I think there's an opening here: Critting the Crits. That is, critically examine the critical examination of Western Civilization. If the crits cannot stand up to the same scrutiny they would exact upon traditional Western thought, they are revealed as the vacuous postmodernist rubbish that they are (for the most part). Of course, the expected response would be "racist!". And yes, this response would be part of what would be critically examined. Let the serpent consume itself.
To support of the spread of conservative values at Harvard, there is a need for conservative writers and speakers to develop a solid intellectual foundation for the idea that American Conservatism is not equal to 1930's Naziism. It is something entirely different, and in fact American conservatives played key role in defeating Nazism during the 20th Century.
Most Trump voters already know this, but the liberal Northeast, and particularly Harvard, have been thoroughly duped by leftist propaganda into believing that American Conservatives are equivalent to 1930's German Nazi's. It is, of course, a fallacy ... an accusation that bears very little resemblance to reality. It does, however, seem to convince many voters, especially those who have neither the time nor the brainpower to study it carefully.
If there is one point that the Salient can make, decisively and persuasively, over the next 12 months, this one would probably be the most impactful. A conservative professor dedicated to the study of 20th Century European history, would also help.
Every new Harvard College student should be given a copy of THE GOLDEN THREAD by Hankins and Guelzo -- it will be better and more important than whatever they are assigned in most classes.
The sad thing is that in most disciplines, the left-wing dominance is so complete that most people don't even know where to begin. In the link above (documenting severe ideological bias in syllabi), one of their examples is that Michelle Alexander's garbage "The New Jim Crow" is not balanced out by its liberal critics (Forman, Pfaff, etc.).
Well, that's fine as far as it goes, but if one wants an actual education, one should also read actual right-wing writers on the subject of crime and punishment: James Q. Wilson, Edward Banfield, Barry Latzer. But how many "scholar-activist" professors filling their students' heads with progressive nonsense on the topic of crime have even heard of Banfield? Very few, because the woke retards at Harvard cancelled him half a century ago. That's how deep the rot goes. Anyone who wants an actual education has to basically do it outside the context of a university.
I applaud this analysis and enjoyed it a lot. Seems like this is the case at other high academia institutions.
Just playing devils advocate(kinda), in my opinion, using the basis of at least one Marxist-theory related reading being assigned for a class compared to the number of classes with at least one author critical of Marxism isn’t always enough to prove lack of viewpoint diversity — a syllabus with one Marx reading counts the same as one that’s predominantly Marx. You gave some great examples of classes that certainly lack viewpoint diversity when they shouldn’t, treating conservatism as a sub-intellectual foil.
However, I can’t help but think that there can be other factors, such as teaching style or context of the course more broadly, that can explain a minor disparity in left vs right readings in a few classes. Maybe something to consider if someone wants to bring this argument to administration. That said, the consistency of this pattern across five departments makes the core argument hard to seriously contest.
Anyway, really enjoyed this read and think that some great points were made. Hopefully academia in the U.S and news in general can become less echo chamber-esque
A worthwhile and well researched and presented analysis. This kind of work is necessary to expose the unbalanced leftism that infects academia. I assume the problem is that these departments have been allowed to overpopulate themselves with left leaning scholars without balancing supervision by college administrators. So at this point you probably can’t get the current personnel to teach the missing canonical courses. They would twist them to reflect their anti-western biases. Has Harvard, which says that it recognizes the problem understand and have the fortitude to change the personnel to achieve balance? The Salient over the next generation may have to keep an eye on how this evolves.
I think there's an opening here: Critting the Crits. That is, critically examine the critical examination of Western Civilization. If the crits cannot stand up to the same scrutiny they would exact upon traditional Western thought, they are revealed as the vacuous postmodernist rubbish that they are (for the most part). Of course, the expected response would be "racist!". And yes, this response would be part of what would be critically examined. Let the serpent consume itself.
To support of the spread of conservative values at Harvard, there is a need for conservative writers and speakers to develop a solid intellectual foundation for the idea that American Conservatism is not equal to 1930's Naziism. It is something entirely different, and in fact American conservatives played key role in defeating Nazism during the 20th Century.
Most Trump voters already know this, but the liberal Northeast, and particularly Harvard, have been thoroughly duped by leftist propaganda into believing that American Conservatives are equivalent to 1930's German Nazi's. It is, of course, a fallacy ... an accusation that bears very little resemblance to reality. It does, however, seem to convince many voters, especially those who have neither the time nor the brainpower to study it carefully.
If there is one point that the Salient can make, decisively and persuasively, over the next 12 months, this one would probably be the most impactful. A conservative professor dedicated to the study of 20th Century European history, would also help.
Every new Harvard College student should be given a copy of THE GOLDEN THREAD by Hankins and Guelzo -- it will be better and more important than whatever they are assigned in most classes.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/we-analyzed-university-syllabi-theres
The sad thing is that in most disciplines, the left-wing dominance is so complete that most people don't even know where to begin. In the link above (documenting severe ideological bias in syllabi), one of their examples is that Michelle Alexander's garbage "The New Jim Crow" is not balanced out by its liberal critics (Forman, Pfaff, etc.).
Well, that's fine as far as it goes, but if one wants an actual education, one should also read actual right-wing writers on the subject of crime and punishment: James Q. Wilson, Edward Banfield, Barry Latzer. But how many "scholar-activist" professors filling their students' heads with progressive nonsense on the topic of crime have even heard of Banfield? Very few, because the woke retards at Harvard cancelled him half a century ago. That's how deep the rot goes. Anyone who wants an actual education has to basically do it outside the context of a university.
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/cancel-culture-goes-back-at-least-50-years/
https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-conservative-vision-of-edward-c-banfield-with-kevin-kosar/
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/edward-c-banfield-and-what-conservatism-used-to-mean-neoconservatism-government-project
https://www.commentary.org/articles/t-marmor/banfields-heresy/
I applaud this analysis and enjoyed it a lot. Seems like this is the case at other high academia institutions.
Just playing devils advocate(kinda), in my opinion, using the basis of at least one Marxist-theory related reading being assigned for a class compared to the number of classes with at least one author critical of Marxism isn’t always enough to prove lack of viewpoint diversity — a syllabus with one Marx reading counts the same as one that’s predominantly Marx. You gave some great examples of classes that certainly lack viewpoint diversity when they shouldn’t, treating conservatism as a sub-intellectual foil.
However, I can’t help but think that there can be other factors, such as teaching style or context of the course more broadly, that can explain a minor disparity in left vs right readings in a few classes. Maybe something to consider if someone wants to bring this argument to administration. That said, the consistency of this pattern across five departments makes the core argument hard to seriously contest.
Anyway, really enjoyed this read and think that some great points were made. Hopefully academia in the U.S and news in general can become less echo chamber-esque
A worthwhile and well researched and presented analysis. This kind of work is necessary to expose the unbalanced leftism that infects academia. I assume the problem is that these departments have been allowed to overpopulate themselves with left leaning scholars without balancing supervision by college administrators. So at this point you probably can’t get the current personnel to teach the missing canonical courses. They would twist them to reflect their anti-western biases. Has Harvard, which says that it recognizes the problem understand and have the fortitude to change the personnel to achieve balance? The Salient over the next generation may have to keep an eye on how this evolves.