Letter to Emanuel Pastreich III
Something is rotten in the state of Academia III
Letters from Vienna #160
Letter to Emanuel Pastreich III
Something is rotten in the state of Academia III
Dear Emanuel,
You write that: “Although this letter is not literally a letter, it is most certainly a response.” To this I reply: of course, my letters are open rather than private letters and can be read as “essays” (“essais” (Montaigne)), attempts at articulating my slow, clumsy and hapless thoughts (which frequently fail miserably) yet I cannot help but be attached to this appellation. I flatter myself that I’m a “man of letters” (however un-pc this denomination might be!) and that culture is just as if not more important than politics. That the interest in politics these days seems to be greater is truly lamentable. I can’t help think both Peter Zadek and Imre Kertész right when decrying the lack of literary education in the declining years of the twentieth century; we are decadent, a culture in decline and have become horribly (most notably: intellectually and spiritually) impoverished! And I cannot help but think that our current moral malaise, our drift toward technocratic Nihilism, materialism and utter despair as well as the decline of academic standards are somehow interlinked. Ultimately, I feel we’re experiencing a decline of consciousness, which is why religions such as Buddhism & Hinduism are so extremely important these days. There is always hope in the “East”!
In your “response” you cite the example of how: “The recently retired president of Harvard University, Drew Faust, has joined the board of directors of Goldman Sachs. She will receive an “annual grant of restricted stock valued at $500,000” and “an annual retainer of $75,000.”” Was this a “Faustian bargain” (you will hopefully excuse my lame attempt at levity!)? What it shows again is that there are literally no bounds between “public” and “private” or, more exactly: the former has been absorbed by the latter.
In my last letter I mentioned the British government of the 1980s but deliberately omitted the name of “Thatcher” because I abhor it so passionately, deeply and enduringly. That, in a nutshell was what Thatcher was all about (apart from de-industrialisation and population reduction of course): privatisation: selling public property to “private stakeholders” at rock bottom prices, a development Lord Macmillan decried as “selling the family silver”. This is the bedrock of the current Fascism we’re all experiencing (as defined as the political expression of monopolistic capitalism and the fusion of corporations with the state) as well as the destruction of our universities. Business has become “morally superior” (in a utilitarian sense, it is “more useful”) than the impartial, unbiased pursuit of truth (the Humboldtian model if you will).
Why Humboldt?
“Writing to the King of Prussia, Humboldt expressed his opinion that education should interlink all educational institutions, benefit all citizens, and encourage both individuality and professional training. He concluded,
There are undeniably certain kinds of knowledge that must be of a general nature and, more importantly, a certain cultivation of the mind and character that nobody can afford to be without. People obviously cannot be good craftworkers, merchants, soldiers or businessmen unless, regardless of their occupation, they are good, upstanding and–according to their condition–well-informed human beings and citizens. If this basis is laid through schooling, vocational skills are easily acquired later on, and a person is always free to move from one occupation to another, as so often happens in life.
From a modern perspective, one could read into Humboldt’s explanation that he does not deem one field (e.g. science) being inherently of higher value than another (e.g. literature) but rather that both together are necessary to create well-informed, holistic individuals.
In 1810, the University of Berlin was founded under Humboldt’s influence. The university considered teaching and research mutually enriching while encouraging students to take advantage of their Lernfreiheit (“liberty in learning”) to seek truth in the faculty of philosophy, one of the most important subjects in Humboldt’s model.”[1]
That the oligarchic families (e.g. the Rockefellers) have long meddled in education can hardly be denied and our education system remains one of the main instruments of both social engineering and none-too subtle brain-washing. I’m not sure if you’ve had the opportunity to study the documentaries of Adam Curtis (especially “The Century of the Self”[2]) but I’d recommend you do so. It’s his documentaries which opened my eyes to the extent to which we’re manipulated on a regular basis. I’ve since applied the skepticism I learned from David Hume and the “relativism” I learned from Kant (we see everything through tinted glasses) to every single piece of information I’ve ever encountered. I don’t believe anything anymore but accept that some ideas (or hypotheses if you will) are more likely (or plausible or “have greater validity”) than others (see my letters on Popper & Wittgenstein[3]). This might seem an extremely arduous method but it’s not without merit. It means, above all else, that one has to be careful of all the “information” (“misinformation”) the government, media or “independent experts” (which are pretty much identical) feed us with. Extreme caution is always needed, along with much (time-consuming and often irritating) research. That you still haven’t found time to research the “climate change” issue with any degree of thoroughness, for example, annoys me intensely!
What I wanted to write about in this letter however are three separate cases of academics who have shown an admirable degree of integrity: Mark Crispin Miller (Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU), Dr. Roger Hodkinson (MA, MB, FRCPC, FCAP, CEO and medical director of Western Medical Assessments) and Denis Rancourt (former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa).
The Curious Case of Mark Crispin Miller
“This semester (2020), Miller taught a section of his NYU propaganda course. In September, a class session focused on campaigns promoting mask-wearing as a means of limiting the spread of the novel coronavirus. After a student took issue with some of Miller’s in-class statements and the sources he cited, she took to Twitter calling for him to be fired. Miller’s department chair, Rodney Benson, replied to the student’s posts and indicated that the department had made her concerns a priority.”
“On Oct. 6, Miller responded on his personal blog, outlining the material he shared in his course, noting the criticism he received, and expressing concerns…about the threat to academic freedom posed by investigations into course content. He also shared a petition asking NYU to affirm his right to academic freedom, which has garnered more than 17,000 signatures.”
“Then, on Oct. 21, several faculty members of the media department penned a letter to Dean Jack H. Knott and Provost Katherine Fleming calling on them “to publicly support the NYU community and undertake an expedited review . . . of Professor Miller’s intimidation tactics, abuses of authority, aggressions and microaggressions, and explicit hate speech, none of which are excused by academic freedom and the First Amendment protections.” However, the letter itself contained no specific allegations of policy violations, focusing instead on “the way in which [Miller] engages discussion around controversial views and non-evidence-based arguments”; his petition, which they characterize as an “email campaign against the department”; and others’ negative responses to the student’s criticism of Miller’s course.
On Oct. 29, Dean Knott launched an investigation into Miller based on the letter.”[4]
What appalled me about the case at the time (which I followed closely on Social Media) was the shameful and appalling position taken by both his “colleagues” and the university administration, who can only be sharply rebuked for it. Those responsible for the “witch hunt” need to be held to account and, if need be, punished. That an “investigation” was deemed necessary at all is simply ridiculous!
How can one explain the words and actions of “academics” or “administrators”, which wouldn’t have been out of place in Nazi Germany? If ever one wanted proof that Fascism is alive, well and kicking and living in academia one need only to look in the direction of NYU.
Mark Crispin Miller can be, thankfully, still found on Substack,[5] and his voice remains independent, critical and highly intelligent, which is, to be frank, surprising under the circumstances! I’d strongly recommend that you read his work if you haven’t done so already!
I’ll write about Dr. Roger Hodkinson and Denis Rancourt in the following two letters, which I sincerely hope you will have the patience to actually read!
Best,
Michael
[1] https://yaledistilled.sites.yale.edu/browse-issues/2020-issue/crisis-education-can-we-make-humboldtian-concept-sexy-again
[3] https://lettersfromvienna.substack.com/p/the-infinity-of-ignorance
https://lettersfromvienna.substack.com/p/running-against-the-walls-of-our
[4] https://www.thefire.org/news/nyu-ignores-academic-freedom-investigates-mark-crispin-millers-course-content-blog-post