Category Archives: Uncategorized

A representative of an organization I had never previously heard of–despite 15+ years in the ‘groves of academe’ –has mounted a robust defense of Mitch Daniels’ censorship efforts.According to Google, The National Institute of Scholars “was founded to bring together conservatives in academia to fight the “liberal bias” on college and university campuses and to target multiculturalism and affirmative-action policies.”

Titled “Mitch Daniels was Right,” it was an apologist’s spin on the emails, taking considerable liberties with the characterization of their contents. But inaccuracies are almost beside the point. These “scholars” spend their time attacking the value of Howard Zinn’s work–a focus that demonstrates an utter obliviousness to the issue.

Let’s be clear. Daniels was perfectly within his rights to express his opinion of Zinn (who, incidentally, had been critical of Daniels’ tenure as Budget Director, although surely that had nothing to do with Daniels animus..). The Governor was NOT within his rights to dictate what can and  cannot be taught in public school or university classrooms, and certainly not within his rights to try to cut off funding for a respected academic program because the scholar in charge of that program had been critical of his education policies. He can criticize, he can generate a conversation with the appropriate people if he feels strongly enough that something does not belong in the classroom, but he is not the “decision-maker,” to appropriate a term favored by the President he last served.

There is a huge difference between a scholarly consensus that–for example–creationism isn’t science, or that the work of a particular historian is too error-ridden to merit inclusion in the classroom, and having an elected official, a government actor, dictate what scholars may teach. That’s why the merits  of Zinn’s work are ultimately beside the point. The question is, as I said in my previous post, WHO DECIDES?

If academic freedom means anything, it means that scholars make these decisions free of government interference. I get to be horrified when a creationist is given a science classroom because there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that says creationism isn’t science. I get to sound the alarm when someone teaches that the Holocaust never occurred, because historians of every ideology overwhelmingly acknowledge that it did. If Daniels was entitled to dictate what constitutes acceptable history or “good” science, we would soon find ourselves in a world where Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachmann are making decisions that should be made by the scholars in those disciplines.

It is noteworthy that even several scholars whom Daniels cited in his defense of his position on Zinn–scholars he claims supported his views–have weighed in to oppose him.

Michael Kammen disagreed with Daniels’ belief that Zinn “intentionally falsified” his work. While Kammen might not recommend the use of Zinn’s book in schools today, it is “only because it was written 35 years ago and there are now more balanced and judicious treatments of the US survey.” Kammen also rejected Daniels’ view about banning Zinn’s work from professional development classes for teachers: “I think that some teachers might need to know about its emphases because when Zinn wrote the US history textbooks omitted a great deal. Although it is not a great book, it remains a kind of historiographical landmark.  Teachers should at least be aware of it.” And Kammen emphatically opposed the idea of politicians deciding what books should be used in schools rather than historians and teachers: “Absolutely not!”

As John K. Wilson wrote on the Academe blog of the AAUP,

Of course, these critics of Zinn don’t necessarily represent a historical consensus about his work. There are many historians and educators who praise Zinn’s book. But there’s a big difference between academic criticism of a historian’s work, and a desire to see politicians banning him from the classroom. There are plenty of thinkers whom I strongly condemn, such as David Horowitz, but I don’t want to see him banned from classrooms. In fact, I’ve taught his work in my own classes.

No one objects to the fact that Daniels criticized Zinn’s work. Daniels’ attack on Zinn is so purely political (“anti-American”), so dishonest (“purposely falsified”), and so stupid (“phrenology”) that it raises serious questions about Daniels’ ability to do or even understand academic work.

But what’s most objectionable about Daniels is his desire to censor to Zinn’s work. And contrary to what he believes, that effort to censor teaching Zinn’s book is not supported, not even by the historians Daniels cites to justify what he did.

By focusing their arguments on the merits or errors of Zinn’s work, Daniels’ defenders not only miss the point: they reinforce the perception that Daniels does not belong at a major university.

 

Comments

When I first entered academia, and was inaugurated into the arcane process of scholarly publishing, a colleague thoughtfully provided me with a “cheat sheet”–a list of terms/criticisms used by “peer reviewers” and their real meanings. So, for example, a reviewer’s complaint “I cannot understand how the author could write an entire paper on X without referencing the seminal work of Dr. Y” should be understood as “I’m Dr. Y.”

In that spirit, let me suggest the actual meanings of otherwise respectable terms being thrown around by our lawmakers these days.

The phrase: redistribution. As in very bad.  Conservative lawmakers insist it is not the government’s job to take from one taxpayer to benefit others.  The meaning: public programs to help poor people. Tax breaks and huge subsidies for businesses like corporate farms and oil companies aren’t redistribution.

The phrase: pro-life. Reverence for life, which is seen as God-given. The meaning: reverence for the human fetus. Is not inconsistent with support for war, the death penalty, indifference to the well-being of ‘after-born’ children or threats to the lives or well-being of the female breeding environment.

The phrase: socialism. See “redistribution.” The meaning: Anything supported by the Obama Administration, including programs first proposed by Republicans and conservative think-tanks.

The phrase: sucking at the public teat. Description of undeserving people who receive any sort of government benefits. The meaning: programs that help other people.

The phrase: national defense. Keeping America safe. The meaning: Any weapon the military wants–and even weapons systems the military says it doesn’t need. Not at all inconsistent with invading countries that pose no threat to the United States. Evidence that supporters have really big weenies.

The phrase: job creation. Government policies to spur economic growth.The meaning: tax breaks for rich people. Does not include anything else, and certainly not public works projects to repair America’s decaying infrastructure. Is not inconsistent with wholesale layoffs of public school teachers, police and firefighters and other public employees. See “sucking at the public teat.”

The phrase: environmental protection. Measures to address the threat of climate change.  The meaning: trusting God to care for His creation. Does not include efforts to reduce carbon emissions and is not inconsistent with gutting clean energy programs. Requires the continuation of massive subsidies to the richest oil companies.

See how much fun this is? I bet you can come up with literally hundreds more.

Of course, these terms all mean something very different to rational people, and therein lies the problem. Policymakers are speaking different languages.

Comments

Referring to the states as “laboratories of democracy” is commonplace in federal jurisprudence–a reverential (if somewhat inaccurate),usually pro-forma bow to our system of federalism, in which states retain substantial areas of sovereignty. The idea is that the Founders left significant authority with the states and those states, with their different political cultures, would try different approaches to lawmaking.  Some would work, some wouldn’t, but the nation as a whole is thought to benefit–to draw lessons from the various policy experiments.

The reality, of course, has been somewhat less benign. “States rights” has been a slogan and defense for a lot of pretty racist policies (and not just in the past)–policies the federal government should not have countenanced. In reality, “states rights” tend to be honored when the states are doing stuff that Washington approves, either overtly or tacitly. Let a state exercise its presumed autonomy in ways the feds disapprove–by legalizing medical marijuana or permitting assisted suicide, for example–and all that pious respect for federalism and state autonomy tends to disappear.

So it will be very interesting to watch the reactions to recent experiments in Oregon and Vermont.

Oregon is tackling the very real problem of massive student debt:

The state legislature unanimously passed a bill this month that would allow students to attend public universities without paying anything up front. Instead, the proposal, called Pay It Forward, would require students to pay back a set percentage of their post-graduation income for around two decades. The bill does not specify an exact percent or duration, but supporters say it would likely be 3 percent of a student’s income — or 1.5 percent for graduates of a two-year college — for 20-25 years.

Vermont is doing something even gutsier: it has passed a single-payer health plan.

 [It is] a law that sets Vermont on a course to provide health care for all of its 620,000 citizens through a European-style single payer system called Green Mountain Care. Key components include containing costs by setting reimbursement rates for health care providers and streamlining administration into a single, state-managed system. The federal health care reform law would not allow Vermont to enact single payer until 2017; Vermont is asking the administration to grant it a waiver so that it can get there even faster, by 2014.

I have not looked at the specifics of either of these initiatives, and as all policy nerds know, the devil is always in the details. So I’m not here to tell you that either state is ushering in Nirvana or even the Next Best Thing. But it is certainly refreshing to see lawmakers trying to solve real problems, rather than spending their time telling women what we can do with our uterii (uteruses??), or figuring out how to keep people from voting.

I wonder how the do-nothings in Washington–most of whom routinely pay lip service to “states rights”– will react to these experiments.

They should be embarrassed by the contrast. But that would require at least a modicum of self-awareness.

Comments