Tea Leaves

You are wrong.

To whom it may concern:

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

"What is a "modern University?" I bet Oral Roberts University is surprised to know that they hate the Judeo-Christian tradition. Maybe Feser didn't mean them, but we don't know because he doesn't say. What percentage of modern Universities are serving their Soviet masters? Feser's rhetoric is sweepingly inclusive, so the reader has to assume he means "all of them," which, surprise surprise, is insane."

No, the reader does not have to assume that he has to include Oral Roberts. That's asinine. There is nothing illegitimate about referring to context when an author doesn't make a point explicit.

"(2) What does it mean to be "anti-Western"? If 95% of an essential Western institution is "anti-some-notion" and "pro-some-other-notion", then isn't maybe that an indication that, by definition, they're not anti-Western? (This is kinda a distraction, because of course his nutbar claim that "Universities," which he doesn't define, are "anti-Western" is utterly unsupported by any evidence at all; he certainly doesn't actually condescend to provide any.)"

He gave you a basic definition of what he considered Western Civilization to include. Why don't you go back and read the article?

"(3) Universities don't tolerate dissent, except for this one courageous Professor at Loyola Marymount University, holed up in a bell tower with a rifle and a supply of Grape Ne-Hi and Powerbars. Well, ok, there are a few others. Well, ok, it turns out there are a lot of others. You said it yourself, Colin -- you've had professors who were conservative. So have I. So, frankly, has everyone"

1) The fact that he has a job isn't a counterexample to his argument because he is only argument that the left is *dominant*.

2) Yes, there are more conservatives in econ. departments. But what about the ones where most of the kids who become law students, politicians, writers, political activists, professors, etc. go through? You know like history, political science, philosophy, sociology, and the like lean? They lean left - and hard.

"Feser doesn't even begin to try to make such an argument; from the very first sentence of the first part of his article, he assumes the conclusion he claims to be proving, and then rants about how awful it is."

C'mon! The thesis that universities lean left is acknowledged by most leftists and rightists alike!

As for your last point, why not *email* Dr. Feser to see how reasonable he is. I saw him give a talk at a conference three years ago. Since then we've actually become friends and regularly talk philosophy via email or phone. Reach out to him and be fair - and he'll respond in kind.

"The civilization of which I speak is, of course, Western civilization, whose origins lie in Greece, Rome, and ancient Israel, and whose characteristic modern elements include the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, the political ideals of individual rights, limited government and the rule of law, and a free-market or capitalist economic order"

This sounds like an explicit definition to me. I would add that epistemologically, a devotion to reason and rational behavor as an ideal are included.

I honestly dont know where to start. My personal experience bears witness to the stranglehold that left-wing ideologues have on most universities, and these values have been explicitly denied.

In my American history class, the textbook had extreme value judgements about the Spanish who conquered the Aztecs. Words like "barbaric" were used. When it described the Aztecs and their human sacrifice, it described them as an exotic culture. Conquer the New World, and you're a barbarian, rip out a heart on an altar at high noon and you're "exotic".

I go to another class in social science, and the tutor raves about how evil US society is. He was a socialist who thought that Sweden was the model for the world. When he was told Sweden is almost bankrupt, he replied:"So what? Governments run in the red". Do NOT get this guy a job with the FED.

I guess you could attempt to stick me with projecting my personal experiences onto all of higher education but if you examine whats taught in the humanities, you might be convinced.

Of particular interest is the story of Mark Isler. A teacher in California who was black balled for his beliefs. Go to frontpagemag.com to read about it.

". Does anyone here remember taking the economics class where they talked about how capitalism sucked and communism was the only right economic system? Hey, me neither, because most economics classes in modern universities don't hold the nutbar beliefs that Feser claims they indoctrinate their students with"

Non sequitur. No one will argue the fact that Marxian economics are not taken seriously in economics classes, but the Leftist stranglehold is mostly in the English, History, Social Science(especially) departments. Just because you see an absence of indoctrination in economics it doesnt follow that Feser's thesis is false.

Yes there are also many exceptions, and yes I've endured drivel from profs on both sides of the spectrum, but the right is clearly outgunned by the left - which is part of Feser's thesis.

When young college pukes demonstrate against the war or globalization, the chant is "hey,hey, ho,ho...western culture's got to go"

I was told by feminists in class that free speech is a tool used to subjugate women. I was also told that only with the abolition of western civilization can women be emancipated.

I applaud the fact that you would call them nutbars too, but Feser's thesis stands. Humanities departments in universities are dominated by the left. Dissent is punished. Free speech itself is derided, thus stifling debate. Are you telling me that when you were in college you felt you could debate absolutely any topic? Do you deny that there were a plethora of taboo topics that and opinions that could'nt be expressed without consequences?

Yes Feser's articles are sprinkled with value judgements, but his points are reasonably supported. I just wonder if you can give me an example of an arbitrary assertion that does in his whole thesis.

Your critique was a bit hasty,

Best Wishes.

> Are you telling me that when you were in college
> you felt you could debate absolutely any topic? Do
> you deny that there were a plethora of taboo
> topics that and opinions that could'nt be
> expressed without consequences?

The answer to the first question is yes. I always felt that I could debate absolutely any topic while I was in college.

As to whether one can express any opinion "without consequence," all I can say is what I said in response to that -other- nutbar, Ralph Nader: part of free speech is accepting that other people might criticize you for your speech. If your point is "people should be able to express opinions without being beaten up for them," I'm all on your side, and I certainly felt perfectly free to be an opinionated asshole all through college. If your point is "waaaaaah, mommy, the mean nasty left-leaning Professors were MEAN to me in class," then I'll say that you, like Feser, are just a crybaby.

Hopefully you don't really mean that, though.

I stand by my critique of Feser's non-thesis. No one would argue had he said "There are lots of left-wing professors." But that's not what he's saying. He's painting a picture that is false. I think my portrayal of his picture is more honest than yours (or yours, Kevin.)

One of the thinks that Western civilization stands on is an academic tradition in rhetoric where we take words seriously. You guys are, frankly, bending over backwards to construe Prof. Feser's words in the most wishy-washy, harmless way possible. "He's just saying that there are lots of liberals!" Well, if he was just saying that, I really wouldn't have any problem.

I, on the other hand, am doing him the admittedly meager respect of assuming that he means what he says. I say meager because, it's pretty clear that at face value, what he says is crazy talk. The man says that he thinks that Universities are brainwashing tanks who take bright, upstanding young men and turn them into pot-smoking Che Guevara t-shirt wearing fornicators. He's a nutbar. Kevin, I'm sure that he's a great man, wonderful with the kids, a vivacious conversationalist, yadda yadda yadda, but I don't particularly care. I'm taking the man at his word. If he meant something other than the garbage he wrote, that's his problem, not mine.

Admittedly Professor Feser's two-part article was a bit tendentious for my liking. It included what I can only describe as a some "question-begging" arguments, assuming that the reader agrees with the basic premises.

Those premises are that:

a.) academia leans rather preposterosly towards the left of the political spectrum. I believe that proposition has been proven to be factual, although Feser does not bother to spend time arguing it.

b.) he accuses the leftist views of the majority of professors of having "perversity," and his central thesis is, essentially, that they are not just overrepresented, but also WRONG.

Feser does argue on behalf of this notion, but spends little time on it. I think that is a fair approach, given that his major thesis has to do with WHY academia is as it is, not whether or not it SHOULD be as it is.

On the issues that he raises, it is a stimulating and entertaining discussion, albeit somewhat dismissive of other points of view.

But, whatever the faults of the article, your rejoinder was utterly devoid of content. It neither contained facts or evidence (a major problem since your primary accusation seems to be that Feser doesn't offer enough evidence himself), nor coherent argument. It consists primarily of invective and dismissal.

I don't know if you are an academic yourself, but if so, I submit that you rather prove his point. Your primary charge seems to be one of blasphemy, although you would never say that.

I'm not an academic. I'm just a little boy pointing out that Emperor Feser is naked.

I agree that my article (clearly labeled, in its title, a "rant") offers no more facts to back it up than Professor Feser's. That's OK. Unlike him, I'm not professing to actually be -making- a careful, reasoned argument. So I find it odd that you want to hold my rant to such high standards and fault it for being "invective" (which I agree with -- it was -intended- to be dismissive) yet you characterize Professor Feser's completely over-the-top scarecrow strawman of potsmoking fornicating Che Guevara t-shirt wearing undergrads and the Marxist God-hating nihilist professors leading them into temptation as merely "somewhat dismissive".

If Professor Feser is "somewhat dismissive" of points of view that he disagrees with, then people who believe the Earth is flat are "somewhat misguided".