Yesterday, I wrote about the effort of some professors at the University of Chicago to prevent the naming of a new center in honor of Milton Friedman. Yes, that Milton Friedman, one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century, a man whose theories not only gave us deep insight into the workings of economics but also, through their practical application, improved the lives of countless millions.
But according to people like Bruce Lincoln, professor of divinity at the University of Chicago, Friedman’s free-market orientation is too “ideological”–i.e., too conservative–to merit honoring.
The repellent absurdity of Lincoln’s objection (for which he garnered the support of 100 other UC faculty) would be laughable if it were not so powerfully indicative of the deep sickness of our universities. James Piereson, writing at The New Criterion’s weblog Armavirumque, touches on some features of the sickness. The first thing to note, of course, is the disparity between Friedman’s accomplishments and the Lilliputian gestures of Bruce Lincoln and his clique: “Is it,” Piereson asks, ” really possible to place this man’s accomplishments, such as they are, next to the imposing contributions that Milton Friedman made over a long lifetime to the discipline of economics?”
[T]he question here is not really whether or not the University of Chicago should have a center named for Milton Friedman, but whether or not it deserves to have one – whether the institution wishes to tie its future with the likes of Mr. Lincoln and his co-conspirators or whether it associates itself with the accomplishments and ideals so well represented in the life of Professor Friedman. It was much to its credit that the University of Chicago provided an academic home to Milton Friedman during those decades in which his views were out of favor. It would now disgrace itself if, after those views have won broad assent in the marketplace of ideas, it chose to reject his example under pressure from know-nothings like Professor Lincoln.
Moreover, as Piereson points out, if the issue is promoting a particular ideology, The University of Chicago, like virtually every other college and university in America, is “plainly awash in programs intended to advance left-wing ideology and political action.” Piereson cites several examples from such rebarbative intellectual slums as The Center for Gender Studies, whose own web site promises students “opportunities for political action and community involvement, for friendship, romance, and sexual experimentation.”
It costs nearly $13,000 per quarter for an undergraduate taking 3 or 4 courses to attend the University of Chicago. Isn’t that rather steep for “political action,” “community involvement,” “romance, and sexual experimentation”?
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, NEW, EXPANDED EDITION FALL 2008! How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
3 Comments
1. A. Kievalar:In “Ecce Homo”, Friedrich Nietzsche famously remarked that “After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.”
Elsewhere, he observed that “Whatever a theologian regards as true must be false.”
I can’t quite say that these are my views on Dr. Bruce Lincoln. After all, as teenage Americans are fond of saying, “Hell, I don’t even KNOW the guy”. Plus, even though attached to the Divinity School, Dr. Lincoln is probably not really so much a “religious” man or even a theologian as he is a general interest scholar.
But if they don’t equal my views, Nietzsche’s words at least inform them to the extent that I have any opinions at all on the professor.
Yet I must say that after a quick reading and study of his academic background and accomplishments, I’m left with an abulic sense of distaste and mistrust.
It’s like when I come upon the works of the sociologist Richard Sennett; the words are all within the reach of a good high school student, the sentences are all grammatically correct and the syntax conforms to accepted norms of written discourse.
And yet, in the end, I can’t really summarize what was said or what conclusions were drawn – often, I can’t even put my finger on what exactly was being discussed.
Many things are said to be greater than the sum of their parts (like the Eiffel Tower or the US Constitution), but with the works of Dr. Lincoln (and Dr. Sennett), I get the uncomfortable impression that although the parts may have some merit, the sum really amounts to a big fat zero.
Take Dr. Lincoln’s resume, for example, which can be found at
http://divinity.uchicago.edu/faculty/lincoln_education.shtml
At the very bottom, you will see the final section of his resume entitled “Languages”. Now, the field of languages is something I DO know about.
Anyway, Dr. Lincoln admits to, or rather, boasts familiarity with 24 (twenty-four….2,4 !!!) languages (25 actually, if you include English), ranging from the unremarkable Welsh to the unrecognizable Tokpisin.
(Tokpisin, although now considered a full-fledged language, was until recently a pidgin or creole based largely on English. Most of its vocabulary is English based. Example: English: “Finish your story now” – Tokpisin: “Yu pinisim stori nau”).
(Were you an academic in the linguistic field, you would guffaw that one of your collegues would list “Tokpisin” on his resume as one of his linguistic competencies).
True, his list makes it clear that he only has a “rudimentary knowledge” of 10 of these languages. That still leaves 14 that presumably he can use with some academic competency.
So what’s my point? My first point is this. I myself work in academia in the general field of languages and linguistics. In my field, any academic who’d have the gall of listing ON HIS RESUME languages he knows at the “rudimentary” level, would be considered a laughing stock – worse, a charlatan.
As a Foreign Service brat, I happened to be raised in the Andes region of Peru and Bolivia and all my nannies spoke Quechua or Aymara so I retain “some” “competency” in those two native-American languages.
During my travels and education, I picked up some “rudimentary” Chinese, Urdu, and I can curse in Korean. And I can recite the Greek alphabet a mile a minute.
But I would never dream of listing these languages on my resume.
My second and final point is this: Dr. Lincoln’s aversion to the Milton Friedman center at the U of Chicago is pure blather.
I’ve known dozens of “Lincolns” during my academic career and to a man, their rantings are really cover-ups for either incompetence, charlatanry or quackery. Or, surprisingly, boredom.
I don’t know offhand if Nietzsche had anything to say about academics, but had he lived now, he would be having a field day.
Jul 13, 2008 - 4:05 pm 2. Avital Pilpel:The point of going to college had always been to get skills that will enable one to pursue a professional career in one’s chosen field, or else to acquire knowledge of “the best that have been thought and said” as a guide to life, or, preferably, both.
Chicago’s humanities and social science programs obviously do neither for their students. Why would anyone pay a dime, let alone $50,000 a year, for such an “education” is beyond me.
Jul 14, 2008 - 5:44 am 3. Milton Friedman | Dicta & Contradicta:[...] Dado o tamanho da contribuição de Friedman à economia, a sua influência e a força de suas teorias, faz sentido lutar contra a criação desse centro de pesquisas? Roger Kimball escreve sobre isso aqui e aqui. [...]
Jul 22, 2008 - 11:16 pm