> I often wonder what exactly the charge of anti-intellectualism refers to.
> I have been called anti-intellectual for saying that dockworkers should
> make more than English lit profs,
why did you or do you say this?
> and that colleges shouldn't have the
> right to force a liberal arts curriculum on people who want an engineering
> degree. Is that anti-intellectual?
Again, it depends on your argument. While I don't agree with either of these propositions I know they don't have to be argued in anti-intellectual ways, although they can be. Anti-intellectualism is when you resort to the derogatory label "intellectual" (or various synonyms) in place of making any kind of argument/explanation.
> How would you define
> anti-intellectualism? To avoid the anti-intellectual label, do I have to
> eagerly defend every privilege and perogative that self-identifying
> intellectuals claim they deserve?
No. Of course not. Having said that, calling yourself an "intellectual" means different things in different contexts, so I'm not sure "self-identifying" is the point.
In general, aren't you better of explaining what is wrong with "a liberal arts education" or why English literature professors are overpaid rather than just saying "Oh intellectuals!" That's what leaves you open to the above dismissal.
Catherine
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP at ArtsIT: http://admin.arts.usyd.edu.au/horde/imp/