Good morning,
AN OUTPOST OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
Though this Musing begins with a reference to Israel, it’s not. It’s a meditation on Western Civilization…
In one of his weekly inciteful rants, Bill Maher noted that there are those, most often from the political left, who deride Israel for being “an outpost of western civilization.” He noted that such a designation ought not be an insult but should be a compliment.
Maher goes on to point out what many of us have noted: That the teaching of Western Civilization is woefully absent from our secondary schools and colleges. There was a time that the Enlightenment was central to the curriculum. After all, Western Civilization not only is the civilization within which we live, but many of the doctrines that we live under and much of the creative thinking in the world came from “old white guys.” This is not to suggest that meaningful contributions to human history didn’t come from other civilizations. It also isn’t to suggest that, if other parts of the world had the infrastructure, weather, and institutions of the West, these concepts wouldn’t have developed there.
But the simple fact is that other civilizations didn’t give us John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, Shakespeare, Moliere, Kant, Hume, Descartes, Hegel, or Marx. Or, for that matter, Plato, Aristotle, or (one of my favorites for his stoicism) Epictetus.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
Finally, Maher notes that the study of Western Civilization discloses many ideas that make us—well—civilized. Western civilization has given the world the liberal precepts that he points out liberals are supposed to adore:
Individual liberty
Scientific inquiry
The rule of law
Religious rights
Human rights
Women’s rights
Democracy
Trial by jury
Freedom of speech
He concludes “Please, someone stop us before we enlighten again.”
To elevate other cultures is important to a better understanding of humanity and respect for others. The effort to highlight other civilizations and their contributions to our human story should not drown out or replace the important gifts we have been given by the rich contributions of Western Civilization. To ignore their value, their wonder, and their fragility is to risk losing them.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Late last year, I attended a program on antisemitism hosted by USC. One speaker claimed that much of academia has lost its way—professors making outrageous political statements in class, stories of teaching assistants categorizing students by ethnicity, and inordinate numbers of political statements made by educators that are presented as fact. This has created some uncomfortable learning environments that stifle disagreement. The speaker noted that those who use their classes as platforms for political indoctrination defend themselves by wrapping themselves in the cloak of academic freedom. To them, the notion of academic freedom allows them to say anything under the aegis of that doctrine.
The speaker pointed out something that is self-evident but rarely enters discussions of academic freedom, and that’s its relationship to the many other freedoms we enjoy. All freedoms, he noted, are subject to limitations. Those limitations protect others and maintain a civil society. We are able to own guns but not shoot people, able to drive a car but can’t exceed the speed limit, able to share opinions freely but not yell “fire” in a crowded building.
The point here is that with freedoms come responsibilities. We must exercise some amount of care, safety, and/or decorum in exercising our freedoms. Yet the current interpretation of “academic freedom” seemingly does not submit to any sort of limitation—no sense of responsibility or limit.
This professor waxed poetic about the “old days,” when students would gather in the quad with a megaphone and protest the issues of the day or march in support of one revolutionary leader or another. He described the quad as “a noisy place,” where students could articulate their views, even extreme views, while shaping and refining those views. The university provided safe places within which to explore ideas loudly—the public square—but also provided places to consider ideas quietly and thoughtfully. The classroom was a place of quiet, respect, and the interrogation of ideas. Professors would explore issues with their students, prompting them and prodding them to consider the bases of their ideas and the validity of opposing views and philosophies. Often, it would be difficult to ascertain the true political or philosophical view of the professor.
Today, he went on, there often no longer is that “quiet place” of reflection. The outrageous, often half-baked arguments from the “noisy quad” actually are espoused and encouraged by professors.
POWER DYNAMICS
We live in a world that has acknowledged the power dynamic of any number of interpersonal relations. A supervisor is not allowed to woo a subordinate, as there is a disproportionate power dynamic. A member of the clergy or a physician are made aware of an individual’s condition at times of weakness and those weaknesses cannot be exploited. You can raise children but you can’t beat them.
Professors benefit from a power dynamic that is unique. They are entrusted with young minds that should be educated and challenged. Each professor is in a position of ostensible wisdom. They are held in esteem and their statements are expected to be limited to facts. Too many academics abuse that authority by pushing their views, at the expense of a broader consideration of the complexity of the issue or the consideration of competing points of view. Students are indoctrinated with the professor’s world view and/or are made to feel guilt, privilege, or stupidity if they hold an alternative point of view. Their opinions, if they are brave enough to share them, are subject to strict scrutiny by a professor who is not encouraging the open debate of complex ideas. Rather, the professor that has professed the veracity of one position, while deriding others. It’s a problem.
There is a limit to the exercise of any freedom. Recognition of the unique position of a professor, reaffirmation of the university’s responsibility to expose its students to a broad range of ideas—some perhaps even uncomfortable—and common decency dictate some of these limitations. Academic freedom ought not be exempt from the boundaries of a civil society, nor from the obligation to interrogate every idea critically.
CONSERVATIVE UNIVERSITIES
There is a rise in the movement to create universities that are predisposed to conservative political discourse. Some is in the creation of new institutions and, in the case of Ron DeSantis’s Florida, reshaping universities to articulate a particular point of view. Sadly, this portends a dangerous trend. Universities were founded as a place to further intellectual discourse. If one believes they have been overrun by too liberal an ethic, conservative scholars can work to refine the curriculum and/or change how faculty appointments are made. But to set up new (or retooled) institutions with a political objective in mind seems oddly reminiscent of Fox and other conservative media outlets. They were created not for impartial news reporting—but to espouse a point of view. The “new” conservative educational institutions have their founding principle not of the exploration of ideas, but the promulgation of a single narrative. Ironically, this is precisely what they claim the current university culture perpetuates.
Have a great day,
Glenn
Glenn, an insightful column today on education and I agree with he danger of siloed educational institutions. However, you turn immediately to the danger of conservative schools and private purpose media without offering a real path to change the present structure of indoctrination. To rely on changing the method of hiring etc. is a slender reed to lean upon. The level of indoctrination is substantial and more needs to be done to return education to its traditional role and process.
Legionary