|
|
Re: What Would Happen If the Academic Bureaucracy Levelled With Itself?
Bob Whitaker (bwhit@conterra.com)
Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:35:56 -0500
pka00085@alpha.wvup.wvnet.edu wrote:
>
> 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
Anything that isn't one of your Mommy Professor's well-worn cliches
is incomprehensible to you.
|