 |
Much of what I am about to say has been anticipated by many before me deploring the current state of American universities – the lack of intellectual rigor, curiously unselective admissions policies, the preponderance of academic dishonesty, etc. But, to my knowledge, none have yet been able to firmly grasp the essential core of these problems, to locate their source and to thereby give them wider meaning. It is a truism to assert that the major trends encountered in the modern Academy are simply a function of modernity itself, but this is precisely it: a conflux of pressures both cultural and socioeconomic has conspired unconsciously, unintendedly, to reduce literacy in the basic arts of the Intellect. And to this list of grievances I would like to add: inauthenticity, boozing, a lack of grace in all areas of social life, and crucially – excruciatingly – the dismal atmosphere of intellectual stagnation that was so floridly bemoaned in a recent post by Tim Haydon, the true origins of which were only elliptically suggested. These problems are making it virtually impossible for men and women whose souls have been calibrated by nature to think . . . to think.
I thought that when I came to school, the place would be like an ashram, a place of spiritual contemplation and serious, impassioned study where students committed themselves to solving real problems and found peace at heart knowing that their tuition money not only brought tangible returns, but also went to aiding others like themselves in their quest for personal mastery. A community of like souls is what I envisioned. Sure, partying–I assumed–might reasonably take up some of our down-time, and I certainly didn’t expect to be drowning myself in folios, but I wasn’t prepared for the total absence of self-direction, the entire culture of rudderlessness that I was soon to be immersed in.
This culture of lowered expectations is hegemonic at the collegiate level; it exerts itself as a norm against which to assess the social worth and academic standing of individuals. Minds that are bright and beautiful (and I know the odd few) are sunk beneath the weight of a bloated bell curve. Ideas that are unique are expelled from classroom discussion. Intentions that are only honest are smeared as “radical” as if the word were an epithet for all things abject and awful. I have always read in histories about the role of the university in the West as well as East and have always admired the assiduousness and dexterity of the minds that inhabited their hallowed halls who were able to hold in their heads two opposing ideas simultaneously without getting dizzy. Now this ability is rare. I find that for every 50 students, there is one with an inkling of aptitude.
The ratio for professors is less dire, but I can think of only two whom I know to possess really probing minds unaverse to the complexities of the real world and who refuse to reduce it all to bland simplicity. As for the rest, in their classrooms the strong are made to feel weak, their minds irrelevant and their noble spirits anachronistic, while those quickest to conform are lauded for their mental lameness. A few friends have approached me in recent weeks, themselves as I in their senior year, beleaguered and bemused as to why they feel so unfulfilled after four years of schedules filled with nothing but tasks to be carried out. Immediately I knew what they felt and could only feel more confirmed in my suspicions: it was not us, but whole of our culture that brought us to this point. For myself, and myself alone -- for I can only ever know just the patina of their pain -- my soul feels as if it is being dashed against the rocks of some desolate isle, impossibly distant from anything like itself.
Man is a species being in its diversity. Historically, men have been able to impose upon themselves certain constraints in order to preserve that diversity while creating meaningful lives for each cordon of their social existence. Unlike Marx, who thought of man as a creature universally capable of fashioning himself, creating meaning, and living fully and impassionedly for himself, I demand that we reexamine the material from which men are fashioned altogether. Yes! Man can make himself. This is incredibly true. It is in his power and his capacity given the right conditions. However, the extent to which we are able to fashion ourselves into beings that live beautifully, recognizing in ourselves at once the nobleness of our striving and the tragedy of its futility, is governed by our very awareness of this ability. This means to live consciously of ourselves and our fate.
The horrendous bulk of our country’s population cannot do this. The average American lives unconsciously of the vast inner solitudes of his mind, dwelling only on the outer skin of his existence – a basically perceptual existence, sensuous, like that of a child or a member of one of the lower phyla – and can only communicate in terms of that existence. He responds uncontrollably to external stimuli, and seeks them out when confronted with that haunting emptiness of being. It is a mode of existence unfit for souls of sterner stuff, souls which, incidentally, proliferated in eras that were defined by the presence of ritual hierarchy. This is why when we look back upon the ancient Lyceum we find so many gifted men in such remarkably high concentrations within its walls; incompetence was shut out, preventing the spiritual and intellectual freedom of its inhabitants from being adulterated by tottering minds unused to seriousness. But by no means let us restrict this phenomenon to the subject of my personal gripe, the Academy: the same rarified atmosphere pervaded every profession where skill was involved. Artisans and craftsmen, lawmen and priests – all were once protected in their social and economic roles by mutually acknowledged and sanctifying rites that enriched life with an orderly public rhythm.
The public American university system is awash with the flotsam and jetsam of the modern crisis. By that I mean brains that are soft, credulous, and floated by a certain self-satisfaction that comes from being middle class – brains like throw pillows. The origin of their dominance in all areas of public life can be traced back to post-Enlightenment Europe, but here, since I am concerned mostly with Americans, we will say that this phenomenon only really becomes a problem here after World War II. Acknowledging the new wealth of the post-war bourgeoisie, and the potential profit to be made by accepting a greater number of matriculated students, institutions of higher learning began adopting laxer entry requirements. By increments, notably through the Education Amendments of 1972, the whole boat of academia steadily became rocked asway with students of every kind. Soon students from nearly the whole breadth of economic and social existence were attending university (the working poor, underclass, and racial minorities still mostly excluded).
These developments in themselves are no more disagreeable than were the motives for legislating them against the harassment and routine marginalization of disadvantaged students. A very dear and brilliant friend of mine might never have been able to attend school had it not been for an act of state that provided for the issuance of Pell Grants. I would have been unable to attend if it weren’t for Pell Grants!
Let it be said, however, that good intentions can sometimes translate into bad policy. The push to get as many kids into college as possible, a movement still fashionable among liberals in the United States, stems from a fundamental misconception about human ability, principally, that all humans, regardless of origin or upbringing, are endowed with exactly the same intellectual aptitudes and are equally capable of producing the same intellectual products. For this line of thinking, all that differs is individual preference. This I mentioned before, but perhaps less directly. Let me be blunt: the IQ we receive at birth and condition through life is not Standard Issue. There exists such a thing as human difference– and not the kind that multiculturalists belabor, though I guess that is a part of it. Men, aside from having different preferences, have different outlooks, different natural abilities. A man outfitted by nature with a sensitivity to hue and gradient of light is ill-suited to be a mechanic! Just as the man stuck with only paint brushes but who has been reading Car and Driver magazine all his life will not make for a fine artist! Who will strike the greater image of balance and composition: the man whose design is in harmony with his vocation, or the illiterate with a pencil thrust into his hand and told to write drama?
This is basically the condition of our schools today. Kids who simply are not suited for the life of the Academy, whether temperamentally, intellectually or both, are placed alongside those who are -- and overwhelmingly so. When this happens, the cultural life on campus suffers; those who deserve to succeed are prevented from doing so; and the academic quality of the school is degraded. Because it is profitable in the long run, administrators will quickly defer faculty evaluations to students, whose votes basically determine the course standards. Adjunct professors whose contracts are renewed every year or so, are often afraid to fail students lest they write negatively about them in the evaluation form. Also, weirdly enough, schools which are nominally liberal arts colleges (like mine) are now defunding their Arts & Humanities departments to expand such joke and fad majors like “Saftey” and “Fitness.” But that’s a whole other pile of nonsense.
When I graduate, I will be graduating with a degree worth less than half the value it had 50-60 years ago and far less than what I paid for it besides – both in market value and in spiritual worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.