ACTA's Must-Reads

I've noticed of conservative friends and commentators who poo-poo the value of college, especially for not-so-outstanding or motivated students, that when it comes to their OWN kids, they are not about to walk the walk. They make sure THEIR kids go to college, preferably at some high-priced private place. And if their kids stumble around, can't make up their minds what they want to do, take six or more years to get the degree -- even at their affluent parents' expense, not working two jobs to get through -- their parents seem to have no trouble putting aside their conservative principles.

I have no idea about George Leef's kids, even if he has any, but it does appear from his center's website that he hires only people with degrees, even though he's always downplaying the necessity of a college degree for most jobs, the value of the training received in college.

George Leef seems to have nothing but scorn for everything having to do with higher education: the value of the training, the value of research at universities, the competence and even the employability of the faculty outside of academia.

He is not in my field, but someone like him would never, ever get a job in my department after expressing the attitudes he holds. Guys like him help give conservative critiques of academia zero credibility where it could make a difference.

Let me first agree with George Leef in his criticisms of the wasteful and even damaging effects of what amounts to, for the legions of woefully unprepared, proudly ignorant and unteachable youths ("fit only for the fields", as the master pedagogue Quintilian has it) enrolled in our institutions of "higher" (most often not "hire") learning, four years or more spent in a shamelessly exploitative shakedown racket or pyramid scheme (operated for administrative and professorial benefit, AKA, pelf and power) of which anon guy apparently approves. With such professorially avuncular "good advice" provided by academic mouthpieces and apologists like anon guy, no wonder many such youths eventually succumb to depression or to terminal ennui (in several senses), for, as WS's Prince Hal has it: "If all the year were playing holidays, to sport would be as tedious as to work".

Since we're discussing personal experiences, let me add a few (perhaps hypothetical) to the fire. My apologies en avance for this narrative. Say that I come from a single parent, lower-class background where one parent finished a high school business-orientated programme and the other primary school only. Due to the encouragement of the one guiding parent and her help with my first-year of college expenses, I performed well enough (considering I had no classical education available to me in public schools in the States) to continue the next three to the BA by working 72-80 hour a week factory shifts during summers and part-time work during school term (sounds a bit Catherine Cookson, nicht wahr?). When the anti-war nonsense of the late sixties hit the fan I protested by enlisting in the army after graduation and serving in Vietnam (though a scholar and academic I'm also a proud member of the VFW--taking me mum there tonight for a spaghetti feed and music, as a matter of fact--I can see anon guy now clutching his throat in snobbish disgust--they just probably weren't recruiting in HIS neighbourhood). I got through full-time grad school for three years with the help of the GI Bill and a full-time hospital job (for then I had a family to support). During the time I spent in Vietnam I had read as much as I could and had developed the love of learning that would animate me till now. While reading the Greeks there, I'd thrilled to discover the words of the French Catholic writer and patriot, Charles Peguy, who wrote just before his death in the trenches in 1914: "Homer is fresh this morning but there's nothing as old as yesterday's newspaper". A prescient comment on the present "pop culture" (surely an oxymoron) circus and radical-left indoctrination that all too often pass for "higher education" in the humanities. During grad school I picked up Latin and Greek (though not as well as I could have, had I had them early on, as is the case for pupils even in some very poor countries). Later on I taught school, mostly part-time, for I was always reading the classics I hadn't got in school and taking courses in modern languages (refreshing my high school French, picking up Italian and German for reading use, adding still later in doctoral school Old and Middle English and a bit of Hebrew). Finally, doctoral school in English and Comparative Literature, where one had to search long and hard for rigorously-taught courses of real scholarly value (definitely not to include pretentious and rebarbative courses in "critical theory", i.e., critical theorrhea, as well as ethnic, gender, film "studies" and the like. Then followed editing, translating, and writing, leading to the publication of a couple of scholarly books (my little hope of Horace's non omnis moriar) and several years as professor. (Mum's a bit overly proud of these modest achievements, I confess) Without the Latin and Greek I have, though, I couldn't properly call myself an academic. And I'm sure anon guy's Latinity and Hellenism are far superior to my own, and doubtless my two moderate-length books should bow in fulsome deference to his weighty tomes of classical and modern learning sure to be instantiations of his politically correct defence of what others may fancy as serious and abusive academic misconduct.

I'm sure also anon guy would never consider hiring anyone like me as well for his department--why, as Woody Allen's Spanish nobleman has it
(casually noticing Woody is hungry and thirsty): "I'd invite you to our table, but, you know, the difference in education and social class . . ."

Cheers, GL and jeers, anon guy, for I suspect your ignorance shall be your punishment.

Dr JA

Jacques: I'm in a natural science area, and judging from what you have revealed about your academic background, I'm afraid you might not be a good fit for our department.

However, if you would like to apply anyway, I recommend that you tighten up your prose style a bit. Your 60's experiences aren't especially relevant to us. There is a good VFW club in town that has some mighty cheap martinis. I've sampled more than a few of them. But that is not a plus, and could even be a minus, when it comes to merit raises, or in considering your resume. Nor is your Mum's obviously justified pride in her boy.

But, your first paragraph IS relevant to your desireability as a candidate. And I'm afraid you carry some of the same baggage as George.

I'm just trying to be helpful. Thanks for your interest in our department. And good luck in your search for a suitable position.

anon guy or non guy:

I had a much longer riposte to you written out earlier (with copious classical references, to be sure), but decided that cheap sarcasm by someone who seems to have greased his way into a department chair (and reminds us that he now sits on a mighty throne of departmental judgement in every other incoherent sentence--e.g., your last "sentence" in paragraph 2--what means that?) and whose evident lack of humanistic learning (Latin and Greek especially) disqualifies him from pertinent comment couldn't be worth the trouble of replying to here.

Oh yes, vis a vis the cheap drinks you obviously relish at the VFW--if you earned the soldier-member's right to join, then I salute you; if not, what member escorted you in--daddy, mummy, or perhaps even--sissy?

Address my comments, sir, or retire, for you've already handed me the victory by default.

From jeers to sneers,

Dr JA

Jacques, I will miss your "much longer" post; your pithy first communication left me eager for more.

As for the meaning of my sentence: "Nor is your Mum's favor a plus in they eys of the search committee". In my haste, I may have left a bit dangling here. But I must say, your own efforts are not exactly a model of clarity.

I hope that's a useful tip.

That's all, Doc. I think we have reached a point of diminishing returns.

Reread your own posts (I think I can make out the transposed, "gibberishish" "they eys" in your "clarification") before you submit them, if you're not too occupied in contemplating your own dept. chair navel in your larger-than- everybody-else's wing-chair. And with your chair, I regret they even gave you a job, too! As I deliver a last Swiftian kick to your hasty departure from this blog, (apologies to Peter Sellers's Inspector Clouseau) you've obviously enlisted in nothing but the "ranks" of the "gits of zealous page".

One apt quotation for you (no charge): Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum ("And the word once sent out, flies out never to be recalled"). Heed Horace's words and accept correction and instruction in future. And get a Wheelock Latin grammar and begin the road to Parnassus. I promise not to wield a heavy ferule over you as you start baby (infans--"speechless") Latin.

Thanks for the memories, non guy,

Dr JA

Well, isn't that sweet. It would be nice if somebody else actually had some interest, approving or not, regarding George Leef's notions.

I'd almost invite you to stay on line, sweetheart, but, vous savez, the difference in prose styles and classical learning . . . Don't forget Wheelock--you too could be a humanist academic someday . . . i.e., a REAL DOCTOR (from doctus--"learned"--impossible sans Latin). But perhaps I'll recommend you to the tender attentions of my 22 year-old right-wing gun moll--she likes toying with perfumed wimps a la Peter Lorre in The Maltese Falcon ("When you're slapped, you'll take it and like it . . .")

Cheers dears, perche lui tanto buon che vale niente!

Dr JA