Re: Academe Bureaucracy: A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS

/\/\ (
25 Nov 1996 10:06:00 -0800

In article <5706na$>, (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>> Bob Whitaker <> hit a bull's-eye when he wrote
>> (to sci.anthropology and a few other news groups)
>(with Ed Conrad's apology to Cynthia Gage for incorrectly crediting
>her for posting them):
>Says Bob:
>> What we call academe today is a multi-billion-dollar,
>> self-perpetuating, self-selected bureaucracy.
>> The difference between the academic bureaucracy and any other
>> self-selecting bureaucracy is that academe claims, as its sole product,
>> objective, unbiased, balanced truth. It has no other reason for
>> existence.
>> Is the academic bureaucracy actually the first self-selecting
>> bureaucracy in history to produce anything approaching objectivity, or
>> is its product simply a predictable result of its biases?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>You've said a mouthful, Bob, and -- I have to hand it to you --
>you've said it very well.
>Academe is INDEED a multi-billion-dollar, self-perpetuating,
>self-selected bureaucracy -- and the only ``truth' it dispenses
>is what it decides to give out.
>Even when it is fully aware that a particular ``truth" is total
>Its ``product" unquestionably is, at all times, a predictable result
>of its complete and utter bias.
>I offer one glowing example.
>Academe's adamant, unyielding stance concerning man's evolutionary
>inhuman origin has absolutely no basis in fact.
>Even worse, when challenged with facts and evidence --
>-- it resorts to despicable antics of deceipt, dishonesty, coverup and
>foul play.
>The Wheels of Vested Interests keep right on rolling along.
>Thanks, Robert,, for your keen insight in sizing up a deplorable
>situation and for having the courage to call a spade a spade.