MAIN MENU
RESEARCH
CENTERS
EAU at a glance
>> Affiliated
campuses situated in Africa and Asia
>> Online graduate school open to students worldwide
>> Online graduate school open to students worldwide
A distinctive approach
>> Flexible but
academically rigorous routes to a degree
>> Intended for mature, self-directed working adults
>> Internationally accredited
>> Intended for mature, self-directed working adults
>> Internationally accredited
Amos Bronson Alcott Center for Educational Research
Of "Narratives and Nonsense"; A fundamental misunderstanding in the area of self-regulating schools
William L. Anderson's paper "Narratives and Nonsense" (LewRockwell.com) puts its finger on one of modern academia's most pervasive problems, and one which is spreading from the traditional campuses into wider public discourse.
Definitions
A definition of the concept of "narratives" as it is formulated within Marxist literary theory is offered by Wikipedia:
In
critical theory, and particularly postmodernism, a
metanarrative (sometimes master- or grand narrative) "is a global or
totalizing cultural narrative schema which orders and explains
knowledge and experience" (Stephens). The prefix meta means "beyond"
and is here used to mean "about", and a narrative is a story.
Therefore, a metanarrative is a story about a story, encompassing and
explaining other 'little stories' within totalizing schemas.
This
concept of metanarrative has been applied beyond
literature to encompass a Marxist worldview that now dominates the arts
and humanities on many campuses, and is carried forward into
non-academic discussion, being applied especially to the interpretation
of historical events and thus to contemporary current affairs, social
and cultural developments. Anderson explains, "The
answer lies in the modern application of academic Marxism, for while
Marx and his Labor Theory of Value have long been discredited among
economists, the Marxian "narrative" and the "polylogism" of which
Ludwig von Mises writes in Human Action have become the polestar of
higher education. One cannot understand what is happening in
disciplines such as literature, English, history, sociology, and the
gaggle of "identity studies" (such as African American Studies,
Womens’ Studies, Queer Studies, and the like) that are
dominating much of the academic curriculum, unless one understands the
Marxist mindset, with its emphasis upon "narratives" and power.
People who are skeptical about this particular direction in which academe is headed call it "political correctness," and that is not far off the mark, even though those on the academic left who first coined that term now are angry whenever someone throws it back at them. Indeed, if politics is about the usurpation of raw power by those in "authority," then "political correctness" is an excellent term to describe what is happening, for modern academe is geared at increasing the power of the state to impose a way of life that all of what one might call "natural law" rejects. The belief is that the political process can be marshaled in a manner in which those in power can force people to do what they never would do otherwise and even change the very face of nature itself."
People who are skeptical about this particular direction in which academe is headed call it "political correctness," and that is not far off the mark, even though those on the academic left who first coined that term now are angry whenever someone throws it back at them. Indeed, if politics is about the usurpation of raw power by those in "authority," then "political correctness" is an excellent term to describe what is happening, for modern academe is geared at increasing the power of the state to impose a way of life that all of what one might call "natural law" rejects. The belief is that the political process can be marshaled in a manner in which those in power can force people to do what they never would do otherwise and even change the very face of nature itself."
Application to the academic environment
Many of the contemporary developments within the legislative and other external frameworks in which higher education operates can be understood within this context. Above all, the intolerance of genuine diversity and competition from ideologically dissimilar viewpoints can be seen as extensions of the marshalling of the political process and the quelling of potential avenues of dissent and criticism. Those avenues are already evident in the aggressive way in which public sector institutions have sought to shut out private sector (read: libertarian or right-wing) approaches to higher education delivery. Not merely this, as ACTA explains, this Marxist, politically correct approach has become enshrined within the accreditation agencies:
Missouri
State
University student Emily Brooker had no idea what an uproar she was
about to cause. The School of Social Work student objected in the fall
of 2005 about a letter she’d been asked to sign at school.
The letter endorsed a matter of public policy
with which she did not agree, and she thought that being asked to sign
it—by a professor no less—was inappropriate.
What’s
worse, when Brooker refused, she was accused of violating tenets of the
social work program’s “Standards and Essential
Functions
for Social Work Education” relating to diversity,
interpersonal
skills, and professional behavior and subjected to a two-hour
disciplinary hearing. Faculty ordered her to write a paper describing
how she would “lessen the gap” between her personal
beliefs
and what professional ethics purportedly required. She was also
required to sign a special contract in order to continue in the
program.
After
Brooker filed a
federal civil-rights lawsuit, senior MSU administrators became aware of
the matter and called for an external review. Investigators found
evidence of “bullying” toward students and deemed
the
overall learning environment “toxic.” The review
also
said:
Many
students and faculty stated a fear of voicing differing opinions from
the instructor or colleague.
It appears that faculty have no history of intellectual discussion/debate. Rather, differing opinions are taken personally and often result in inappropriate discourse.
There is an atmosphere where the Code of Ethics is used in order to coerce students into certain belief systems regarding social work practice and the social work profession. This represents a distorted use of the Social Work Code of Ethics in that the Code of Ethics articulates that social workers should respect the values and beliefs of others.
It appears that faculty have no history of intellectual discussion/debate. Rather, differing opinions are taken personally and often result in inappropriate discourse.
There is an atmosphere where the Code of Ethics is used in order to coerce students into certain belief systems regarding social work practice and the social work profession. This represents a distorted use of the Social Work Code of Ethics in that the Code of Ethics articulates that social workers should respect the values and beliefs of others.
MSU’s
president
said that the review documented “as negative a review of an
academic program as I have ever seen.” He put all tenure and
hiring decisions for the school on hold and speculated that an
impending accrediting review might have to be delayed as, one newspaper
reported, “the school couldn’t earn [it] in its
current
state.”
What he
did not say
was more troubling, however. MSU is accredited not by one, but by two
accrediting associations. North Central accredited the institution as a
whole in 2005. Meanwhile, the MSU School of Social Work has
programmatic accreditation from the Council on Social Work Education
(CSWE). Far from solving the problem, accreditors were part of it. CSWE
in fact requires all accredited programs to ensure that students
“understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and
discrimination and apply strategies of advocacy and social change that
advance social and economic justice.” According to CSWE
standards, MSU’s School of Social Work was doing its job.
This is
just one of many cases across the country where an accrediting
agency’s politicized perspective is corrupting education.
[Source: "Why Accreditation Doesn't Work and What Policymakers Can Do About It", ACTA Policy Paper, July 2007, available here.]
"The facts
don't matter" [Source: "Why Accreditation Doesn't Work and What Policymakers Can Do About It", ACTA Policy Paper, July 2007, available here.]
As Anderson explains further, within the context of narrative, individual facts that do not fit do not matter and can simply be ignored as inconvenient.
"By now,
readers are wondering why I am comparing the intellectuals and China to
the Duke Lacrosse Case. After all, one involved the starvation and
murder of millions of innocent people, and the other was a false rape
charge in which those accused did not spend a day in prison.
My point, however, is not to compare the enormity of Mao’s crimes with what Nifong and his supporters did. Instead, my larger point is that these two things flow from the same mindset: the "narrative" is everything. In the case of China, the "narrative" was that socialism protects and feeds "the poor," so anything done in the name of socialism is good, and if there are problems, they must be due either to the remnants of Trotsky’s supporters or to capitalist propaganda, since socialism by definition cannot oppress the poor.
That socialism goes against human nature and natural law itself is irrelevant; the "narrative" is what matters, not outcomes. Likewise, in the Duke case, it was the "narrative" that drove the stories, not the facts, especially since it is linear-thinking, White Oppressive Eurocentric Males that drive logic and "natural law."
Thus, as Newsweek’s Evan Thomas told American Journalism Review’s Rachael Smolkin, "The narrative was correct, but the facts were wrong."
This approach is not merely wrong, it is actively
dangerous.
It
leads to a position where dissidents are discredited and even
exterminated (see Anderson's comments on China), and where contrary
opinions are dismissed out of hand. In place of Blackstone's
formulation, as put by Benjamin Franklin, "that it is better [one
hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person
should suffer", we instead get the socialist "you can't make an omelet
without breaking eggs." My point, however, is not to compare the enormity of Mao’s crimes with what Nifong and his supporters did. Instead, my larger point is that these two things flow from the same mindset: the "narrative" is everything. In the case of China, the "narrative" was that socialism protects and feeds "the poor," so anything done in the name of socialism is good, and if there are problems, they must be due either to the remnants of Trotsky’s supporters or to capitalist propaganda, since socialism by definition cannot oppress the poor.
That socialism goes against human nature and natural law itself is irrelevant; the "narrative" is what matters, not outcomes. Likewise, in the Duke case, it was the "narrative" that drove the stories, not the facts, especially since it is linear-thinking, White Oppressive Eurocentric Males that drive logic and "natural law."
Thus, as Newsweek’s Evan Thomas told American Journalism Review’s Rachael Smolkin, "The narrative was correct, but the facts were wrong."
"When
there is a "narrative" to protect, however, truth is whatever the
intellectuals want it to be. No doubt, there were plenty of people in
this country fawning over Mao when he was declaring that seeds are
"happiest when growing together," and figured that Trotsky’s
descendants or capitalist running dogs must have sabotaged the crops.
After all, Mao was operating according to the "correct narrative," so
he must have been right.
It never occurs to the intellectuals that the "narratives" generally are nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that. My religion professor, who always was preaching "social justice" in class, was perfectly happy to see the lives of millions of people snuffed out in order to create a "politically correct" world."
It never occurs to the intellectuals that the "narratives" generally are nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that. My religion professor, who always was preaching "social justice" in class, was perfectly happy to see the lives of millions of people snuffed out in order to create a "politically correct" world."
Thus it goes within the world of the higher education marketplace as well. Those who subscribe to this nonsense follow a narrative that tells them that education outside the narrow ideological confines of the accreditation agencies is thence de facto illegitimate and to be destroyed. Not merely this, but any such self-regulating institution that is provably legitimate is conceived as oppressive to them. One might say, to paraphrase Anderson, "How dare that self-regulating school not be a diploma mill! That violates the narrative! The narrative cannot be wrong!"
This is shown in practice by the quoted reaction of Alan Contreras, Administrator of the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization (which we have discussed here) to the recent Supreme Court ruling that the State of Texas cannot regulate religious schools,
“Any employer must now
assume
that unaccredited seminary degrees issued in Texas are diploma-mill
degrees unless the school can prove otherwise, and accept the potential
liability of hiring such a person.”
Such a statement reveals a worrying misunderstanding of the fundamental legal principle of innocent until proven guilty. In the socialist worldview, the "usual suspects" are automatically guilty, and referring again to Anderson, they may be deemed "guilty" even when they are provably innocent of the accusation in question. These attitudes are no basis upon which to build an educational system, much less a society.
Let us also consider in this context the connection between "narratives" and straw men. A common attack upon the holder of an unaccredited doctorate is "your dissertation isn't listed by UMI". This ignores the fact (well-known to the accuser) that UMI now only accepts the dissertations of accredited institutions, but even then, accredited universities only put forward those dissertations which they consider to be representative of their institution. Thus there are both unaccredited and accredited doctors whose dissertations are not listed by UMI - and such non-listing does not necessarily mean anything with regard to the quality of the work concerned. The contrary argument is meaningless, yet it is still made.
Using authoritarian "narratives" to ride roughshod over contrary positions in this way is alien to both Christian and Jewish principle, and to natural law. For we learn in Genesis,
And
Abraham drew near and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with
the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the
city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty
righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after
this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the
righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the
Judge of all the earth do right? And the Lord said, If I find
in
Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place
for their sakes.
And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes: Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
And he spake unto him yet again,
and
said,
Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I
will not do it for forty's sake. And he said unto him, Oh let
not
the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be
found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty
there. And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak
unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found
there.
And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.
And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.
Genesis 18:23-32
