Brief professional complaint (okay, more like a rant) - UPDATED

UPDATE: Okay, folks, I have made an error in the post below. As noted at ACTA's blog, Concerned Observer, who wrote the comment that I quoted below complaining about courses in "American Masculinities" and "Animals and Society," has admitted to attempting to parody ACTA supporters (for this admission, go here and scroll down, or search the page for Concerned Observer). Therefore I retract my complaint about that particular comment and apologize for accepting the misrepresentation of ACTA supporters. However, I stand by my dissatisfaction with the way that people outside of academia often mischaracterize what academics, particularly those in the humanities, do in the course of their teaching and research (and turtlebella has kindly chimed in with examples of criticisms of science, as well). Moreover, I do not believe that the fact that I, and others reading this blog, were ready to read Concerned Observer's comment as serious, and not a parody, demonstrates that we have been brainwashed to believe that conservatives are morons; it just demonstrates that we have all personally encountered similar comments, especially in the fora at Inside Higher Ed. Again, I did not intend this post as a criticism of the ACTA report per se - though obviously such a criticism can be understood from the post - as much as a criticism of the comments at Inside Higher Ed in general.

Finally, I'd like to repeat something that I said in a comment to the  ACTA blog post linked above. That post characterizes mine as believing that, in the words of another commenter at IHE,

clearminded thought, research, and work into the complexities of human experience leads one toward left-leaning views. That's because left-leaning views acknowledge the context-bound complexity of social experience much more fully than do views from the right. The right offers simple interpretations and answers, while the left offers much more complex ones, again because it acknowledges more fully the complexity of human experience.

My response in the comments was as follows:

I was EXTREMELY careful not to suggest what the comment [above] suggests, that clear-minded thinking etc. automatically leads to leftist views. I strongly disagree with such a statement, having encountered any number of thoughtful, intelligent, educated people who disagree with me, politically. In fact, something that disturbs me greatly about liberals (among whom I do place myself) is the tendency to think that if people just think long and hard enough they'll "see the light" and adopt a liberal perspective. I do NOT believe this and try very hard not to suggest this in my writing.

I just wanted to repeat that comment because it's something I believe very strongly: that people can in fact think long, hard, and intelligently about issues and come up with conservative beliefs. Conservative beliefs are not simply about providing simplistic answers to people who don't want to think. Sometimes they are; sometimes the same is true of liberal beliefs. I do not believe that "the right" (whatever that might be) necessarily offers simpler interpretations than "the left" - just that each interpretation weighs different factors more heavily and operates according to a different view of the common good.

Now, this doesn't mean that I'm not going to characterize specific conservative arguments as arising from a desire not to have to think. ;-) But I'm not going to cast blanket judgments along those lines over all conservative arguments.

Finally, two apologies: first, for all the bold text, but I wanted to make sure people saw the changes I'd made to this post; and second, for any incoherence, because I drove 8 hours today on crappy road food and my brain is working very poorly! But I wanted to get this update out sooner rather than later. Thanks.

You know, I don't read it in great detail very often, but I am finding Inside Higher Ed increasingly tedious. It's not even the columns, necessarily (though, like at The Chronicle, the quality of the pieces varies significantly) - it's the commenters. I'm sure setting all their columns up like blogs, so that readers can comment easily and their comments are right there, seemed like a great idea at the time. But what you tend to get are unadulterated rants: "This column deserves a Pulitzer!" "This column shows that the author is going to hell and taking everyone who agrees with the author along for the ride!" Blah, blah, blah. I took a look at a couple of pieces about the ACTA report on Ward Churchill (that link downloads a PDF of the report) (and for the record, I think Ward Churchill is kind of an ass, but I don't think that he's representative of academia generally and I do NOT think he is evidence of some kind of left-wing conspiracy to brainwash America's youth). Sure, I didn't agree with everything that the columns said. But I get utterly sick of reading comments like this one, from "Concerned Observer" (the commenter is quoting from the ACTA report; scroll down from this piece):

“Penn State University offers ‘American Masculinities,’ which maps ‘how vexed ideas about maleness, manhood, and masculinity provided rough-riding presidents, High Modern novelists, Provincetown playwrights, queer regionalists, star-struck inverts, surly bohemians, and others with a means to negotiate– and gender– the cultural and political turmoil that constituted modern American life.’”

What is this nonsense doing in a college curriculum? This is simply outrageous. The close juxtaposition of “Provincetown playwrights” and “rough-riding presidents” is clearly meant to imply that Teddy Roosevelt was a homosexual, and the reference to “the cultural and political turmoil that constituted modern American life” is a blatantly ideological description of our country that ignores its strong traditions of freedom and individual liberty.

The ACTA report also discloses an even more disturbing trend:

“The University of Colorado offers ‘Animals and Society,’ a sociology course that ‘investigates the social construction of the human/animal boundary,’ ‘[c]hallenges ideas that animals are neither thinking nor feeling,’ ‘[c]onsiders the link between animal cruelty and other violence,’ and ‘[e]xplores the moral status of animals.’

Where will this madness stop? Why would anyone investigate the “social construction of the human/animal boundary” and try to prove that animals are thinking and feeling. . . unless they wanted to marry one? Shouldn’t parents and taxpayers (and trustees!) be outraged that our universities are filled with professors promoting this kind of agenda? College should not be a place for exploring the moral status of animals, or indeed for “exploring” animals in any way.

Honestly, I'd wonder if this comment were a parody of conservative objections, but there's no reason to think Concerned Observer is anything but serious. (Usually someone writing a parody is more careful to signal that it is a parody.) Ooops - it was in fact a parody. See update at beginning of this post.

Now, I'm doubtless making my political sympathies clear by saying this, but these are two completely normal, respectable classes. Within the current state of scholarship in the academy (about which Concerned Observer probably knows nothing), these are legitimate topics of investigation. And scholarship in the academy isn't determined (solely) by politics, but by research. Scholars aren't just making this shit up because they're liberal. There are traditions of scholarship into which topics like these fit - and sure, not everyone agrees on what is a valid area of research; that's what makes life interesting.

Of course, I realize that my argument that these courses aren't "weird" or "strange" is exactly what ACTA is complaining about - such courses are typical of the leftist academy! Ergo, our children are being brainwashed! But my point is that such courses become mainstream and acceptable precisely because people are doing serious research on such matters, and that it is the weight of the research, NOT the political sympathies, that make such classes important in the academy.

Beyond this, I get annoyed that non-academics consider themselves in a position to comment so trenchantly on what people in my profession do. (I'm assuming, without any basis, that Concerned Observer is not an academic, though of course s/he might well be. There are plenty of academics involved in things like the ACTA report, but that's another issue.) I don't want to turn the academy into some kind of high priesthood, shrouded in mystery and closed to outside observation. But I also want some recognition that it is a profession, and that people who are not members of that profession should not expect to be able to critique it wholesale without some greater understanding of what it actually does. Yes, I'm sure you went to college; I go to the doctor, too, but that experience doesn't give me the right/ability to question whether doctors as a profession are, for instance, performing too many of Operation X - not without a good deal of research into the question.

And finally, that these attacks are primarily against the humanities (and to some extent the social sciences), but not the natural sciences, just pisses. me. off.* It ties back into the whole idea that anyone can pick up a book and read it, and that the many years of training that I underwent to become a professional historian - well, they don't mean anything. No one ever complains that "Introduction to Organic Chemistry" is too "political," because they think of the sciences as "neutral," AND because unless they're actually a chemist, they assume that they can't possibly understand what a chemist actually teaches in class. Because chemistry, well, it's HARD. But there's a failure to recognize the professional training and expertise that go into courses like the two that Concerned Observer challenges in his/her comment. Because, you know, everyone just knows about masculinity and animals.

Anyway, I guess the answer is that I have to ignore those comments at the bottom of the screen (though it's hard when they're right there taunting you!). I find the blogosphere's comments as a whole much more thought-provoking and satisfying - which some might say is because I only read people who agree with me, but I would argue is because people in the blogosphere actually THINK about what they say.

*oops, of course I forgot about the evolution/creation debate that biologists have to cope with. I have to grant that one.

Comments

[Tabitha Grimalkin]

Excellent post!! I only recently came upon IHE (through the academic blogging community actually), and have had the same reaction as you. The comments make me want to tear my eyeballs out so I simply stopped reading it.

[Laura]

Yes, the commenters there kind of suck. The article I linked to yesterday had some doozies to which the author responded quite thoughtfully. The commenters were so pompous and full of themselves. They may as well have tacked on, "In my day . . ." to everything they said and amended "and we are smarter than you." Ugh.

It's really frustrating trying to explain to people outside of the academy the reasons behind the research and the courses. And while I, too, sometimes have my doubts about the practicality of some course topics, I have no doubt that the students will learn something from them. Maybe what they learn will never be applicable to their future careers, but it will be worth something. And I think that's why people get all bent out of shape. The study of the social construction of the human/animal boundary could very well make a significant contribution to our lives. I mean, I could see analyzing the way we apply insults to people like "jack-ass" and what that tells us about our construction of society. But, most people who object to these things not only don't see any kind of practical application, but they also don't want to think, and that's exactly what these classes are designed to get them to do.

[pi]

I'm still wondering how even the craziest right-wing nut can believe that animals don't think or feel.

Huh?

[Karen]

On a related note, Timothy Burke wrote an incredible post dismantling the ACTA report.

[Bardiac]

Oh, you're so right!

I think you hit the nail on the head with the question of expertise, after all, everyone can read, and everyone has experienced history in some way.

The masculinity issue is especially interesting since we also get taken to task from the right for ignoring men or assuming they don't have "sexuality" or don't need to be studied as such.

[Lisa]

Dear commentator:

Yeah, sure the reason the good ol' USA is a mess is because of people like me, who ask that your kid....think. About something he or she normally wouldn't.

Your friend,
Environmental ethicist

[bitchphd]

I can't stand the commenters at IHE. But I have to admit that the commenters on the Chronicle forums are really almost as annoying. Basically, I think the lesson is not to ever read comment threads any place where they're not closely moderated.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Yes, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the Chronicle commenters were any better - they're just easier to ignore. ;-)

[Ancrene Wiseass]

/nods head vigorously/

It does seem as though people who just categorically hate academia and intellectuals go to IHE and the Chronicle solely to vent their spleen. Or to try to convince both others and themselves that they're "smarter than those eggheads" who have "no idea how things work in the Real World (TM)". Really, it's deeply annoying.

I do not go around telling these people how to do their jobs, and I am profoundly sick of their thinking they can tell me how to do mine.

[Sfrajett]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for being a voice of common sense in a world of academic opining that increasingly feels a lot like a bunch of undergraduates on a tiny campus obsessing about their professors' outfits. Inside Higher Ed bugs the hell out of me, The Chronicle bugs the hell out of me, and I'm sick of the conservative and sexist cranks they love to sponsor in the name of dialogue. Too bad they fill their pages with so much dreck when there are so many more intelligent and likeable voices out there.

[Dorcasina]

Amen, sister. There are a couple of regular commenters who can be counted on to give the "academics are all lazy fools corrupted by tenure and why should you get tenure when red-blooded hard-working and freedom-lovin' Americans don't get tenure" position (regardless of the substance of the column) and the "when I was a professor we would never have considered such tripe" perspective (again, without regard for the actual substance) and the "wow aren't all you academics bitter; too bad you can't cut it in the real world" opinion [which is often indistinguishable from the first position]. From there it deteriorates into ad hominem attacks, incoherent syntax, and mocking each other's spelling errors. And I strongly suspect that some of these cranks get up early so as to comment within 5 minutes of the new material appearing, especially on IHE.

Not an uplifting view of our profession, on the whole. And yes, I agree that there seem to be a lot of "outsiders" who feel compelled to comment on academia in a way that I would never use to approach another profession. Imagine these kinds of discussions on a technology professions blog! I wonder if our self-critique will be the end of us?

[terminaldegree]

AMEN. The fora and comments drive me crazy, although I have to admit reading the Chronicle's every now and then for some entertainment.

Dorcasina wrote: I wonder if our self-critique will be the end of us?

Good point. We DO tend to naval-gaze, don't we?

[Jessica]

Ugh, those comments. There was an article a while back on RateMyProfessors and the damage it's capable of and it got some of the most demented responses from students who visit the site. It made me want to reach out and strangle someone.

[Limon]

This is a great post, New Kid. I am vexed by the same issues, and I was pleased to read your thoughtful and eloquent rant about the very things I like to rant about too!

[Another Damned Medievalist]

Yep -- Funny -- I thought IHE was supposed to be more pro-academic than CHE ...

[turtlebella]

Well, I am a biologist (evolutionary one actually) and beyond the evolution/creation so-called debate there are other problems with the public's perception of the sciences that can be just as vexing. Ignorance of the scientific method makes the public accept what any scientis.t or more often interpreter of science, at face value. Because it's based on "data" it must be "true." Which means we get all kind of crap science being accepted by the public and the students we teach. Then we not only have to teach but un-teach. But, yes, I understand what you are saying, humanities may seem more accessible (although particular disciplines within humanities and social sciences always seemed much more inaccessible to me when I was an undergrad).

Sometimes I wonder if the propensity of non-academics to feel like they have the right to comment on how academics should do their job is due to the increase in consumerism in academia. So many universities are more like corporations that students/parents are more like consumers of the product the university is "selling." And since the customer is always right... But I could just be paranoid about the corporatization of university! (just as Concerned Observer is clearly paranoid about the leftist/homosexual take over of America)

[Another Damned Medievalist]

OTOH, maybe it's because, outside of our conservative colleagues and maybe a few acquaintances, the conservatives who take up so much of the media bandwidth are exactly the non-thinking types it's easy to dismiss? One of the things I like about Bill Maher's show is that he seems to try to bring on serious, thinking conservatives most of the time (like PJ O'Rourke), and only the truly scary and ridiculous ones like She Who Must Not Be Named and Should be Biotch-Slapped (I know -- totally not a feminist statement, but get me in a room with her and it would be more than pies getting thrown) only occasionally.

[shelly]

Holy crap. Look at all that bold-faced type. I may have to go read this after all!

(I confess that I don't and didn't because the hooey at these sites seems manufactured to appeal to the cycles that people go through and once you've been there, and done that, it just ain't that gratifying. Plus the idiots just arent' worth it! Nevermind: I have totally talked myself out of reading it now.)

But happy ranting! :)

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Oh, don't go read it! It's definitely not worth it - I'm just too obsessive to let something that refers to me, go by without comment. But it's so not worth it! ;-)

[Political Scientist]

So let me get this straight: rather than being embarrassed at critiquing a parody, you go on with your rant? Not to mention how incredibly arrogant that rant is! I am an academic, and I teach at a top ten public university, so none of your exclusions apply to me. I can honestly say that all the preening to the contrary notwithstanding, there are lots and lots of courses in the humanities teaching students left-wing crap that is not research in any meaningful sense. The humanities are not like the sciences where one can actually test one's hypotheses and there are ways to verify one's claims. The humanities are just opinions, nothing more nothing less. Hence, professors who teach that sort of "research" have to be responsible, and there's nothing wrong with calling on them to be so. History, by the way, can also be abused even though, unlike English Lit, it does deal with facts... and that's because the same PoMo people who churn out nonsense by the truckload deny the very notion of a fact. I am glad that there are so many heads nodding vigorously to your rant, but I have to point out that there's more than navel gazing going on in academia and we should strive for a lot more than perpetuating our own arcane disciplines. As for the comment on ratemyprofessors.com, I don't quite get it. I link to this site from my academic page and encourage students to post: some of them give me high marks, others don't. I even post the statistical summaries of my student evaluations online. Truth in advertising. Students have the right to know what their colleagues think of a particular prof. It's my job to convince them to take my class and teach them the material. Anyone who pretends that he/she can be a good professor with students who hate him/her should really reconsider that attitude.

[Kate]

Wow. Just goes to show you that folks at top-ten public universities can be ill-informed, ill-reasoning, and hostile. Good job Political Scientist! You wouldn't happen to be Larry Summers in disguise, would you?

[Ancarett]

Political Scientist (at top ten university), I hope you're also aware that the sciences and social sciences are open to all sorts of interpretation and opinion. If you're truly of the belief that yours is a perfectly objective research field, I'm sorry for your students and colleagues because that's a rather delusional stance.

[Philosophy Factory]

Seems that "Political Scientist" has a skewed view of his own discipline as well --- hubby's "Top 10" program in political science is so full of "PoMo"s that it is amazing that the commenter has such distain for them. I'm also pretty shocked that he doesn't realize that political science is barely about science, so it is just as much about opinion as the humanities. In fact, all political science amounts to is quantification of opinion...

Wow-- the arrogance is astounding.

[Ancrene Wiseass]

I agree with what others have said about no field (social sciences and sciences included) being free of those who introduce bias into their work. I will, furthermore, adamantly resist the characterization of reasearch in the humanities as an assemblage of "opinions, nothing more, nothing less."

Political Scientist, my friend, if all I had to do was spout unqualified opinions about the place, I would not need to spend most of my days visiting archives, rare book rooms, and library stacks to read primary source materials, analyze documents, and brush up on political and legal history. I cannot go about saying things which are not well supported by the textual and contextual evidence if I expect people to take me seriously, and that is very much as it should be.

Work that does not produce percentages, pie charts, and bar graphs is not necessarily subjective in nature. Nor is work which does produce such items necessarily objective. It is the nature of the researcher, rather than the nature of our separate fields, which determines the quality of the work we produce.

[Ancrene Wiseass]

Wading in once more to respond to this comment:
Anyone who pretends that he/she can be a good professor with students who hate him/her should really reconsider that attitude.
Again, I beg to differ. Learning to do anything well--and particularly anything so difficult as mastering college-level material, thinking about it critically, and writing about it well--is damnably hard. People do not like being pushed to do hard things, and yet, good teachers are in the business of doing just that.

The students who expect to get by on minimal effort, who expect to remain comfortable in the classroom, who most resist being asked to try new and complex tasks, are often also those who are least emotionally mature. It is quite possible that some of those students will hate teachers who are doing a good job. In fact, I would argue that, the better a teacher does her job, the more likely it is that lazy and immature students will hate her.

We are not in the business of customer satisfaction. We are in the business of education. They are two very different endeavors.