In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Conservatives: Supporting Anti-Intellectualism Since 1945

Amanda nicely sums up the conservative backlash against intellectualism, academia, and the “elitism” of people who value education and reality. Read her post, then come back here and check out these fitting examples:

First, we have a UCLA alumni group tracking “radical” professors — that is, any professors whose personal beliefs don’t fit into a conservative mold, or who challenge their students in class in a way that makes some people uncomfortable. The group actually pays students to take notes and tape-record their lectures as a means to intimidate and target particular professors. Two board members of the alumni group and former professors have resigned over this.

On one of its websites, the Bruin Alumni Group names education professor Peter McLaren as No. 1 on its “The Dirty Thirty: Ranking the Worst of the Worst.” It says “this Canadian native teaches the next generation of teachers and professors how to properly indoctrinate students.”

McLaren, in a telephone interview, called the alumni group’s tactics “beneath contempt.”

“Any sober, concerned citizen would look at this and see right through it as a reactionary form of McCarthyism. Any decent American is going to see through this kind of right-wing propaganda. I just find it has no credibility,” he said.

The website also lists history professor Ellen DuBois, saying she “is in every way the modern female academic: militant, impatient, accusatory, and radical — very radical.”

Gotta love the sexism woven in there, right? Not to mention the academic McCarthyism.

Next up we’ve got a nice bit from our favorite Copyeditor for Christ, Dawn Eden: Censoring books is just dandy. From an article she links to:

There are few very libraries today in which I would leave my 13-year-old son unescorted, because, unfortunately, the protection and safety of our children is simply no longer a priority for libraries or for the ALA. That may sound harsh, but it’s true and the shrill cry of censorship one constantly hears emanating from the ALA is really disturbing considering the shocking books they defend.

Unbeknownst to most people, a new wave of literature called “authentic literature” hit our public school libraries over the last few years. The ALA claims such books portray American life and culture in a more realistic fashion. But they don’t. These books feature druggies, sex addicts, pedophiles, gang members and others on the fringes of society. Increasingly, this literature is replacing the traditional literature classics, which, in general, promoted mainstream American values or at least didn’t undermine them.

Books that don’t promote traditional American values? Please protect me!

Of course, Dawn just finished writing a book (“The Thrill of the Chaste” — and no, I did not make that up. I couldn’t possibly), but naturally hers upholds great American values like slut-shaming and passing off your daughter’s virginity from father to husband like the piece of property it (and she) is. Now, this is the kind of book that I would never let my kids get their hands on, since I would kind of like them to grow up valuing themselves for virtues other than an intact hymen. But I also wouldn’t flip out and demand that my local library ban it because its content doesn’t fit into my personal value system.

The books that used to inspire; which celebrated American values; that chronicled the exploits of trailblazers, astronauts, soldiers, and other heroes, are fast disappearing. And their replacements are books like: “A Woman in Heat Wiping Herself,” “Outside the Operating Room of a Sex-Change Doctor,” and the “Rainbow Boys,” a story of three homosexual boys and the various routes they took in “coming out.”

…but how would he feel about a book focusing on the experience of trailblazing gay heroic soldier astronauts and their various routes in coming out? Would that be ok?

Alas, no. It seems that the whole homo thing really gets under this guy’s skin:

Nowhere is the ALA’s bias more obvious than issues regarding homosexuality. The ALA’s huge Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Round Table works closely with many of the nation’s gay activist groups to place into libraries books glorifying the homosexual lifestyle. As a result, one will often find the ratio of pro-homosexual books to books critical of the gay agenda massively in favor of the former. Books by ex-gays are nearly impossible to find. Among the numerous pro-gay workshops at ALA’s annual convention are Building and Promoting GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) Children’s and Young Adult Collections. The homosexual books most heavily promoted by the ALA are those which receive its “Stonewall Award” like, “At Swim,” “Two Boys,” and “Lawnboy,” both replete with pedophilia themes. Nor is it uncommon to find in today’s libraries graphic homosexual newspapers rife with obscene personal ads.

You mean that the American Library Association tries to carry pieces of literature that are fine enough to earn an award from the American Library Association? It’s insanity!

The ALA’s bias is so obvious that when parent groups have offered to place books in libraries with conservative themes or are critical of the left, the ALA’s claims of being First Amendment guardians suddenly look fraudulent. When one parent tried to donate George Grant’s book, “Killer Angel,” a critical biography of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, the library sent a letter stating that “the author’s political and social agenda…is not appropriate.” Huh? A biographical book with zero profanity is banned but books that feature the “F” word a hundred times are sought after with zeal. Go figure.

Libraries do have limited space, and they can’t carry everything. They certainly aren’t going to fill their shelves with ridiculous screeds like this one. And no, I don’t think it’s ridiculous just because I disagree with the author. It’s ridiculous because it hardly even counts as a “biography” — it’s a raging screed chock full of personal opinion, lacking any attempt at balance, that isn’t taken seriously by anyone outside of the politicized pro-life movement.

Using the f-word repeatedly doesn’t make a piece of literature “bad.” Not doing your research and attempting to pass off an extremist opinion piece as a “biography” is bad. It’s not all that complicated.

The ALA response to parental complaints was the creation a few years ago of a national event they call “Banned Books Week” in which outrageous charges are made about parents supposedly attempting to ban classics like “Huckleberry Finn” and “Of Mice and Men.” It’s an ingenious tactic considering the ALA seems intent on phasing out the classics. However, parent researchers and bloggers have found many of these allegations to be false or grossly exaggerated; for example, the ALA counts as censorship incidents in which a parent simply requests that the school or library be more age selective when assigning books or amend a teacher’s mandatory reading list to include other books not so offensive.

Thankfully, the author of this piece gives us a direct link to “Parents Against Bad Books in Schools,” an organization that does attempt to ban pieces of literature that they deem “bad.” So their list must only include totally extreme left-wing homo-agenda books, right? Because like he said, lefties like the American Library Association have grossly exaggerated what these books are actually about. Let’s take a look at some of the dirty, despicable books on the list (I’ve picked out the books that I’m familiar with; there are many more listed):

Alice on the Outside – Naylor, Phyllis Reynolds
All Over But the Shoutin’ – Bragg, Rick
All the Pretty Horses – McCarthy, Cormac
Animal Dreams – Kingsolver, Barbara
Be True to Your School: A Diary of 1964 – Greene, Bob
Beloved – Morrison, Toni
Black Boy – Wright, Richard
Chronicle of a Death Foretold – Marquez, Gabriel Garcia
Go Ask Alice – Anonymous
Going After Cacciato – O’Brien, Tim
Growing Up Chicana/o – Lopez, Tiffany Ana
How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents – Alvarez, Julia
In Cold Blood – Capote, Truman
Like Water for Chocolate – Esquivel, Laura
Living by the Word – Walker, Alice
Love in the Time of Cholera – Garcia Marquez, Gabriel
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest – Kesey, Ken
One Hundred Years of Solitude – Garcia Marquez, Gabriel
Paula – Allende, Isabel
Ragtime – Doctorow, E.L.
Slaughterhouse Five – Vonnegut, Kurt
Snow falling on cedars – Guterson, David
Song of Solomon – Morrison, Toni
Stones from the River – Hegi, Ursula
The Awakening – Chopin, Kate
The Bean Trees – Kingsolver, Barbara
The Bluest Eye – Morrison, Toni
The Catcher in the Rye – Salinger, J.D.
The Color Purple – Walker, Alice
The Country Ahead of Us, the Country Behind – Guterson, David
The Giver – Lowry, Lois
The Handmaid’s Tale – Atwood, Margaret
The Hot Zone – Preston, Richard
The House of Spirits – Allende, Isabel
The House on Mango Street – Cisneros, Sandra
The Joy Luck Club – Tan, Amy
The King Must Die – Renault, Mary
The Name of the Rose – Eco, Umberto
The Perks of Being a Wallflower – Chbosky, Stephen
The Power of One – Courtenay, Bryce
The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole – Townsend, Sue
The things they carried – O’Brien, Tim
Then Again, Maybe I Won’t – Blume, Judy
Things Fall Apart – Achebe, Chinua
This Boy’s Life – Wolff, Tobias
Weetzie Bat – Block, Francesca Lia

Not big fans of Toni Morrison, Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Tim O’Brien, are we? That’s ok, they’re dirty pornographers. But my favorite part is where they list the despicable themes and quotes from selected books. Like:

The Awakening:
– Written in 1899, classic literature frequently taught in AP Literature
– Adultery, suicide, abandoment of children, self-indulgence, sex separate from love are issues/themes in the book

The Bluest Eye
– “.. mother comes.. she rubs the Vicks salve on my chest until I am faint… puts it in my mouth, telling me to swallow… later I throw up… What did you puke.. for? Don’t you have sense… think I got time for nothing but washing up your puke? The puke swaddles down the pillow onto the sheet-green-gray, with flecks of orange. It moves like the inside of an uncooked egg… clinging to its own mass… mother drones on.. talking to the puke, but she is calling it my name..”
– “.old crazy nigger she married up with..”
– “Some men just dogs.”
– “..to scare the living shit out of you, you get up at 5:30 in the morning.. see that old hag..”
– “He ever been married to anybody? No. How come? Somebody cut it off?”
– “I destroyed white baby dolls… dismembering of dolls… transference of same impulses to little white girls.. indifference with which I could have axed them was shaken only by my desire to do so. … If I pinched them, their eyes… would fold in pain… their cry… a fascinating cry of pain…. best hiding place was love. Thus the conversion from pristine sadism to fabricated hatred, to fraudulent love.”
– “You want to go to Mr. H’s room and look at his girlie magazines?… Lets go to the Greek hotel and listen to them cuss.”

The Color Purple:
– Book is a series of letters written to God or her sister about the events of the main character’s (Celie) life. Language includes: Goddamn, bitch, shit, nigger, and fuck.
-Controversial material starts on page 1:”I am 14 years old… [after the baby was born her dad] was pulling on her [mom’s]arm. She say it too soon.. I ain’t well.. A week go by, he pulling on her arm again. She say Naw, I ain’t gonna.. she went to visit her sister.. [her dad] say You gonna do what your mammy wouldn’t. First he put his thing up against my hip and sort of wiggle it around. Then he grab hold my titties. then he push his thing inside my pussy. when that hurt, I cry. he start to choke me, saying You better shut up and git used to it. But i don’t ever git used to it. And now I feels sick every time I be the one to cook.”
-“My mamma dead. She died screaming and cussing. She scream at me. She cuss at me. I’m big…. She ast me about the first one Whose is it? I say God’s.. my stomach start moving and then that little baby come out my pussy chewing on it fist.. She ast Where is it? I say God took it. He [her dad] took it while I was sleeping. Kilt it out there in the woods. Kill this one too, if he can.”
-“He took my other little baby, a boy this time. But I don’t think he kilt it. I think he sold it to a man and his wife… I got breasts full of milk running down myself. He say Why don’t you look decent?.. I been hoping he find somebody to marry. I see him looking at my little sister. She scared.”
-“He come home with a girl.. She be my age but they married. He be on her all the time.”

Horrific. Even worse — some of these books talk about people smoking.

Thanks for the link to the list- did not read the entire list, but will say I let the local public library know I wasn’t thrilled with the content of some of the graphic novels for teens. I am not talking educational biology. The behavior that is written about so casually is not casual behavior- in many cases it is unhealthy, & introducing these kinds of behaviors to underage children to me is endangering their welfare.

Let’s just say it starts with characters who, among other things, smoke.

Cigarette companies have gotten into trouble for targeting children.

But it can seep into the K-12 section of the libraries, that our tax dollars support?

My tax dollars will not support Jesus-hating behavior like mentioning the fact that some people smoke cigarettes!

Perhaps I’m just bitter because some of my favorite books and stories (like the three listed above) are on a list suggesting that they’re “bad” and not representative of American values. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that so many of the books on the list focus on the experience of non-whites in America and elsewhere (all the Toni Morrison books, the Gabriel Garcia Marquez books, Alice Walker, Sandra Cisneros, Luis Rodriguez, Julia Alvarez, David Guterson, etc). Being offending at the word “nigger” in a book set 100 years ago (or 50 years ago, or 10 years ago) in the United States is ridiculous. Or, perhaps I should rephrase — we should be offended, but the answer isn’t to target the author as if they were racists who invented the word. Writers detail the human experience. Often, the human experience involves things like sex, hatred, death, ugliness, racism, cursing, homosexuality, variants on religion, selfishness, non-whiteness, and imperfection. The human experience often finds beauty in, out of, or in spite of these things. That is what authors try and capture, not a peachy-keen view of middle-class whiteness where everyone is happy, healthy, and heterosexual. Suggesting further that anything deviating from this picture threatens “American values” is a slap in the face for anyone who lives outside of the “mainstream culture” myth (and that’s most of us, though some are further out than others). The book-banning movement lives in fear of any authentic experience other than their own, which fears sexuality, non-whiteness, any deviation from compulsory heterosexuality, and female empowerment. It comes out of the anti-intellectual right, obsessed with destroying “elitism” by restoring traditional values of bigotry, racism, homophobia, and misogyny. And, sorry, but if “values” means that I have to hate beautiful pieces of literature because they portray the realistic experience of some Americans, you can have them. I’ll take elitism any day.


37 thoughts on Conservatives: Supporting Anti-Intellectualism Since 1945

  1. As a librarian, though not in a public library, I need to say that no one should be leaving their children in any library. The librarians are not childcare workers, they are not paid to be responsible for your children, and they are not licensed to be responsible for your children. Every public librarian I know has stories about not being able to close and go home because some kid’s parents didn’t come to pick him/her up before closing time. One of my friends was yelled at by a father because the librarian was waiting outside the library with his child. According to him, she should have left the building open and waited INSIDE for him to get around to showing up.

    People have the idea that the library is a safe place for their children; that’s wonderful, and librarians try very hard to make that so. But they are still public spaces, and so parents should treat them in the same way they would treat a park or other public space. Rant over.

  2. Unbeknownst to most people, a new wave of literature called “authentic literature” hit our public school libraries over the last few years. The ALA claims such books portray American life and culture in a more realistic fashion. But they don’t. These books feature druggies, sex addicts, pedophiles, gang members and others on the fringes of society. Increasingly, this literature is replacing the traditional literature classics, which, in general, promoted mainstream American values or at least didn’t undermine them.

    Unbeknownst to Dawn CfC Eden, she has no idea what the fuck she’s talking about. But that never stopped her.

  3. And to clarify, the ALA’s list is indeed a part of Banned Books Week, but it clearly lists these as “banned and challenged books.” Books are challenged all the damn time in schools across the country, and I witnessed two challenges during my time student teaching.

    Parents can have their children opt out of reading this book or that for whatever reason — it’s no trouble beyond planning the additional lessons for the kids who have to opt out — but they don’t simply want their children to remain unexposed to the literature, they want to get the books out of the classrooms and castigate teachers for attempting to choose literature that will get kids to read. Classic American novels are great picks for kids who are scholastically interested and self-motivated and certainly appropriate for many students. But the greatest challenge is getting average teen boys to read — choosing grittier and timely material, material they believe is relevant to their daily lives that includes characters with difficult choices to make and with whom they can identify — is the key to doing so. Not Shakespeare.

    Why do Christians hate teen boys?!

  4. My tax dollars will not support Jesus-hating behavior like mentioning the fact that some people smoke cigarettes!

    To steal a quote from Molly Ivins: the check from the tobacco lobby must have been late that week.

  5. Interpolation: Funny how the Culture War vis a vis literature has such close parallels to the “Usage Wars” that are being waged between dictionary makers. There are the Descriptivists, a somewhat po-mo group that tries to act on objective observers of the natural evolution of language, and the Prescriptivists, who think that it is the job of linguists and lexicographers to “preserve” English. Though naturally, this raises the question, “Which English?” And more important, this whole argument begs the question: “Do dictionaries change language, or does language change dictionaries?”

    Connection: Dawn “flailing caricature” Eden points to the degradation of society as being predicated upon the rise of “authentic literature,” rather than the rise of “authentic literature” upon the theoretical degradation of society. Ergo, she suggests that literary merit is by nature Prescriptivist, ideally those who laud the good and shame the bad (I assume that Dawn has no problem with literature which prominently features “druggies, sex addicts, pedophiles, [and] gang members” as villains). This–that is, that literature is often Prescriptivist–is true to some extent, although there is still vociferous “chicken-or-egg” debate on whether art is a product of culture or vice versa.

  6. “Books by ex-gays are nearly impossible to find.”
    Okay, I need a minute to stop laughing here. Hmmm, that’s weird, considering how well gay people can be cured, nowadays (I think Jebus has something to do with this). Maybe their creative side gets cured along with the gay parts – what do you think?

  7. Besides paying students to go to college and take notes (sounds like socialisn to me), these guys don’t see the irony in trying to ban The Name of the Rose

  8. On one of its websites, the Bruin Alumni Group names education professor Peter McLaren as No. 1 on its “The Dirty Thirty: Ranking the Worst of the Worst.”

    Can any UCLA alums tell us if this is a general alumni group or if it’s a conservatives-only group?

    I realize that “dirty” and “thirty” rhyme, but I also wonder if they’re not making a reference to the “Dirty 30” — a notoriously corrupt police precinct in New York.

    As for banned books, there’s probably no greater way to get a kid to read than to inform the kid that a certain book is banned or “frowned upon.” One of my high school English teachers told us what books he wasn’t allowed to teach to us, and by damn, we all went out and read them.

  9. One of my high school English teachers told us what books he wasn’t allowed to teach to us, and by damn, we all went out and read them.

    I built a unit plan using lit circles and banned books, intending to get students to discuss why someone might be compelled to ban whatever book and whether or not they agreed with the accusations levied against the literature. Alas, I never got a chance to use it.

    But yeah, I’ve read a shitload of banned books, in part because they are leftovers from my sisters’ book stashes in the 1970s before the conserva-80s brought legitimacy to anti-intellectual blowhards. Thanks, Reagan!

  10. Why is it “McCarthyist” to tape lectures and make notes? The crime of McCarthy was that he made unsupported allegations about people, and the allegations he made were so severe (“you are a traitor against America and an agent of a totalitarian evil”) that even without any evidence, they damaged people’s reputations, in some cases irreparably.

    Whereas, the alumni group appears to be accurately transcribing what these professors have to say in their classrooms. What’s wrong with that? Are they teaching something that has to be kept secret?

  11. There was a lot more to McCarthyism than just HUAC. HUAC came about because of McCarthy’s detailed notes on so called un-American activities, and the diatribes he delivered about such for years.

    McCarthy cherrypicked the literature and meeting reports of the socialist movement in a highly slanted and prejudicial fashion. The reports of this alumni group about academics seem similiarly slanted and prejudicial.

    It’s very easy to cherrypick a lecture for only the parts that conservatives would find offensive. That doesn’t make such a summary an accurate representation of an academic’s teaching, nor does offending conservatives mean that the academic is doing something wrong.

    The time to point out that this alumni group is a bunch of McCarthyist fellow travellers is before they convince Congress to set up a House UnAmerican Teaching Committee, not afterwards.

  12. HUAC came about because of McCarthy’s detailed notes on so called un-American activities, and the diatribes he delivered about such for years

    Joe McCarthy was elected to the Senate in 1946. HUAC began in 1945, but existed in one form or another going back to 1934, so it’s not really accurate to say McCarthy had anything to do with it “coming about”…not least because McCarthy also never served in the House.

    On the Bruin Alumni group, conservative UCLA lawprofs Eugene Volokh and Steven Bainbridge have posted their thoughts. It seems to me that the group is pretty silly, but it’s a stretch and a half to call its actions “McCarthyism.”

  13. Ah, shoulda checked better, seeing as I never learnt this stuff in school. From your links, it appears McCarthy embodied a spirit of dogmatic prejudice but was not its first exponent in the case of HUAC.

    Whether or not you call it McCarthyism depends, I guess, on whether you think the defining character of McCarthy/HUAC was its backing by the power of the State or simply the intent to silence ideological opposition.

  14. Why is it “McCarthyist” to tape lectures and make notes?

    Not sure whether I’d call is McCarthyist, but it is an implicit threat against anyone who might say something in a classroom that could offend thee. And like mentioned above, it isn’t difficult to cherry pick quotes and comments that may very well ruin a person’s career. What do you think they’re going to do with these transcripts and recordings?

  15. Not sure whether I’d call is McCarthyist, but it is an implicit threat against anyone who might say something in a classroom that could offend thee.

    Well, sure, it’s an implicit threat. But it’s an implicit threat that is part of doing business in a relatively free society. Professor Jones is free to say whatever he wants. I’m free to tell my friends in the press that he said that the Jews must be eliminated, or that the chains of capitalism are forged from the blood of the workers, or that Knight Rider was damn fine television. And since he-said-she-said is rather unsatisfactory as an argumentative tactic, I’m free to tape-record it so I can prove that Professor Jones has a thing about teh Joos.

    Quite aside from the repellency of equating such normal intellectual-defensive behavior with the despicable tactics of the Senator from Wisconsin – which as you say, you wouldn’t necessarily do, because you have intellectual integrity, and thank you for that – it’s a transparent attempt to shut down a democratic attempt to level a power imbalance. Students and former students feel that the people in power over them did or are abusing that power, and they want to rectify it by bringing the wrongdoing into the light. What could possibly be wrong with that?

    The hypocrisy of some leftists (hi Jill!) is revealed here. Speak truth to power – as long as the power in question doesn’t, you know, belong to US.

    What do you think they’re going to do with these transcripts and recordings?

    I assume they’re going to share them with other people so that they can prove their charges are true.

    Could this be abused – by cherry-picking and selective editing? Sure. The answer to bad speech is more speech – liberalism 101. What’s stopping a professor who fears being targeted in such a fashion from tape-recording hisher own complete lecture so that they can demonstrate the lack of context when the student comes forward with the transcript saying something career-ending? Nothing – other than the self-entitlement of the professoriat that they should be above such petty concerns.

    This whole kerfuffle reminds me of my own college days, 17 million years ago, when a totally unqualified but, alas, tenured professor of communications started doing computer science lectures – with disastrous pedagogical results. The majors student committee, of whom I was a sycophant/wannabe, was rebuffed by the close-the-ranks department when it complained, and decided to start attending his 101 lectures on an observational basis. We didn’t bring tape recordings – we just took notes and catalogued errors, while being perfectly civil and posing no challenge to his authority. We did this twice, as I recall, before receiving a verbal promise (which was kept) from the department chair that he would not teach 101-level students anymore without oversight.

    Sunlight is a disinfectant. The motives of people who demand darkness are automatically suspect.

  16. Dude. You’re, like, ancient.

    I know. There’s a young woman who works for me with whom I’ve only ever spoken through e-mail and IM. I mentioned being on baby patrol that morning and she told me that she was surprised to hear that; she thought I was 52.

    Young people suck. I say draft all you little fuckers and start another WWII.

  17. Professor Jones is free to say whatever he wants. I’m free to tell my friends in the press that he said that the Jews must be eliminated, or that the chains of capitalism are forged from the blood of the workers, or that Knight Rider was damn fine television. And since he-said-she-said is rather unsatisfactory as an argumentative tactic, I’m free to tape-record it so I can prove that Professor Jones has a thing about teh Joos.

    Or, if you’re David Horowitz, you don’t bother with the proof but get universities to set up show trials on liberal bias anyway.

    But while Horowitz was declaring the hearings “a great victory” for his cause, he lost some powerful stories. For example, Horowitz has said several times that a biology professor at Pennsylvania State University used a class session just before the 2004 election to show the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, but he acknowledged Tuesday that he didn’t have any proof that this took place.

    In a phone interview, Horowitz said that he had heard about the alleged incident from a legislative staffer and that there was no evidence to back up the claim. He added, however, that “everybody who is familiar with universities knows that there is a widespread practice of professors venting about foreign policy even when their classes aren’t about foreign policy” and that the lack of evidence on Penn State doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem.

    “These are nit picking, irrelevant attacks,” he said.

    Even if these examples aren’t correct, he said, they represent the reality of academic life. “Is there anybody out there who will say that professors don’t attack Bush in biology classrooms?” he said. Horowitz characterized the debate over his retractions as a diversionary tactic by his critics.

  18. I’ll bow out of the mccarthyist/ not mccarthyist debate but point out that the fact that they are offering to pay students to record professors is what makes this group rather creepy. And because the focus doesn’t seem to be competence, (as it was in Robert’s example) but rather political leanings. The students haven’t independently decided there is a problem. They could easily just decide that $100 dollars would buy a lot of beer.

  19. Zuzu,
    I’m an UCLA alum and actually attended UCLA at the same time as the president of the Bruin Alumni Assn. They do not by any means represent the views of the official UCLA Alumni Association. They are not affiliated with the university or the UCLA Alumni Association. I would probably put them in line with the organization recently in the news, Concerned Alumni of Princeton (or something like that).

  20. “Woman in Heat Wiping Herself”

    Hmmm. Somehow, that doesn’t sound like the title of a children’s book, even one placed on the shelf by those homo-lovers at the ALA. Sure enough, a quick Google search reveals that it’s not even a book. It’s the name of a poem by Sharon Olds who, while apparently quite highly thought of in modern poetry circles, does not seem to be busting the charts in the kiddie-lit department. Thus the implication that books with titles like “Woman in Heat Wiping Herself” are replacing children’s classics is demonstrably false on at least three counts:

    1) It is not a book, it is a poem (a technicality, but indicative of the disregard for the facts).

    2) The poem is not from a children’s book. Olds appears to be very much an adults’ poet. This is not Shel Silverstein (not that they would like him much better).
    3) The Gold Cell, the book in which the poem appears, does not seem to be widely held by public libraries. The catalogs of neither the Austin nor the Houston public libraries list it. The San Antonio Public Library lists exactly one copy. The idea that it’s being foisted off on unsuspecting children probably comes from this article, which makes reference to a single incident in which high school students complained about the poem (among other works). In contrast, the San Antonio Public Library holds no fewer than 13 copies of Little House on the Prairie in English, four in Spanish, and copies of the TV show available on both VHS and DVD. If a kid wanted to read some Sharon Olds at their neighborhood library, they’d have to really work at it.

    Geez. Talk about anti-intellectualism.

  21. Olds does have many poems suitable for secondary classrooms. One would think they’d trust teachers to choose appropriate material instead of painting with such a wide brush.

  22. [Jeez, this went long. Feel free to skim]

    On whether the UCLA thing is McCarthyist or not, I think a couple of thoughts are worth considering. First, Robert has a point that free speech, marketplace of ideas, academic responsibility etc. would all point to taping a “suspect” professor’s lectures as being perfectly legit. A lecture is a more-or-less public speech, and professors should be willing to stand by anything they say in a lecture.

    On the other hand, taping a “suspect” professor’s lecture is not at all what Robert calls “normal intellectual-defensive behavior.” As far as I know, except for the Horowitz-inspired activists out there, people just don’t do that. It’s certainly not considered normal in academia. I think it’s intended as a “can and will be used against you” threat, and as such I think it’s a good candidate for the “chilling effect” on free speech. Nobody likes being taped, searched, questioned or otherwise subjected to surveillance.

    Also, I think whether this looks McCarthyist or not has a lot to do with your political affiliations. If you’re solidly on the Left, it looks like the Right is trying to reach in to academia and start a “witch hunt” for teachers with incorrect politics. On the Right, it probably looks like brave students trying to hold irresponsible teachers and political bullies to account
    .
    The fact that hearings have already commenced makes me much more sympathetic to the former view. A lot of universities are run–ultimately–by conservative legislatures with powers of the purse strings. If I were running a state university and Horowitz managed to cobble together hearings in a Conservative legislature into supposed Liberal Bias on my campus, I’d be really tempted to start leaning on my professors to tone it down–even if they did have “nothing to hide,” because I’d know that a lot of state legislators already see my campus as a den of sin and Liberalism and would use any accusation–no matter how poorly borne out by the evidence–to cut my budget.

    And maybe that’s the heart of the problem. Robert’s standards of accountability and responsibility for one’s public speech are on-target and appropriate for academia–after all, the scientific method only works when academics scrutinize each other’s work. But this isn’t getting played out in academia. Horowitz isn’t taking his accusations to the MLA or the APA. He’s taking them to state legislatures, which are political bodies where people are going to weigh evidence not for truth, but for political advantage.

    “McCarthyism,” suggests to me (among other things) the governmental practice of intimidating and bullying citizens into “correct” political speech through organized investigations into people’s political behavior. Horowitz wants legislatures to crack down on professors he thinks have “incorrect” political speech in the classroom. That sounds like at least an attempt to bring about governmental intimidation, hence the “McCarthyism” charge.

    But McCarthyism isn’t just about the government. A hell of a lot of the witch-hunting was carried out privately. As I understand it, the blacklists weren’t generally drawn up by the government. They were part of a pervasive hysteria in which all sorts of organizations–the film industry, academia, etc–purged themselves of those who had “incorrect” politics. Get people worked up enough, convince them that there are pinkos–or liberals–infesting their institutions, and they’ll do the repression for you. Are Horowitz’s note-takers and lecture-tapers the beginnings of a conservative Red Guard, vigilantly spying on their elders for signs of incorrect thought? Probably not. But in the aftermath of McCarthy, they do strike a similar chord, and it’s one we have every reason to be suspect of.

  23. Jill, a great fisking, and a powerful one. I’m not surprised Olds made the list, as she is a remarkably deft writer on the coming of age experience. As far as I am able to say it with any authority, she writes the “coming of age” experience for teenage girls better than anyone I’ve read in the world of modern poetry. (“First Sex” is an instant classic.)

    And quite unrelatedly, she’s my Thursday Short Poem!

  24. “The Hot Zone” made that list? How the hell did “The Hot Zone” make that list?

    I can see some logic to the other books on that list. It may not be a logic I agree with. It’s actually logic I find despicable. But at least there’s some rhyme or reason there.

    “The Hot Zone”? The tale of how the Ebola virus almost got loose in the United States? That book ought to be mandatory reading for anyone studying science.

    Can anyone explain to me why “The Hot Zone” would be on that list?

  25. It does contain rather graphic descriptions of what happens when an Ebola-infected person crashes and bleeds out.

    Made *me* ill for days after reading it, that’s for sure.

  26. 1) I want to know where the equal and opposite liberal watch group is, because I have a full set of lecture notes and tapes from a reactionary undergrad professor who thought the world depicted in “The Handmaid’s Tale” was a fantastic idea. They’d have to pay a bunch, though. I have some friends who are, or are studying to be psychiatrists, and playing “spot the syndrome” with those tapes is good practice for them. (Super-fun for me, too.)

    2) How funny is it that “The Handmaid’s Tale” was on the list?

    3) I saw no Aristophanes, Chaucer or Shakespeare on the list. Why? All three of those guys had just the filthiest senses of humor.

  27. How does this happen? Today is my first visit to both Feministe and Pandagon in several days, and I find that both Amanda and Lauren were blogging about anti-intellectualism about the same time I was. But it’s not because we’d read the same articles: Amanda was responding to Thomas Frank, Lauren was responding to Amanda and these delusional school groups, whereas I was responding to Gore’s speech and the freeper response to it.

    I’m serious — since I’ve been blogging I’ve kept encountering this sort of coincidence. It’s freaky. Godalmighty, could Rupert Sheldrake be right?

  28. Regarding the taping of class lectures, UCLA apparently has a policy on this point. Students are not allowed to sell or disseminate tapes of classes without the instructor’s consent. (Of course, I’d give these guys about 5 minutes before they start insisting that a refusal to allow the tape to be heard by a wider audience is an admission of guilt.) For some more on UCLA’s response, check out CNN.

    Incidentially, their list of bad books includes To Kill A Mockingbird. Now I *know* I don’t have to take a damn word they say seriously.

  29. Whereas, the alumni group appears to be accurately transcribing what these professors have to say in their classrooms. What’s wrong with that?

    Well, for one thing, it’s potentially a violation of the copyright these professors hold over their lectures and therefore, any derivative recordings or transcriptions.

    If there’s an argument that this constitutes “fair use”, I guess I’d like to hear it. Fair use would be collecting these as part of a legitimate research survey of professors and their lectures. Collecting them under no research protocols in order to promote a political agenda by any means necessary isn’t, I suspect. Moreover it’s potentially libellous if they’re using excerpts to disparage a professor’s professional competency.

    If Horowitz is paying people to violate copyright, then he’s essentially a pirate, and should be prosecuted under the same statutes.

  30. Atrios pointed out this morning that this would not be half so disturbing if the student and alumni groups weren’t directly plugged into the conservative think tank/media machine. I have to agree.

    I mean, if this were grass-roots instead of astroturf action, I’d be quite comfortable with it. But it seems that there have been umpteen instances of a conservative student’s story about liberal bias!!!!! getting picked up quickly by the conservative machine and repeated in ever more hysterical tones. Yet there have been few of these stories that have panned out, if any — quite often, the issue is that the student did not do the assignment as assigned, or as in the case of Horowitz, rumor (biology professor shows Fahrenheit 9/11!!!) which turns out to be unfounded gets circulated as fact.

Comments are currently closed.