I work in higher education, and while it may seem that colleges are hotbeds of liberalism, do not forget that essentially we're talking about institutions, which by their nature are essentially conservative. The problem with applying this model to higher education institutions is that their "products" (course offerings, workshops, performances, lectures, and so on) seem "liberal." But, like any income-generating entity, colleges are driven by market pressures. Courses in pornography and alternate lifestyles represent in part the urge to offer breadth in the product line.

More specifically, your comments suffer from sweeping generalizations and partial disclosures that obscure what may be the truth about the kinds of studies that trouble you. Those "porn" classes, for instance; in an academic setting, such materials are perfectly natural, just as the anti-semitic rants of Ezra Pound or the hate-crime-level gay-baiting in some Renaissance plays appear as inevitable features of the fabric of western literature. As I tell my writing students, in an academic setting one has the opportunity to be both objective as well as skeptical--a pessimistic intellect coupled with an optimistic will, as Antonio Gramsci put it. Studying Japanese hentai can do much to illuminate that culture, just as an examination of the poetry of Rudyard Kipling--also immensely popular in his day, albeit riddled with language and senitments some could construe as racist--sheds light on, not only his mind, but the society that found--and finds--him so attractive.

I agree that the move to private/religious-based education could be seen as a solution to the problem of intellectual squeamishness, but as you point out, such a choice is no guarantee. Some Christian colleges, for instance, could make one woefully unprepared for a career in the biological sciences--as far as Darwinism is concerned--and practically any Catholic Jesuit college is going to train its students to adopt such rigorously critical-analytical habits that the "conservative" values your blog implies are preferable could come under as much fire as the "liberal" ones you disdain.

Good luck; any education that matters is liberal, that is, skeptical and open-minded, with the highest standards. Even when it's reading tijuana bibles.

Yes, I am aware of some of my generalizations. However, I merely wish to point out that a growing trend in academia seems to be harder and harder towards the far-left.

And I disagree that requiring students to evaluate porn sites can ever be considered "natural." Porn is highly addictive, and frankly, I would expect, in the name of intellectual integrity, feminist groups to be outraged at the required viewing of female degradation in college.

Not that I want to disqualify you from writing this, Samuel, but have you attended college? It's awfully hard to write about what's going on in American colleges with any credibility if you've attended one.

This is an old issue; it was old in my day when the big deal was courses in black power. I mean, what could you DO with a degree in black power, aside from perpetrating your subject by teaching it? It certainly didn't help get a job in the real world, etc. etc. Even back then in the stone age, colleges had their share of stupid "gut" courses that were considered easy A's, offered by equally shallow profs. I remember one on horror films. Not exactly what was going to get anyone anywhere in the future, but it was fun (of COURSE I took it - who wouldn't!?). There was another one on The History & Brewing Of Beers & Ales. Honestly. Really. That one I didn't take, never much of one for drinking, but I remember being surprised on hearing several attendees complain that it was HARD; the prof actually went through the chemistry of brewing, etc. and they had thought they were going to sign up to drink beer all semester. Surprise, surprise. I remember one of my best/favorite classes was one on the world of Lady Murasaki; we used the Morris "World of the Shining Prince" book as the text. Lots of interesting lights thrown on Japanese culture as well as history, & even modern Japanese psychology. So I guess you can never tell...?

Large universities have always offered silly courses and courses on pop culture including porn are nothing new. They were offering courses on printed porn as literature in the 1960s and this is just the latest phase of that. It doesn't have a significant impact on the overall quality of the education the universities provide, because they're just one course to add some diversity to the college experience, not the totality of that experience.

Dave

No, I agree, Dave; even with the best will in the world, no one is going to be able to major in Porn unless it's a subcontext of Law Enforcement, Filmmaking, or something like that. The university/college core courses & major requirements preclude that sort of thing, generally, altho I've heard of some VERY liberal colleges where the grading is so nebulous as to be nonexistant. But everyone pretty much knows which they are, also, and those graduating therefrom don't have a lot of credibility, either.

I agree, Dave

Three words I genuinely never expected to hear from Nancy.

Michael, you're right. For the sake of full discolure, I have never attended college. I simply read and report facts.

However, I still think I can legitimately write on this. You wouldn't say that it's wrong to criticize the Bush administration if you've never been employed in it, now would you?

That's a fallacious comparison, Samuel. Employees of the Bush Administration are the ones doing the administering. It's the people who are being administrated who have the MOST right and/or stake in criticizing the administration.

Criticizing the way colleges are administered when you've never been to college, on the other hand, is (with no disrespect intended) discussing a subject of which you have no real knowledge.

Mike, what you wrote was this:

"It's awfully hard to write about what's going on in American colleges with any credibility if you've attended one."

You were not there critquing my rant on administrative policy; you were saying I didn't have merit to write about what goes on in college if I have never been there. The shift in subject is important; which one do you prefer discussing? Because if you say I shouldn't write about "what goes on" in colleges (your words exactly) because I do not participate in them, then my comparison holds weight: how can you criticize the NSA (or Bush) without being privy to their meetings?

And how about the ones who pay taxes to support the Universities? Do they qualify to crtiticize?

I am not critquing the way schools are administrated. I am blasting away at the idea that students should be required to view addictive, woman-degrading material as part of their education. That's not enlightenment; it's titillation.

Samuel,

1) What you were talking about specifically was particular classes (on pornography and homosexuality) being permitted into the curriculum; you also referred to the dismissal of Harvard's president, admissions at Yale, and the non-dismissal of Ward Churchill. All of these are matters of administrative policy. Including the material viewed in the porn class--every professor must submit his curriculum to the administration to receive approval and accreditation.

2) I am blasting away at the idea that students should be required to view addictive, woman-degrading material as part of their education.

They are not required to view it as part of their education. These classes are optional. They are not requirements for graduation from the colleges in question, nor are they requirements in any particular major. They are electives. If students don't want to view the material, they need not take the course.

That's not enlightenment; it's titillation.

This is the point that I am making, Samuel. You have not taken any of the courses you're talking about; indeed, you have not taken any college course. So you have no context in which to frame this information. Is it in fact possible that there IS something academic to be taken from X-rated films? Or that there IS something that you and I could learn about how newly outed gays assimilate into the gay culture? There might very well be, but in your comment above, you essentially shut out the very possibility.

Now admittedly I have never taken either class, either. The difference is that I have actually taken college courses, have some idea of how college-level curricula work and how a student's thinking is challenged and how their methods of reasoning are directed. You, my young friend, do not have that context.

Again, I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm just suggesting that you're trying to navigate territory you aren't familiar with.

Samuel, I'm afraid that religious affiliation isn't enough to determine a college's quality. Some typical examples of collegiate decline are religious schools: Georgetown, Boston College, American, Duke. There's nothing overly pious in that list. Even most of the Ivy League colleges began as religious schools.

The growth is in the small religious colleges. They are an alternative to the big, stale institutions.

Will there be a big change, really fast? I had hoped so, with online courses leading the way. I'm less confident than I was. There's a lot of money involved in higher education, and a lot of people's reputations are based on their alma maters. Parents want their kids to get into name-brand schools, and kids want grade inflation and beer.

BTW, there's nothing in your article that made me think you haven't experienced college, except that your spelling was fine.

Well, if you decide you have a serious problem with this piece, feel free to email the editor.

As such, I don't really need to discuss my merits (or lack thereof), because, if you will take a causal glance around the politics section, there is no one (according to your standards) on this site qualified to criticize the President, his decisions, his war, or anything. And yet they do.

Ain't freedom grand?

I don't have a problem with this piece that warrants emailing the editor, Samuel. Nor do I see how, according to my standards, no one on this site is qualified to criticize the president, his decisions, his war, or anything. I don't subscribe to your interpretation of my standards.

I can admit to you and Baronius that you are a very good writer, and that in that sense, nothing about your article led me to guess that you hadn't been to college. It was your age that did it. But that was clearly enough for me to guess correctly.

And in fairness, Baronius, some kids go to schools with good reputations really ARE interested in academic development, not just grade inflation and beer. I, for one, worked my ass off to do well in school, and I helped pay for it, too.

Samuel, thank you for another thought provoking, and comment provoking article. You seem to have done some research on your subject and have some views on it that you wanted to share.

If someone out there has ever taken one of the classes you mention and could enlighten the rest of us about what benefits might be gained, they should join the conversation. Perhaps, we will all gain by learning something about a subject we haven't given much thought to.

As far as you expressing your opinions. We were all 17 at one time and we all had opinions. I would be willing to guess most of us were not as articulate at that age as you are. With age and experience some of our opinions change and some of them don't. With age and experience some of us get wiser and some of us don't. But the best thing about this country is we all have the right to express our thoughts and to disagree with one another.

Personally, I enjoy hearing the thoughts of people of all ages. Sometimes we need to get shaken out of the rut our thought patterns and look at issues in a different light.

there are lots of things i disagree with here... it's pretty obvious that a class called "how to be homosexual" is not going to answer such questions as "how do you donkey punch your partner?" it's going to be about surviving in todays society as a homosexual. obvious.

a class on porn probably involves some theory, study and discussion on pornography, including how it devalues women and has addictive qualities. i doubt it's just a solid hour of tooling around the internet followed by cleaning up your workspace.

these things bother me. they reflect an obvious bias against knowledge if you believe that it is amoral. but, you know... that's just you.

the thing that really bothers me is this section: "More and more of the intelligentsia seem to be coming out of the woodwork to denounce the "evils" of American capitalism and nationalism. That's pretty poignant when you consider that many other countries would impose the death penalty on anyone making similar remarks about their government."

can't you see the circular logic there? so? you can say that america has evil qualities... yet, just because you can, you shouldn't? no! you should! if that's your opinion, and you want to voice it, voice it. if that's what makes america great, and it is one of the great things about america, then what the fuck would the point be if no one bothered to do it? would america be great then? no! it would be a sham. there are parts of america that deserve to be derided as the shameful qualities that they are. because it is our right to do so, we should make it our duty to call it as we see it. it's called democracy, freedom, all sorts of things.