|
|
What Would Happen If the Academic Bureaucracy Levelled With Itself?
Bob Whitaker (bwhit@conterra.com)
Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:28:01 -0500
cynthia gage wrote:
>
> In article <328BEB9E.2C11@conterra.com>, bwhit@conterra.com wrote:
>
> > We object to PC because we've heard it all a thousand times, we've
> > had to live under it all our lives, and not a damned bit of it ever
> > WORKS.
>
> I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the only place I've heard "PC" is from
> you. What is the "it" that "not a damned bit of ever WORKS"? Instead of
> talking in generalized fad acronyms why don't you talk about what you
> think composes the so-called "PC" ideas or better yet, specifically what
> you think is not working and what you think would work instead?
> :)
> Cynthia
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, unbiassed, 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 biasses?
Start with the big question: nurture versus nature.
Academe produces solutions for our social ills in the form of social
theories which lead to massive social programs spending hundreds of
billions each year.
To conclude that a problem is a result of genetics is to
put the problem to
beyond the reach of social programs. The predictable result in the
case of a self-
selecting bureaucracy would be a solid and fanatical resistance to
anything that smacked of favoring nature over nurture.
By an amazing coincidence, the Politically Correct position is that any
attempt to blame a problem on heredity makes one anti-intellectual.
Remember that the academic bureaucracy does claim to be objective.
That is why we give them money and the right to indoctrinate our young
people. Their reaction is that of any bureacracy, but their claim is
that they are unique.
Over and over, the PC types insist that all points of view are present
in academe. But what I have seen is that Politically Correct positions
are spo predictable in terms of academic interests that no one would
fort a second claim any other bureaucracy would be objective in pushing
them.
The reaction against Political Correctness( so strong that now even the
most Politically Correct insist they aren't) comes from a growing
recognition that today's acadmic bureaucracy has become just one more
bureaucracy. They use the cry of academic freedom and billions in
public money and control over young minds to provide what amounts to a
system of religious seminaries pushing their favorite doctrines. The
PhD's and claims of objective intellectuality intimidates an ever
smaller group of people.
All bureaucracies claim to be objective, of course. Most doctors will
tellyou their position on socialized medicine is objective, and tehy
believe it. Businessmen also claim to be objective, and they believe
it. But the difference is that other groups exist to provide us with
services, such as medicine or, in the case of business, with goods nad
services.
But the academic bureaucracy exists only to provide us with
objectivity. It could admit it is a self-perpetuating and examine
itseelf mercilessly in this light, or it could do what any
self-selecting bureaucracy would do its case: use its claim of
objectivity and intellectualism to push its interests. They believe the
former, they are doing the latter.
If anyone bothers to comment on this, please include some reason why
you think this particular bureaucracy has performed the unique result of
being objective.
|