College gift of Atlas Shrugged causes controversy.

[Mammon]

Read about it here. It's causing such an uproar, but we need more people like John Allison. I'd love to meet this guy, or write to him.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Mammon

[lex_aver]

Interesting article. I noticed that in describing Objectivism, it is stated that it is a capitalist, egoist, atheist philosophy, but nowhere mentioned is its most important characteristic--that it's rational.

Also, the last para is distasteful, as is overall tone of the article--it can be rephrased as "Mr. Allison viciously exploited colleges need for money in his own interest, and he doesn't even think he's wrong."

[DavidOdden]

The hypocrisy that abounds over this issue is amazing. There is nothing at all controversial about a required textbook; and faculty do not always get to pick their textbooks -- sometimes they are told what to teach, and they don't have any choice in the matter. We learn to deal with it, or raise a big enough stink that we're not assigned to teach that course. The issue is clearly not "academic freedom", the objection is based purely on the content of the ideas.

[Zip]

David is right, and the ability of a University to dictate a curriculum to a Prof is also right, Ive had the misfortune of attending a course where the Prof obviously had free reign on the material.

The course was entitled "Global Political Issues" and was touted as an overview of relevant topics in politics today. After only a few classes I was already calling the course "The Leftist Diatribes" as it focused on inconsequential lefty struggles going on, such as the Zapatista uprising in Mexico, the writing of Foucault (his militant opposition to colonialism), a couple of feminist writers (diatribes against the UN and the oppressive male dominated world) and of course Naomi Klein.

[brian0918]

This is a poor comparison: "It's like teaching the Bible as a requirement." The only thing Atlas Shrugged has in common with the Bible is that they are both works of fiction.

I also like how the article throws the word "atheist" in random places: "An atheist, Rand criticized government regulation of business." Usually, when a word appears in the spot where "atheist" is used, you would expect the rest of the sentence to describe some aspect of that word. So either "criticizing government regulation of business" comes under the heading of "atheism", or they were simply tossing the word in there for shock value. This is a sign of less-than-stellar journalism.

[Benpercent]

The issue is clearly not "academic freedom", the objection is based purely on the content of the ideas.

I disagree. I think it is also an additional issue of people thinking money is "evil". I about this story on Fark, after having taken a long break from it (I used to frequent it, but I prefer a more intellectually dry atmosphere for discussing ideas), and read on the comments about how "sick" this whole situation was because this man thought "curriculum was to be sold to the highest bidder." They never did support that argument.

[Mammon]

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5142

I found the article in this article, which links to more articles on the same thing if you guys are interested.

[John McVey]

The issue is clearly not "academic freedom", the objection is based purely on the content of the ideas.

I agree with that almost completely, with one little point: it is not any idea in capitalism per se that they are worried about, but the fact that Objectivism posits absolutes. I'd go so far as to suggest that it is not even the morality they are concerned about and that its mention is a front for their real worry. I suggest that, while the moral component is indeed part of their concern, what terrifies them the most is the advocacy of absolutes in epistemology and metaphysics. That's why they dared not mention the advocacy of reason as the foundation for egoism and capitalism, and instead insisted on referring to our advocacy of them as "gospel" and to Miss Rand as Mr Allison's "muse." I've got $100 that says Mr Allison made that connection before or after his reference to human nature and the reporters or their editors knowingly spiked it.

If the idea of absolute existence and reason come to hold sway in universities then the great gab-fest game is up for the majority of humanities academics, and that they will not tolerate. Miss Rand concluded the same over thirty years ago, too. IMSM it's in PWNI somewhere, but I don't have my materials at hand where I am at present.

JJM

[DavidOdden]

I suggest that, while the moral component is indeed part of their concern, what terrifies them the most is the advocacy of absolutes in epistemology and metaphysics.

...

If the idea of absolute existence and reason come to hold sway in universities then the great gab-fest game is up for the majority of humanities academics, and that they will not tolerate.

Absafragginlutely so. The idea of something being "actually true" and not just "true, according to..." scares the liver out of 99% of all social-sci and humanities academics. As long as one can manufacture reality by definition or else by (claimed) reference to collective opinion, you don't have to do the hard work of researching. This is what makes AS such a dangerous work, for these people -- that it's not just about the capitalism, it's about everything. It challenges subjectivism at all levels, and we just can't have people believing in an objective truth. Alas, I heard a talk by a very erudite and well-respected scholar who mistakenly held that the essence of being "objective" is the possibility of being wrong. That's not completely unrelated to what "objective" means, but it's a significant and IMO harmful shift of attention and redefinition of what objectivity is.

[brian0918]

I agree with that almost completely, with one little point: it is not any idea in capitalism per se that they are worried about, but the fact that Objectivism posits absolutes. I'd go so far as to suggest that it is not even the morality they are concerned about and that its mention is a front for their real worry. I suggest that, while the moral component is indeed part of their concern, what terrifies them the most is the advocacy of absolutes in epistemology and metaphysics. That's why they dared not mention the advocacy of reason as the foundation for egoism and capitalism, and instead insisted on referring to our advocacy of them as "gospel" and to Miss Rand as Mr Allison's "muse." I've got $100 that says Mr Allison made that connection before or after his reference to human nature and the reporters or their editors knowingly spiked it.

If the idea of absolute existence and reason come to hold sway in universities then the great gab-fest game is up for the majority of humanities academics, and that they will not tolerate. Miss Rand concluded the same over thirty years ago, too. IMSM it's in PWNI somewhere, but I don't have my materials at hand where I am at present.

JJM

Excellent post!!! I think you've hit the nail on the head. That was the most shocking part of the transition for me, that I didn't simply have to go shooting around in the dark, treating everything like it was not definitely true, but only had some probability of truthfulness, and the only way I could gauge its truthfulness was by majority public opinion. From my own experience (mostly on internet discussion forums), this is what most other people feel they are forced to do as well.