November 5, 2015 § Leave a comment
What killed liberal arts are people who think universities are Walmart or that education is a commodity. There is no “education market” that’s going to behave the way a market for video game consoles or brand name sneakers does.
As far as whining about colonialism studies, Marxism, and critical race theory, any field of study that produces something you don’t like is going to get the same criticism that this moronic video coughs up. All you’ve said is “I don’t like what they’re arguing.” So what? So disprove their arguments.
You people act as if those disciplines are closed to everyone but social justice warriors. If you think the field is producing shit that isn’t true, then that’s your opportunity to enter it and challenge their assumptions. You would think free market proponents would appreciate that such a scenario would be an opportunity. What is to stop any of you from doing it?
If you can challenge their assumptions, then do it. But if instead your rebuttal is to piss and moan about it without actually offering up a substantive challenge to the theories they are producing, then why should anyone assume you’re even capable of providing such a challenge, or that such a challenge even exists? I don’t see one presented in this video, at any rate. And we won’t be seeing any in the comments section either.
The view on offer in this video is just standard anti intellectualism and appealing to the frustrated bitterness of people with an intellectual chip on their shoulder. The conclusion we’re supposed to draw is that colleges should be treated like trade schools, because most of the people who whine about this shit don’t seem to realize that the point of universities is research.
And you have yet to demonstrate that any of these fields are even outside of “the humanist tradition.” We’re supposed to assume this because some 20 year old feminist twit doesn’t like Mozart? It can be argued that something like colonialism studies is simply an extension of the enlightenment. It’s just as easily argued that blind faith and obedience to some lofty, mythologized canon of ideas is actually contrary to the “western humanist tradition.” If you can defend those ideas, then by all means, what is stopping you from doing so? If we take an idea seriously, we ruthlessly criticize it. If it holds up, it’s worth taking seriously, right?
Is critical appraisal, rather than blind faith based on authority, not itself the western humanist tradition?
And speaking of that tradition, didn’t both Plato and Aristotle argue that a “liberal education” made the difference between a free man and slave? Or are we going to excise them from the “humanist” tradition because we don’t like what they argued as well? It’s funny how something is a part of the tradition when it supports a preconceived conclusion and banished from it the moment it might challenge that conclusion. Is that rational inquiry? It looks like religious faith to me.