|
|
Re: What Would Happen If the Academic Bureaucracy Levelled With Itself?
pka00085@alpha.wvup.wvnet.edu
Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:36:47 -0500
Bob Whitaker <bwhit@conterra.com> wrote:
>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.
Mygod, Bobby.
Is this post of you have written supposed to be intelligible?
Try repeating to yourself, Bobby, (you do have a *thing* for
repetition, so perhaps this technique will be effective)
"Bobby must strive to write coherently"
"Bobby must strive to write coherently"
"Bobby must strive to write coherently"
Anyway, in reference to the subject line of this post,
What would happen if Bobby Whitaker levelled with us.
Are you a member of the infamous national alliance or NOT?
Be a man. Level with the readers!
Hoping you feel better soon,
JRS
|