Academic Apartheid

Day 12
We spent the first half of class today watching the first part of a television documentary on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (RCC) in post-Apartheid South Africa. Remarkable how Bishop Desmond Tutu officiated that noble public discussion and testimony—helping guide that country away from devolution into anarchy and additional bloodshed and into a more-free, equal, and open society. Thus, Apartheid rests upon the ash-heap of history with sister evils: Communism, Fascism, and slavery, among others (though pockets of Communistic thought and slavery exist to this day).

I take nothing away from the historic nature of those events or the tragic impact upon the individual lives and collective soul of South Africa when I ask, “Why are we watching this video here and now, in this class?”

If this topic is to be the framework for our study of Advanced Argumentation, why are we not exploring the nature and quality of the arguments that facilitated the philosophical surrender of the South African regime? Why do we not hear Desmond Tutu’s speeches that were of such quality as to prevent revenge-seeking and retaliation by the repressed and disaffected black population? Why do we not hear the arguments made before the United Nations that caused the governments of the world to lean the weight of economic sanctions against the few, struggling, and increasingly isolated supremacists leading the South African Nationalist Party?

Instead, we only see the suffering and hear the stories of the oppressed in emotional appeal. These are worthy stories, indeed. They are worth telling together with the tales of the Holocaust, Gulag survivors, and other heroes and martyrs for humanity. But this class is to teach us the intellectual weapons wielded in such struggles and the student might be better served with less history lesson and reflected guilt—and a bit more effective argument and persuasion technique. This is an opportunity lost to learning the lesson at hand. Progress toward the focused education course implied by my degree track sits in the back of the bus behind dogma and indoctrination.

Be well,

“The Destruction of the Christian Church…is…Necessary”

Day 11

I lead today’s entry with a heartbreaking quotation from one of our primary texts, James Baldwin’s Collected Essays, "White Racism or World Community?":

“It’s got to be admitted that if you are born under the circumstances in which most black people in the West are born, that means really black people over the entire world, when you look around you, having attained something resembling adulthood, it is perfectly true that you can see that the destruction of the Christian Church as it is presently constituted may not only be desirable but necessary.”

Now, one can refer to the literary devices of great writers—as, for all of his faults, James Baldwin certainly was—as they might use shock and exaggeration to garner the attention they require in making what they believe to be salient points; but the questions are begged:

• What would a student be indoctrinated to believe in reading this in a structured class?
• What would a radical take from an independent reading of this work?
• What use would such language be in the hands of a race-monger or sophist seeking adoration and power?

Mr. Baldwin’s prose has a keen edge, but a sharpened tool left idly on the ground gains action in the intent of the hand that finds it laying there—for good or ill.

Be well,

The Difference is in the Definitions

The mind reels on Day 4

The reading assignments tick away beneath my reading lamp. Each one steeped more into twisted logic and bent thought. Straight lines seem impossible. For today, our first written Response Paper was due. We have been instructed to analyze informal fallacies in a written piece of our choosing. For our class, the professor has assigned a great deal of reading by one of the most radically Liberal writers of our day—Cornel West. I chose to analyze a brief passage of his work for fallacies and have just now dutifully turned in my completed paper.

Let’s see how that works out for me.

Having spent some time in the steam bath of Liberal thought has done me some good in that I have the sense that I am gaining an understanding of the thought processes that exist for the contemporary Liberal. I certainly have not mastered such depths—I am not sure that is possible or desirable—but glimpses of understanding are breaking through the fog.

Definitions are Key

• The various philosophers and writers we study in class speak of truth—but for them, truth is an impermanent and transitory thing. Truth is different for each of us.
• They speak of Democracy and Democratic ideals—but for them, Democracy is a kind of unrestricted and shifting tyranny of the populace; it is Socialism with a small “s.”
• Cornel West speaks of Nihilism—but to him, Nihilism is a loss of hope on its public face; masking the institution-destroying definition that most of us are familar with. He writes of Free Markets—but to him, Free Market philosophy carries the same definition as our classical understanding of Fascism. He defines Evangelical as to mean “by force” and militaristic.
• To these writers, Justice, Equality, and Freedom are unfulfilled promises instead of noble principles and objectives to be continually strived towards.

It’s enough to break you heart.
So when a young mind schooled in this "other" language hears of truth, justice, and the American way (to borrow from Superman), what they hear bears little resemblance to what the Founding Fathers undertook to mean. So by controlling the “meaning" of the sacred words we use, the Liberal makes us do their dirty work for them. If I say to the less-privileged that I want Justice for them—they scoff at my apparent sophistry. If I profess the democratic and freedom ensuring power of Free Markets—I am pictured goose-stepping down the halls in jack-boots. All the while feeding and reinforcing their contrivances. They make a straw man of me through sophistry.

God love ‘em….words mean things and language is a big part of culture. I shiver that our language—my lifelong friend and the reasoned Conservative’s greatest ally—may be dulled and serrated by the efforts of sinister minds.

Be well,

Day 2, Of Fallacies and Irony

I am halfway through my second day of class. An attentive reader will notice that the date reflects a greater passage of time—two weeks to be precise. This is due to the Martin Luther King holiday and since this class meets once per week for three hours at a crack, I got a week off. The Reverend King certainly deserves thoughtful remembrance (the “thoughtful” part being in short supply these days) and students, bankers, and certain government workers benefit in a less cerebral manner of respite, but benefit we do.

With today’s class we launch again into the worlds of argumentation and rhetoric. “Launch” is rather an overstatement. It’s more like we skip as a stone skips across the surface. The reading assignment due for today (26 odd pages) took all of two hours. The subsequent quiz given at the beginning of class today had two questions that were merely definitional and easily dispatched from the first page of each chapter—yet still the quiz was met with furtive groans from the majority of the class. Ah, the challenges that will face them in the workplace if they think that this is hard!

We have spent quite a bit of time discussing rhetoric, logic, and the fallacies. A brief time was spent on the use of words and symbols to avoid ambiguity. Irony ensued when the professor (again, a bright and likable fellow) forgot the meaning of the symbols he wrote and could not reconstruct the logic in his logic statement because…well, he was not sure what they meant. Irony defined.

Back to the studies.

As the title and subtitle of this blog suggests, I am attempting to record my journey through the ostensibly liberal-dominated world of academia. The last post suggested that I was in fertile territory for such and today added evidence. We are studying the Formal and Informal Fallacies—this is wholly correct and appropriate for a course in advanced argumentation. However, the examples used by the professor to demonstrate the fallacies are rather telling.

To demonstrate the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem - Circumstantial (personal benefit unrelated to the conclusion) the professor cited the following phrase:
“Lowering taxes is good for the economy because you will have more money!”

To demonstrate the fallacy Argumentum ad Populem (popular believe is unrelated to truth)he said:
“90% of people believe in some form of a higher power so therefore there is a God.”

To demonstrate Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) he said:
“Condi (Dr.) Rice said that we could not wait for a ‘smoking gun’ to invade Iraq because the smoking gun would be a ‘mushroom cloud.’”

(I focus on the use of Liberal position statements rather than the obvious points that this combines two different statements by two different people—neither of them Condi Rice—and takes them out of context, thus committing formal fallacies of fact.)

But to demonstrate the Ambiguity Fallacy of Accent, he predicted that the opposition would emphasize the middle name of one current presidential candidate to create an unfair impression of the man:
“Barak HUSSEIN Obama”

Although the professor certainly may have additional, more even-handed examples at his disposal, these were the only ones discussed. I also should say that their Liberal bent does not necessarily make them incorrect or un-useful examples of the related fallacies (in the logic statement sense). But their selection and use in conjunction with the topic at hand is certainly slighted.

It is a further irony that the professor fails to realize that he is creating the fallacy of bringing his bias to the table in the discussion of fallacy

Until next week,

Later in the Evening, Day One

9:30 PM

Well…in the first session of my first class I have been instructed that Truth is relative and that America has failed at democracy. If there is such a thing a liberal bias test, so far we have failed it. As evidence I offer a paraphrase of a brief conversation I had with the professor at the break:

Me, “Professor, should we assume then that you lean toward subjectivism?”

Prof., “Well you should never assume, that is what gets you in trouble. And it depends on what you mean by ‘lean’ and ‘subjective,’ doesn’t it.”

Me, “Subjective infers that you do not believe in absolute truth—that truth if relative to place, time, and circumstance.”

Prof., “Well then…yes.”

The professor is amiable enough and obviously bright, if significantly eccentric and prone to ad hominem digression. I find those qualities tolerable. But it remains to be seen if I and my obviously contrary viewpoint will get the fair shake I felt denied two decades ago.

Class One, Day One, Before the Begining

6:15 PM, January 14, 2008

Well, today is my first day of class. I will return at a later date to talk about my efforts to actually re-enter Arizona State University after so long a departure. But I will foreshadow that blog a bit by simply saying that it was harder to get back into ASU than it was to get in the first time.

My first class starts in about 15 minutes and I must admit that I approach my return to University with a bunch of preconceptions and my fair share of biases. Most of those biases have to deal with the quality of the education I am to receive and expected biases I anticipate encountering. It is those biases that have prompted me to start this blog. Thus to document my thoughts as I experience them. It is worth stating that my fears were not assuaged by the selections of courses open to my chosen degree field (Communications)—most notable those of the “gender awareness” and “women’s studies” variety.

But I will give the college the benefit of my open mind. So here we go on this grand adventure. Stay tuned.