★ [PDF / Epub] ☄ Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education By Roger Kimball ✪ – Torrentindir.co

Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education pdf Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education, ebook Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education, epub Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education, doc Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education, e-pub Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education, Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education 9ee5206334c Since Tenured Radicals First Appeared In , It Has Achieved A Stature As The Leading Critique Of The Ways In Which The Humanities Are Now Taught And Studied At American Universities Trenchant And Witty, It Lays Bare The Sham Of What Now Passes For Serious Academic Pursuit In Too Many Circles In This New Edition, Completely Reset, Roger Kimball Has Brought The Text Up To Date And Has Added A New Introduction Those Who Have Never Read Tenured Radicals Are In For A Treat Others May Find A Second Reading Worth Their While Mr Kimball Names His Enemies Precisely This Book Will Breed Fistfights Roger Rosenblatt, New York Times Book Review All Persons Serious About Education Should See It Allan Bloom, Author Of The Closing Of The American Mind Tenured Radicals Is A Withering Critique Jonathan Yardley, Washington Post Book World A Bravado Performance Of Critical Journalism A Vivid, Up To The Minute Account, Alternately Amusing And Dismaying, Of The Takeover Of The Academy By Ideology Robert Alter, Newsday A Stinging Account The Commonsense Approach Of Tenured Radicals Provokes Constant Reflections And Occasional Laughter At The Squirming Victims Roger Shattuck, Author Of The Banquet Years

10 thoughts on “Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education

  1. says:

    Okay, up front, Some of you will hate this book, you ll disagree and without even reading it Others like myself will look at it and say, Yeah, I ve seen this going on Like media bias some of us see it, find it obvious and wonder that anyone refuses to believe it This book deals with the current condition of unbiased scholarship in our institutions of higher learning In short, it s pretty much nonexistent.The ideal of University was always supposed to uninfluenced education Beginning in the 60s and before, but it came to the fore then the idea of bucking the establishment became the establishment Left wing teachers with agendas became not only the rule, they were sought after for the imagined prestige they brought.As I ve noted about other books if I try to cover what the book covers I won t do it justice Each chapter would bring to mind something where I d think, I need to mention this For example the study of the humanities has changed a lot It s become in most of our universities indoctrination than education From the actual statement that learning from Cliff s Notes is coequal to reading the work Romeo and Juliet was mentioned to the equating of Road Runner Cartoons to the great works or western literature to comparing William Bennett to Hitler for his suggestion of a canon of study the Humanities is are not what they were.So an example from the book do we replace Shakespeare with Jacqueline Susann We have replaced unbiased thinking with left wing indoctrination and scholarship with feel goodism But I don t really expect everyone to agree I do expect many to dis this book like that word without even reading it I can only suggest an open mind and an unbiased read.

  2. says:

    From the acknowledgements page where Kimball credits both the arriere garde New Criterion and the fetid Olin Foundation to the concluding quotation of fascist sympathizer Evelyn Waugh, this text manages to get just about everything wrong Some of the salient problems, culled simply for brevity s sake from the preface and first chapter Intellectual Dishonesty Kimball claims that the self righteous emphasis on diversity, relevance, and sensitivity provides a graphic example of the way in which the teaching of the humanitieshas been appropriated by special interests 3 What is fundamentally dishonest are the assertions that a any education can be politically neutral and b his own preferred method of humanities instruction traditionalist, masculinist, great books centered, ignorant to race class politics, atheoretical, c is somehow, magically, outside of politics There is, incidentally, no indication in the text of how an emphasis on diversity or sensitivity is an example of appropriation of humanities education by so called special interests eh Is that even subject to appropriation And, if so, so what Who, exactly, is the special interest that promotes diversity The accusation is comically aporetic, and it is difficult to discern, even at this early point, whether this text is a parody of neo philistinism or the genuine artifact see Poe s Law.Indeed, the notion that discussions of race, class, and gender are a matter of special interests is likewise fairly dishonest, for, taken as an aggregate, these groups account for what approaches 100% of humanity Kimball s preferred instruction reckons with the experience of the elite, which, for some bizarre reason, he associates with the general interest Conceptual Confusion Kimball carps that the modern university focuses on the canon of Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche, and is further dominated by a motley variety of avante gard criticism based on a combination of liberal political pieties 7 A fairly muddled formulation, this charge conflates a wide variety of thinking on both the political left and in the modern academy the two are not identical Leaving aside the notion that Freudians and Marxists don t necessarily get along not to mention how Nietzsche s followers complicate things , we can topple Kimball s house of cards simply by noting that if someone is a Marxist, then that means s he is not a liberal liberals look too much like capitalists to the average Marxist, we must recall It is, of course, manifestly erroneous to suggest that Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche get much attention in themselves though certainly they are extremely influential There s a reason for that, but Kimball isn t interested in looking at the reason, but rather anathematizes them as villains Systematic Fallacious Reasoning Kimball pooh poohs the fact that the products of popular cultureare given parity or even precedence over the most important cultural achievements of our civilization by modern intellectuals xiii If I recall my own humanities training, we tend to call this type of irrational argument Begging the Question, Circular Reasoning, and Tautological Argumentation Kimball, simply put, here assumes his conclusion in his vainglorious effort to prove that the subject and method of the modern academy is bad, he posits his own preferred subject and method as the most important That an entire generation of scholars is attempting to interrogate precisely this issue of what is most important seems to have eluded Kimball s cognitive process He may well be correct about what happens to be most important, but there s nothing in this text to make that demonstration the point therefore appears to be mere sensationalist dogma.Other fallacies easily spotted in the preface and first chapter a Slippery Slope xii , at least one Red Herring 5 6 , Argumentum ad Hominem dismissals galore, Appeals to Tradition literally on every page he needs to argue rigorously for this tradition s value, after all, rather than to venerate it childishly , and some assorted Argumentum ad Verecundiam, Complex Cause, c I have removed references to Straw Man Fallacies and placed them below for reasons that will be explained Dearth of Understanding Kimball just can t seem to comprehend some of the basics of the object of his critque E.g., while bashing at feminist literary criticism, he claims that proper literary criticism should be disinterested inquiry and a notion of scholarship that deliberately strives to transcend political differences 19 This is, of course, so far out of tune with the entire history of literary study as to disqualify the entire point any suggestion that literary criticism has ever been this kind of apolitical utopia is both beyond obnoxious and evidence of one who hasn t done one s homework One need only turn to such critics as Leavis, Richards, Arnold, and Eliot on the one hand, or Williams, Burke, Benjamin, and Gorky on the other in order to see some politics of literary criticism A quick review of the relevant sections of Plato s Republic might suggest to even the least careful readers that literary theory has for many centuries had overt political objectives Ultimately, it becomes an absurdity to argue that literary criticism has not been and does not continue to be a polymorphously committed field of cultural production Kimball s own unacknowledged but highly politicized notions confirm this abundantly Additionally, his characterization of the standard operating equipment of intellectual Marxists as a tendency to trump mere empirical evidence with the charge of false consciousness 24 completely disregards both the position he d just before been summarizing and the general corpus of Marxian theory if his argument demonstrated any competence whatsoever, then I d assume that he was simply distorting his opponents positions whether out of malice or weakness is beyond anyone s ken at this point but since his argument gets nothing correct, it must simply be a matter of the author s own mental incapacity, and not repeated use of the Straw Man fallacy Is there any other conclusion Facile Interpretation of World Events Kimball s position vis a vis Frantz Fanon is indicative of the whole of his text To Kimball, Fanon is to be associated with Goering and the Nazis yes, Kimball has the gall to make this perverse association 30 and The Wretched of the Earth is merely an incitement to murder 30 Of course, the long process of colonial abuse in Africa, the details of Fanon s actual argument, and other sundries all drawn from the traditional study of history that Kimball claims to prize are to be forgotten here This intentional amnesia regarding the stated purpose indicates that Kimball is not committed to those stated principles of his book, but rather to his own rightist political agenda much though he may otherwise posture Part of that political agenda is necessarily reliant on a simplistic reading of history, politics, and philosophy simplistic enough to pretty much equate Fanon with Nazi terror if this text were published in 2002, we d see the phrase Axis of Evil littering its pages, surely for Kimball is nothing if not a supercilious, foppish jingo Most of us will doubtlessly hold Kimball accountable for his stunning lack of knowledge about Western Imperialism he could attempt to refute Fanon after all, it is a good question is violence justifiable against a colonial invader We d never know that such a debate even exists if we had foolishly relied only on Kimball for this data one can only assume that he approves of violence by patriots in the US against the forces of British imperialism, after all Overall, an extremely unsound argument here but it should be required reading for anyone who takes the humanities seriously, especially leftists who see value in late 20th century theoretical developments.

  3. says:

    Hilarious stuff Kimball rails against the politicized realm of humanities academe He points fingers at Derrida, Hirsch, Stanley Fish, Lacan, Among others He laments the turn towards multiculturalism On the one hand, as an academic, I totally agree with Kimball s point that much that passes for scholarship these days is incompressible blather Small points obscured behind large, preferably Latinate or newly coined, words Unfortunately, many of Kimball s arguments are poorly supported or, if supported, rest upon false arguments such as ad hominem attacks, post hoc, and hasty generalizations Hey, if one person is teaching a course on Jane Austen and the Masturbating Girl, then every English dept in every college and university must have abandoned the canon, right Holy jumping to conclusions Batman Methinks Kimball doth protest too much, like those idiots on Fox News who, every year, try to tell us there s a war against Christmas Some in the academy are, perhaps too politicized I have seen colleagues shudder at the mention of the canon But, the canon hasn t been abandoned If anything, it has been expanded by the the feminists, post colonialists, and multiculturalists Kimball seems to hold in high disdain He seems to especially hate women considering he goes on for two hundred and fifty pages and never writes a single kind word about women Nor does he, in all those pages concede the point that scholarship prior to the 1960s was also biased and political For Kimball, it would seem that bias only entered the university with those pesky long haired hippy types Prior to them, scholarship was entirely disinterested, entirely apolitical, entirely concerned with objective truth Read this book for the laughs, and don t take it seriously.

  4. says:

    I m not a conservative in fact, I loathe all political ideologies in equal measure And yes, Roger Kimball is a nut in much of what he writes, he comes across as your average far right, partisan, Bible quoting climate change denier, with delusions of elitism, probably because that s what he is But you don t have to be a conservative, or agree with any of his idiotic opinions on other subjects, to enjoy his full frontal assault in this book on the tenured radicals of the title It s a laudable attempt to help stem the tide, to stop the radicals the other side of the coin, as it were and their busy enterprise to destroy the humanities in American universities before it s too late and there s nothing left to salvage That s why books such as this one are necessary even when they re written by Roger Kimball as necessary in 2008 when the updated edition came out as in 1990 when the original edition was published , and just as necessary now, in 2015 We re not out of the woods yet.Still, this is by no means a perfect book Aside from the oh so predictable sneering at popular culture, Kimball is too narrowly focussed on his specific and clearly named enemies, when a general overview would have been preferable He sometimes goes on too long, attacking the same target over and over again, when there are so many other targets he could have aimed at instead, that are equally deserving of demolition Kimball also has a curious penchant for continually dropping obscure and needlessly over elaborate words it must be because he s so sophisticated and cultured, you see into the middle of sentences that are otherwise easy to read and jargon free But that s a very minor quibble All in all, this is a recommended read, no matter what your political stripes may be That is, as long as you can get past the fact that Kimball is a total asshat, in spite of the good work he does here.

  5. says:

    The primary question I have for this book is, Is what Kimball is describing the exception or the norm It is critical as his entire text rests upon this simple matter of fact

  6. says:

    An absolute must who anyone who teaches in higher education It is great book about the politics of the Ivory Tower.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *