Glenn Beck Goes To College

I've documented Glenn Beck's anti-intellectualism crusade here before, so this little number should come as no surprise. Beck rails against tier one colleges, and Harvard specifically, for having huge endowments. He swears that it has nothing to do with what he sees as liberal indoctrination, even though he can't seem to help himself from mentioning liberal indoctrination throughout the piece. No, no, that's not it. It's just that he wants to "level the playing field," as he puts it. Let's tax the wealthiest universities, and give the money to struggling schools, so that all institutes of higher learning have equal resources. Beyond the fact that it's a little suspicious that a raging capitalist is pushing for educational socialism, what doesn't seem to occur to Beck is that we don't want all universities to be the same. The reason there are top-tier universities is that there are top-tier students. Top-tier students should face greater challenges than lower tier students. Make all universities the same, and you've furthered the notion that higher education is nothing but generic job training, something I'm sure Glenn Beck would love to see codified.

The reason Harvard University and universities like it have large endowments is that it allows them freedom. Their endowments protect the universities from have to cave to political, social or parental pressures. In a capitalist society, anything can be bought, including the principles of higher education. Being worth more than is practical to purchase keeps Harvard University from being bought out by politicians who want to artificially alter campus politics, religious zealots who want to teach intelligent design, and wealthy parents who think their child deserves a higher grade for less effort. So Harvard can go about producing high-quality Harvard graduates from both full-paying students as well as the over 400 students per year who receive scholarships directly from the school.

This is my favorite bit from Beck's piece:

Harvard University, which has the largest endowment in the country, has a total of $34.6 billion. To put into perspective just how much money that is, consider that the largest charitable foundation in the world, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has a total endowment of $37.3 billion.

But while their financial statements may look similar, their missions aren't. The Gates Foundation is working to cure malaria, develop new tuberculosis vaccines, and stop the spread of AIDS. Most of our colleges and universities are only working to spread the radical political views of some of their professors.

Who exactly does Beck think is doing to gruntwork behind these medical breakthroughs? Apparently he's forgotten that, in between all of their classes on enabling the lazy and hating America, Harvard students graduate with degrees. Degrees in things like medicine, molecular biology, chemistry. Who does Beck think is doing that research? $37.3 billion dollars doesn't cure malaria on its own. A quick look at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation site shows that the charity doesn't quite view Harvard with the distaste Beck does, given its donations to the school.

The Change Leadership Group at Harvard Graduate School of Education - $3.6 million

Civil Rights Project at Harvard University - $.2 million

Construction of the Harvard Computer Sciences Center - $10 million

And, as if to prove that Beck doesn't know what he's talking about, the foundation also gave:

$45 million to Harvard Medical School for Tuberculosis Research

$25 million to Harvard School of Public Health for AIDS prevention in Nigeria

Huh. Apparently, the resources available at Harvard University help establish it as a major player in exactly the work Beck lauds the Gates Foundation for doing. So much so, in fact, that the charity gives money to the school. Who'd have thought? Apparently not Glenn Beck.

So, it's a depressing day on the anti-intellectualism front. Can't anybody cheer me up?

Chris Matthews? REALLY?



I guess so. Go Chris. If journalists did this with any regularity, the entire neo-con agenda would be discredited in a week.

pseudoPod

What the hell is a pseudo-intellectual, anyway? It seems like a bullshit term used by anti-intellectuals to make intellectualism seem like a fraud. What makes me a 'pseudo-intellectual'? Is it that I don't have multiple advanced degrees, and yet don't choose to spend the majority of my weekends chugging patriotic domestic beers and watching football? I'm honestly curious. If that's the job description, sign me up. I'm qualified. I don't have a problem with beer or football. I even enjoy the former, albeit not frequently. But in general, that's just not my thing.

Honestly, here's the thing. I'm not entirely sure I do qualify as a true intellectual. Not that I believe that there's an actual precise measure of it. ("I'm here for the position of 'intellectual.'" "How many masters degrees do you have?" "Two." "What in?" "Architecture and Theories of Education." "Ooh, so close. Next!") It's just that if you ask me straight out, am I an intellectual, I'm not sure I'd say yes.

There's a world of difference between being an intellectual and advancing intellectualism. I don't have to be an intellectual to believe that there is inherent benefit in being an intellectual, and in consulting with intellectuals on matters that pertain to their areas of expertise, and not getting all panties-wadded offended at the notion that maybe, just maybe, somebody who has an advanced degree in a subject might be more knowledgeable than me in regards to that subject. I don't have to be an intellectual to want an intellectual running this country, and not a cartoon cowboy who can't pronounce the word 'nuclear.' I don't have to be an intellectual to think anti-intellectualism is at the heart of most of the problems currently facing our culture.

It doesn't really matter to me whether I'm an intellectual, or a pseudo-intellectual, or a total moron. I am an intellectualist. One needn't be gay to fight for gay rights. One needn't be a woman to detest misogyny. One needn't be an intellectual to advocate intellectualism.

Conservative Simplification

I became aware of this article by Adam Wolfson because my wife knew him while she was in college. She thought I might be interested to see what he had written a few years back for the National Review, and she was right. It's actually a pretty interesting article, and at least gives a much-needed break to the old stand-by criticisms of liberal motivations, like hating America and wanting the terrorists to win. That doesn't mean it isn't deeply, deeply flawed. It is, and as usual for conservative analysis of liberals, is a gross simplification of liberal philosophy.

These explanations no doubt have something to do with why the Left despises Bush. But there is more to their hatred than is generally understood — something more fundamental is at work. Almost all modern liberal thought begins with the bedrock assumption that humans are basically good. Within this moral horizon something such as terrorism cannot really exist, except as a manifestation of injustice, or unfairness, or lack of decent social services. Whether knowingly or not Bush has directly challenged this core liberal belief — and for this he is not easily forgiven.

There's some truth to this. I'm certainly not ashamed to say that I think there are a lot of shades of grey between black and white. Anyone with any sense of empathy should be able to understand that humans are very seldom motivated by classic cartoon villainy, complete with black cape and drooping mustache. We all do things that we know we shouldn't. How often are you motivated to do so by a driving desire to be evil? Did you drive to work today at fifteen miles over the speed limit to further an agenda of evil? Did you engage in neighborhood gossip to further an agenda of evil? Did you steal a newspaper, cheat on your spouse, underpay an employee or omit undocumented income from your tax returns because you are a person driven by evil? It's unlikely, even though all those actions are, to some degree, evil. Why is it such a crazy, moonbat liberal idea that humans can do evil without being evil, when we each exemplify that type of human fallibility on a daily basis?

But what should be clear and obvious is made obscure by liberal ideology. If we are to face the evil in plain sight, we must first properly fit words to facts. Bush calls the terrorists "killers" and "evildoers," and speaks of an "axis of evil." He affirms the need for the "violent restraint of violent men," and argues that military strength is necessary to keep at bay "a chaotic world ruled by force." He describes life under Hussein's rule in Iraq as a "Baathist hell." We live, the president warns, in "a time of danger."

My wife assures me that Mr. Wolfson is a pretty intelligent guy. He very well may be, but it smacks of smarmy, self-righteous ignorance to so openly and warmly embrace this kind of irresponsible rhetoric. Using broad strokes to misrepresent situations teeming with nuance isn't the calling card of a brave leader; instead, it's the embarrassing tactic of a weak politician pandering to an anti-intellectual and increasingly xenophobic base.

It's not that liberals can't deal with evil. I agree that we may view evil in different terms, but I don't believe that we can't parse it and actively ignore it. We're just not willing to let the evils of others justify evil as a response. Are the terrorists "killers" and "evildoers"? Absolutely. Does that justify hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Civilian deaths as part of the response to their actions? Was Iraq under Saddam a "Baathist hell"? For some, I'm sure it was. Does that justify an occupation that has destroyed huge swaths of that nation while funneling its money into the pockets of American corporations? These are the questions that conservatives have to ignore, because the answers are so glaringly obvious, and yet their supportive philosophy is based on leaps of logic that fly counter to those answers. Only the most callous and desensitized conservative could actually claim that killing a house full of children with a missile in an attempt to kill one terrorist operative based on faulty and uncertain intelligence is justified. But by employing words like "evildoers", "violent men", and "Baathist hell", they manage to keep things in black and white, as if seeing it that way made it so.

This kind of thinking isn't only wrong. It's dangerous. It leads to leaps of logic that jeopardize our ability to accurately assess and respond to events. In the conservative worldview, it's easy to assume Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were working together. They were both evil men, so surely they would work together, just like the Joker and the Penguin, or Lex Luthor and General Zod. That they weren't fictional characters is irrelevant, since the conservative concept of evil men is very much the same as comic book villains. Sure, we went to war to a large extent based on that fictional alliance, but that's okay. Evildoers. Killers. Violent Men. You understand, we had no choice.

That's certainly not the only example. They're incredibly frequent. Let's not forget that Dick Cheney assured us that it was "reasonable to believe" that the anthrax attacks of 2001 were perpetrated by Al Queda. And now, of course, we keep hearing that the government of Iran is aiding Al Queda, and that you don't need actual evidence, because it should just be obvious. C'mon. Evil helps evil. When can we start bombing?

I realize this article is a few years old now, but it still seems very relevant; maybe even moreso than when it was written. The entire McCain campaign seems to be based on this same sort of thinking. Liberals are to wishy-washy to trust. We need a "straight talker". Somebody who can get the job done. Somebody who won't ask pesky questions about global responsibility and social justice. Someone who knows how to handle an evildoer. Because there are countries to be bombed, civilians to be killed, nationalism to be stoked, blood money to be made and resources to be stolen. We can't be bothered with morality.

Dusty Books

A brand new study by the National Endowment for the Arts presents three troubling, completely unpredictable conclusions:

• Americans are spending less time reading.
• Reading comprehension skills are eroding.
• These declines have serious civic, social, cultural, and economic implications.


No shit.

This hasn't been established yet? We needed this study because the results were uncertain for even five seconds? Not that I don't see the value of hammering the point home, but could we maybe take some of that research money and put it towards, oh, I don't know... fucking doing something about it?

Oh well. Some of the more troubling findings:

• 57% of adult Americans read even one book they were not required to read in 2002, down from 61% in 1992. Even more troubling is the dramatic change in the 18-24 age group: 52% in 2002 from 59% in 1992, a 12% rate of decline. It is reasonable to believe, given this trend, that less than half of college-aged adults have read a book voluntarily in the last year.

• Young people are reading significantly less than before. Percentage of children who read daily for enjoyment has always decreased with age, but not as dramatically as it currently does. In 1984, 53% of 9-year-olds read for enjoyment, dropping to 31% at age 17. In 2004, that change was far more pronounced, as 54% of 9-year olds read for fun, dropping to 22% at age 17.

• In 2004, almost 20% of 17-year-olds say the 'never or almost never' read for enjoyment. That's one out of every five teenagers who are basically voluntarily illiterate.

Of course, as is to be expected, the response to this report is full of migraine-inducing folly.

Gioia called the decline in reading "perhaps the most important socio-economic issue in the United States,

Okay, yeah, I'm with you so far. This is definitely an arguable position.

and called for changes "in the way we're educating kids, especially in high school and college. We need to reconnect reading with pleasure and enlightenment."

No. No, no, no. This 'changing the way we're educating kids' bullshit never does any good at all. Educational trends are 90% crackpot nonsense. Back when I was an elementary ed major, the focus was on 'integrative education', which was professional jargon for sticking one profoundly autistic child into a classroom full of mainstream students. Failure to see the value of this practice was a major contributing factor to my leaving the program. Apparently, since then, others have realized what I said back then: all that system got you was a group of twenty-four students whose education was interrupted by constant disruption and one heartbreakingly confused autistic child.

The problem is not in the schools, except for the extent to which schools are an extension of our culture. Any educator with a lick of experience will tell you which children tend to read for enjoyment: children who see their parents reading for enjoyment. These are the same parents who take an active role in their children's education, and promote the value of gaining knowledge. This is not to be confused with parents who promote the value of good grades... 'helicopter parents' create entitled children, not educated children. When children are brought up in an environment that values knowledge and education as a lifelong pursuit, those children are infinitely more likely to carry those values on. We can not continue to blame schools for the problems caused by our own culture of anti-intellectualism.

Want your child to read more? Stop calling his teacher, turn off Desperate Housewives, crack a book, and create a positive example. If you're too busy to read, you're too busy to raise an educated child.

Marketing Anti-Intellectualism

This pisses me off. Feel free to watch the whole thing if you want to, but it's long and boring and infuriating when you think about what it's doing. Feel free to stop once you get the gist of it.

Anti-intellectualism is a trend to be very afraid of. Nothing ensures the quick collapse of a culture like the vilification of academics and education in general. One of the most disturbing indicators of this trend is to corporatization of American universities. Pandering to parents has become more important than maintaining a standard of intellectual integrity. "Think the curriculum is too hard? Too mature in content? Too demanding? Too liberally biased? We'll change that for you, even if that means providing sub-standard education! Just please keep sending us your tuition!"

Why do parents feel entitled to this? Because morons like Glenn Beck assure them that they're entitled to it. "Look at the way Columbia University laid out the red carpet for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, embracing islamofascism. Hey, we'll even show you this video of the audience cheering for him. (We won't show you clips of the audience jeering him, nor will we show you University President Lee Bollinger explain why Ahmadinejad was allowed to speak despite the University most assuredly not supporting him.)"

These are statements from Bollinger's introduction of Ahmadinejad:

"...First, since 2003, the World Leaders Forum has advanced Columbia’s longstanding tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate, especially on global issues. It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible...

...We at this university have not been shy to protest and challenge the failures of our own government to live by these values; and we won’t be shy in criticizing yours.

Let’s, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.

And so I ask you:

Why have women, members of the Baha’i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?..."

So I call bullshit on your allegations that Columbia showed any support of Ahmadinejad by allowing him to speak, Glenn Beck. But you don't really care about that, do you? Your agenda is much broader in scope. You are pandering to the growing numbers of anti-intellectual Americans, assuring them that the vigorously educated leaders of academic institutions are actually less intelligent than they are, because they are too stupid to understand the dangers posed by allowing someone like Ahmadinejad to speak. Is it any wonder we can't get our children to care about their own education when we reinforce the idea that the educated are dangerously stupid? You're a pandering hack, Glenn Beck.

"We do it in the great tradition of openness that has defined this nation for many decades now. We need to understand the world we live in, neither neglecting its glories nor shrinking from its threats and dangers. It is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament. In the moment, the arguments for free speech will never seem to match the power of the arguments against, but what we must remember is that this is precisely because free speech asks us to exercise extraordinary self- restraint against the very natural but often counter-productive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear. In this lies the genius of the American idea of free speech."

-Lee Bollinger

Yes.