[lbo-talk] Teaching in the Horowitz Era (Was Whoa!)

John Thornton jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Sun Aug 26 12:58:10 PDT 2007


Ismail Lagardien wrote:
> With regard to teaching in the US... One of the problems I have is, quite frankly, that I am intimidated by the Horowitz movement against academic freedom. There are times, for instance, when I want to teach, or refer to Marx's prescient remarks about globalization, and the generally destructive nature of capitalism. I get around it by citing Jeffrey Sachs, who explained that Marx was right about capitalism, and point to his (Sach's) reference to capitalism's "bloody triumph". The point I make is that if profit maximisation is important than the bloody destruction may mean very little - and vice versa.
>

What bad thing will happen if you cite Marx instead of Sach? This is not a rhetorical question. If you quote Keynes do you feel there would also be repercussions? What about Veblen? I don't want to minimize the seriousness of Horowitz anti-intellectualist but have you considered that the fear you experience may be out of proportion to the risks as they actually exist? Since I do not know you I am not claiming that you are more fearful than is prudent but the U.S. is a funny place in that in engenders more fear than is warranted. What percentage of instructors have actually had a career threatening experience from right-wing fucks? While the NAS has had an impact on universities that impact is out of proportion to anything they have actually done. Jon Weiner has made the point that while the threat is real professors should not censure themselves but instead to make certain they can offer proper support for the positions they take. Foregoing mentioning Marx where appropriate is not the answer.


> One of the issues I am confronted with, and which is befuddling, is seeing students (ROTC types) in class dressed in military uniform/fatigues. Columbia, SC is the home of Fort Jackson (http://www.jackson.army.mil/Area/aboutFtJ.htm) so when I discuss dominance, abuse of power or what I have come to describe as global vigilantism, I simply use another country's military aggression. I also point out that during earlier epochs the British, Dutch, Spain dominated. When I want to be especially critical of US aggression I cite Roosevelt who said that wars against indigenous Americans were "noble" because they were wars against savages. I preface that with similar sentences by the British. That way they get a sense patterns of oppression that are broader and more historical. By the time we get to Abu Ghraib, or Gitmo that have a context - and I feel less threatened by the Horowitz thing. Actually, I would have done this anyway, as I don't believe that
> Roosevelt's sentiments were any different from the British, or Belgians in Africa!
>

How else to approach the topic? If you start right in on U.S. dominance these students will immediately become defensive and nothing you say afterward will ever be absorbed. Abu Ghraib only makes any sense once you have some background. It didn't simply spring into being from a vacuum because of a handful of bad people running amok. ROTC types would, for me anyway, be more difficult to reach than the students I have taught so I don't envy you there. At the local Community College the only military students are enlisted types and while a few are blindly patriotic most of these young men and women are pretty jaded. They've been lied to so many times that a recruiters transparent lies are generally easy for them to spot. They aren't fighting for Iraq or the U.S. but are simply doing something dangerous and distasteful because they perceive it as their best way out of a dead end culture. At the private school where I've substituted there isn't one student joining the military in any capacity, not even as officers. These are the kids who, if they support the war,do so in other ways. The young Republicans who claim to be making more important contributions to society by attending University and becoming Very Important Persons. No one will accuse you of hating the troops at such a place because they hate the troops themselves but are too well trained to openly admit as much.

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list