP and turn it into a genuinely conservative alternative to the progressive Democratic party, rather than have to go through setting itself up as a "third" party. That option, nevertheless, should not be discarded all too quickly.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Tuxedoed 1 Percenters Party at Kennedy Center During Washington Shutdown
We were there last night for opening of The Washington National Opera's La Forza del Destino (The Force of Destiny) -- more like "The Twerk of Destiny" in a Crunkfest-style production featuring strippers, pole-dancers and Pulp Fiction gangstas...Don't know what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sitting a few rows in front of us, thought of it, though in my youth it was the kind of show the National Organization for Women routinely protested as "degrading to women." But burlesque has somehow become politically correct, don't ask me why...Had to be, as one scene featured a waving red banner, and you don't need a Ph.D. in semiotics to tell you what way that wind was blowing...
In any case, back to the shutdown angle: Lots of swells ogling the strippers, squeezed in their tuxedos, all dressed up for the opening night reception...even saw super-lawyer Kenneth Feinberg in a tuxedo...a true convention of the 1 percent...subsidized by US Taxpayers locked out of the National Zoo, National Mall, and WWII Memorial.
More from the Washington Post, here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/10/14/politicians-a-no-show-at-washington-national-operas-opener/
Agustin Blazquez: How To Recognize A Dictator
Thursday, October 10, 2013
‘My country first’: James Woods doesn’t ‘expect to work again’ after brutally honest criticism of Obama
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
The DiploMad 2.0: Progressivism, Chaos, Tyranny, and the Community O...
Chaos in the service of tyranny. The only way to defeat this is to stop the encroachment of government on our lives and begin a serious campaign of rollback.
Sunday, October 06, 2013
Eliyho Matz: Sometimes a Knish is Just a Knish...
Friday, October 04, 2013
The DiploMad 2.0: A Few Friday Thoughts
Execution on DC Streets by Peter Van Buren
We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People by Peter Van Buren
Outside America’s non-working Capitol Building yesterday, cops killed an unarmed woman with a baby in her car after the car had crashed and was stationery. When the cops had her stopped the first time, she did not fire any shots or give any indication she had a weapon.
Not that anyone noticed, but cops in the DC area killed another unarmed citizen on Tuesday.
Typical rules of engagement for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan require someone to brandish a weapon before he can be blasted away. Not always followed, but cops in America do not even have the paper restriction. I’ve written elsewhere about making life-and-death decisions in ambiguous wartime situations.
We all know that cops have a dangerous job; they know that too. I know they are scared, dealing with unclear, threatening situations.
But none of that grants them the right to conduct executions on our streets.
- See more at: http://wemeantwell.com/#sthash.up0J3mUp.dpuf
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
Monday, September 30, 2013
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Wisconsin TA Rejects Diversity Training Requirement
Saturday, September 28, 2013
The DiploMad 2.0: The "Collapse" of Obamacare? Don't Bet On It
Friday, September 27, 2013
Al Gore's Brookings Hate Speech Made Me Quit Email List
Not rendering correctly? View this email as a web page here.
Good afternoon,
If you joined us online this morning for former Vice President Al Gore's address at the launch of the new Center for Effective Public Management, you were among the first to hear his remarks about the potential U.S. government shutdown.
"Political Terrorism" was the term Gore used to refer to threats to shut down the government and default on the U.S. debt in his keynote address at this morning's event.
John Hudak highlighted Gore's words on the Center's new blog, FixGov, writing that they emphasized the importance of the Center's work to understand political dysfunction and create real reform.
You can watch video of Gore's remarks and read John's blog post on FixGov:"Why does partisanship have anything to do with such a despicable and dishonorable threat to the integrity of the United States of America?" Gore asked these questions and more, which are fully outlined in a summary of the event's major moments:
Forthcoming research from the new Center will address these vital issues as it works to identify and solve political and governance challenges in 21st century America. As Gore remarked, the Center's work will be at "the heart of what we need to do to make the United States of America what our Founders intended and what our people deserve."
Tell NY City Council to Save New York Public Library!
Dear Library Supporter,
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD AT A CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON THE FUTURE OF OUR LIBRARIES!
On Monday, Sept 30, 2013, at 1:00 p.m. at 250 Broadway, 16th Floor Committee Room, a very important Public Hearing about Capital Construction Needs and Potential Disposal of Libraries in NYC will take place. The Agenda can be found online here:
The City Council’s Committee on Cultural Affairs, Libraries, and International Intergroup Relations is holding the hearing.
It’s very important that as many people testify as possible against the Central Library Plan and the sale of public libraries, and on behalf of the needs of library users all over the city. We need to take advantage of this unique opportunity to testify. If you don’t want to testify you can still show your support just by being there. There is strength in numbers!
Please arrive a half hour early (12:30 pm) to go through security, and bring valid photo ID with you.
For more information, see "The Truth About the Central Library Plan": www.savenypl.org/the-truth-about-the-central-library-plan/
The Committee to Save the New York Public Library
232 East 11th Street
New York, NY 10003
info@savenypl.org
www.savenypl.org
facebook: Save NYPL
on twitter @saveNYPL
This message was sent by Committee to Save the New York Public Library using the Change.orgsystem. You received this email because you signed a petition started by Committee to Save the New York Public Library on Change.org: "Anthony W. Marx: Reconsider the $350 million plan to remake NYC's landmark central library." Change.org does not endorse contents of this message.