The Higher Unlearning

Jay Schalin and Shannon Watkins once again prove that the Popery emanating from the Martin Center is intended to take its readers to brave new worlds Where No Conservative Could Ever Recognize Himself.  This time the cause celebre is the Silent Sam statue controversy in Chapel Hill. And the staff of the Martin Center thinks it has discovered the reason that protesters did not pull down the statue or punch neo-fascist hate-mongers in the face: They want their readers to know that the authority of the kakistocracy was on full display 'standing athwart' the lunatics of social justice. It was the remarkable influence of a couple dozen (smiling and friendly) campus and local cops, the fear of (non)consequences from a free speech policy that hasn't been promulgated, and the (un)remarkable (non)bravery of the Chapel Hill Board of Trustees to listen to the barbarism of articulate students and faculty, that held the mongrels of liberalism in check. What courage! What fortitude!...

Surfing around on the Pope Center site, I came across this provocative exchange. There was a very interesting essay by Robert Lawson , who, in trying to defend so-called "free enterprise" centers against irresponsible forms of interference in academic work, ended up arguing against much of what the Pope Center wants to do about "leftists" on campus. (I address the conceptualization of "leftists" and  "free enterprise" in another post about the Pope Center.)   Former UNC Faculty Assembly Chair Stephen Leonard saw the contradiction and called out this bit of Popery. I am posting Leonard's response here, with permission from the author. 

Pope Center analyst George Leef again proves that ideological fear-mongering using political party identification as a surrogate for actual arguments is just silly. See Leef's essay, "College Faculties are Mostly Leftist and Becoming More So." I post my response here: Anyone who thinks that Democrats are by definition "left of center" suffers from a rather pronounced form of partisan tribalism. My very long experience in the academy suggests that most professors, both Democrats and Republicans, are conservative and liberal centrists, and that there are precious few who can be described as "leftists" or "rightists".

  Alex Contarino once again demonstrates why history and facts are critically important things for talking about the academy -- and especially when cogitating about the state of the academic disciplines. There is something odd about contemporary (so-called) conservative attitudes toward history: they are all for understanding the past, but they always interpret the past in presentist terms.  Lamenting the absence of "balance" in UNC Chapel Hill Economics courses, Contarino makes the all-too-common student mistake of confusing their myopic experiences in college with an authoritative view of what universities -- and especially big, complicated research universities like Chapel Hill -- have to offer. Apparently blinkered by his aversion to courses in the other social disciplines, Contarino takes the Economic faculty to task for not teaching what he wants. What he should have been doing is looking for what he wants in other departments, and if he doesn't like the partic...

Alex Contarino demonstrates how not to think about issues of access, arguing "Yes, There is Such a Thing as Too Much Enrollment Growth."  That may well be true -- if you don't want the privileged to compete with talented folks of modest means.  Follow the link for Contarino's essay; I post my response here.