Education of Martin Luther King

In today's Springfield New's Leader, I published on a piece on King and the Civil Rights movement's connection to the humanities:

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20110117/OPINIONS02/101170308/Schur-Educational-values-aided-civil-rights-movement

I really hope people use the day to think about the ideas and values that shaped King and the entire movement.

Book Store Nostalgia

Do you remember when we fretted about how the big box bookstores were killing independent book shops? Now, it seems like Barnes & Nobles and Borders will be inevitably gobbled up by Amazon, who also seems to be leaving the book business for the greener pastures of electronics and apparel.

This evening, my wife and I visited our local Barnes & Nobles to look at books and sip some coffee/tea. I must admit that the scene there depressed and disappointed me. Rows of toys, e-readers, music, and comic books captured my attention. I went looking for a few books but after passing the self-help section and that paranormal teen romance section, the selection of "good books" was rather paltry. When we found our way to the cafe, most folks had books but not history, literature, or current events. Rather, self-help books or magazines ruled the coffee-house crowd.

I remember when I would visit the small, overcrowded bookstores (Crown,Walden's, and B. Dalton's) of my suburban youth. Piles of books dominated the horizon, and my teenaged brain was amazed by the wealth of knowlede and erudition contained by those strip-mall walls. Every once in while, I would get to visit an independent bookstore in Chicago or NYC and be blow away by all the good books I had been missing.

I remember walking into my first Borders bookstore sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Covering what seemed like a football field, the store held more books in philosophy than my local public library. More cool new novels thann those independent bookstores. And more music than the biggest stores in the mall. The store was also brightly lit, had comfy chairs for perusing books, and a cafe to drink those fancy new drinks called lattes and capuccinos. I was hooked. I knew that the stores were probably hurting the hip, independent bookstores but I just didn't care because I gained access to a world of knowledge that I did not know existed. Even better, this was a cool place to hang out with friends. The hours even fit my early-twenty something life-style, allowing me to look at books until 11 pm, much longer than the bookstores of my childhood and even later than the local library. In Borders and Barnes & Nobles, I scribbled my hopes and dreams in journals. I also made decisions about attending law school, leaving law, marrying my wife, and attending graduate school. I wrote big chunks of my dissertation in those bookstores. There were spaces for reflection and growth.

Now, I don't have so much time to hang out in bookstores. Heck, I rarely have time to read or think. I even buy many books online. But, I am still struck by how those same bookstores have fallen on hard times. They seem like dinosaurs on the verge of extinction. The book business is dying and the very model of enterprise they brought to the business is doing them in. You just cannot sell that much jazz, Plato, or Monet's in that amount of square footage. So, they increasingly sell things to a wider audience. The only problem is the wider audience doesn't want the very books that drew me to the place initially. Consequently, the selection of books is getting smaller.

With the independent booksellers hurting and the publishing industry in disarray, I guess I am left with nothing but the nostalgia for the promise of bookstores and the hope that some brilliant entrepreneur will figure out a new way for the bookstore, and those they love them, to thrive.

The problem with philanthropy . . .

This article at gawker (http://gawker.com/5657220/ivy-league-schools-are-the-worlds-worst-charity) speaks to something that has been bugging me for awhile. This piece questions the wisdom of a $100 million dollar gift to Columbia's Business school (for adding space - not scholarships) as something that is truly worthy of being called philanthropy or charity.

While most of the comments focus on gifts to Ivy League institutions, my thoughts have been more focused on things like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet's "Billionaire's Pledge Club" where billionaires pledge to give more than 50% of their wealth to charity. This has gotten lots of good press and suggests that so much good will inevitably flow from these acts.

I guess I am just a wee bit cynical. While Bill Gates may know how to dominate the operating system market and Buffett may know how to invest money in stocks and bonds, I guess I am less optimistic that they know how to solve complex social and political problems. While choice is generally good, I am not sure why we should be thrilled when people are making choices in areas about which they are fairly ignorant or at least don't have a history of success. As economists have pointed out, consumers make good choices when faced with choices they regularly make (e.g. buying toilet paper) but generally don't do so well when faced with once in a lifetime decisions (e.g. picking a college or picking a heart surgeon). If Philanthropists are dedicated (like Gates), perhaps they become good decision-makers over time. But, it is not clear to me when or who their professionally honed judgment gets transferred to this new realm.

Even if billionaires can train themselves to become good decision-makers in this realm, this leads to the democracy problem. As individuals or their charities gain so much wealth, they gain the power to substituted their judgment for the majority. In other words, philanthropy is profoundly anti-democratic because an individual or relatively small and unaccountable group can determine which social problems, or in the case of Columbia what majors/buildings, will be fixed and improved.

Is philanthropy a good thing? If my arm was twisted, I would probably say it is. However, I guess I am not quite ready to strain myself in congratulating these folks until I am more confident that they are making good choices and folks can hold them accountable for their decisions.

Where Have all the Dangerous Ideas Gone?

I have been thinking a lot about banned books and the world of ideas lately.

Recently, I participated in Drury's Banned Book Celebration by reading a selection from Toni Morrison's Beloved. In reviewing the list of "Banned" Books, I noticed that relatively few books have been banned outright in recent years in that it was illegal to sell them.

Rather, the battle has turned to school curricula. Many books have become part of the curriculum wars, mostly for mentioning "forbidden" topics or words. Rarely if at all was the actual message or thesis of the book the problem.

Just today, I read the heart-breaking story of Risha Mullins at http://rorr.im/reddit.com/r/wtf/comments/dmzok/9b52fde5785125f3a0ebc44caca66852.html. She was accused of promoting "soft pornography" because the award-winning books she had chosen for students dealt with "dangerous" topics. As her blog outlines, Mullins ultimately lost her job but she stood tall for the idea that students should read books that matter. (Similar battles have been fought in the areas outside of Springfield, including Republic and Stockton)

For one of my classes tomorrow, I will be teaching Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience." It is a great essay but one that will, I suspect, perplex my students because he was willing to go to jail rather than violate the dictates of his conscience by supporting the state.

All these things seem to inform or set the context of the recent national conversation about higher education and the many ideas to change or abolish tenure. In a commentary posted at chronicle.com, Cary Nelson (the president of the AAUP) argues in support of tenure largely on the practical reason that parents should want their children educated by full-time professionals who devote their complete energy to teaching a reasonable amount of classes and have the employment safety to experiment with teaching and delve deeply into their subject matter. (See http://chronicle.com/article/Parents-Your-Children-Need/124776/?sid=wb&utm_source=wb&utm_medium=en) As a tenured faculty member, I am pretty partial to Nelson's argument (regardless of some of its flaws). The comments to the article echo, however, the broader national conversation that questions the competence of teachers and cost of tenure.

What links all of these topics for me is that feeling that ideas have lost their power. Tenure was created at a moment in U.S. history when holding the wrong idea was scandalous and was connected with a form of treason. Nonetheless, everyone agreed that colleges and universities were in the "idea" business. Thoreau, a national literary treasure, went to jail on principle.

Somehow, I doubt that contemporary Americans take ideas that seriously. Certainly, the critics of higher education and tenure seem to suggest that colleges and universities ought to get out of the business of reflection and ideas and more involved in practical skills training. Many defenders of tenure, I think, have missed that the real attack is not so much on the employment practices of higher education but the entire purpose of the modern university. If professors are "just" teaching job skills, then there are no dangerous ideas and tenure is not needed or so the argument appears in the mainstream media.

Risha Mullins may be the exception to this general picture, but one that proves the general rule. She lost her job because she thought education should be about ideas. While a number of authors lined up behind her, most of her colleagues did not or if they did, it was not in the way that Thoreau would have suggested. Rather, her critics associated with her controversial topics and succeeded in getting her removed.

I worry about all these things because I fear that we are forgetting how powerful ideas have rocked the world. The American, French, and Russian Revolutions transformed societies and toppled monarchies. The invention of monotheism and the prophesies of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad have inspired religious traditions and caused tremendous wars.

Ideas don't seem to scandalize anyone these days. No one objected or was outraged at Drury's Banned Book Celebration. Sure, we might object to kids hearing dirty or inappropriate words, but ideas seem to be some sort of quaint artifacts of an earlier, more naive period. Rather than having revolutionary potential, we view ideas as forms of intellectual property we can accumulate or leverage for more stuff.

While I don't want to return to the Spanish Inquisition or the Communist Scare of the 1950s, I am saddened by how ideas don't seem to matter. I suppose I could now begin ranting about the evils of commercialism and consumerism and how economics has trumped everything else, but that may not be the real problem. Postmodernists, post-structuralists, and post-colonial thinkers were so successful in undermining the grand narratives and big ideas that modernity brought us that we no longer believe in anything. As a supporter of many of these positions, I do believe their criticisms were necessary to create a more democratic society. Unfortunately, their/my attack on ideas and idealism has been too successful and now we are all postmoderns whether we want to be or not. And all that may be left is shopping or the consumption of our niche goods.

I am looking for that one scandalous idea that will cause sufficient outrage to restore our faith in ideas and their power.

The Allegory of the Cave Re-visited

One of the nice parts about being a college professor is that I get to re-read Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" every fall with my freshmen class. While the selection we read is fairly short (only about 7 pages), it remains such a provocative piece. I am looking forward to what the class has to say tomorrow.

What really struck me today is how Plato is both deeply committed to truth and the obligation to share that truth with your fellow citizens. This idea remains revolutionary (and such a popular metaphor) because it refuses to accept popular, easy, or conventional answers. Moreover, the Republic is anything but sentimental, romantic, or patriotic as it places truth and wisdom above a fake or illusory common sense consensus. I wonder how our factured poliltics would look (e.g. the Mosque controversy or the Glenn Beck rally) if folks really applied Plato's approach.

Do yourself a favor and re-read it!

Intellectual Bashing

Russell Jacoby just reviewed Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society at http://chronicle.com/article/Skewering-Intellectuals/64113/. The review and the comments it elicited aroused my curiosity, so I read the first chapter on amazon.com to see how he sets up his argument.

While I can't quite endorse Jacoby's review based on this limited reading, Sowell's analysis appears to suffer from a number of potential critical thinking errors.

First, he defines intellectuals in a curious way. He argues that intellectuals is an occupational career for people whose career requires them to deal with ideas (Sowell 2). Then, in a footnote, he observes that many intellectuals do not earn their living from selling their ideas. This is strange because you have an economist defining an occupation in terms that do not include compensation for the work they do. Nor do intellectuals receive ownership interests in their ideas either (as an entrepreneur would who opens a business). So, they don't economically benefit if they are right, nor do they loose money if they are wrong. What they can do is benefit from their copyrights, trademarks and/or patents!

There must be some reason for this odd occupational definition of being an intellectual and this leads us to the second difficulty. By page five, Sowell wants to examine "Ideas and their Accountability." And this is where the critical thinking errors begin to multiply. In this section, Sowell wants to create a system for evaluating the quality of the ideas generated by these intellectuals and make judge intellectuals whether there ideas are "right."

And this is where Sowell has made his greatest analytical error (This may not shoot down his general critique of intellectuals but his methodology for doing so). By most accounts, the measure of an intellectual is his or her effect, not whether he or she is correct. This is even more true by the kinds of economic analyses Sowell tends to favor and employ. Intellectuals, even the most Marxist of intellectuals, do not own their ideas but they do write books and essays, make films, give lectures, and teach classes. From what I understand of traditional market economics, economics ought to frame intellectuals as in the business of selling the material products that result from their ideas, much like Walmart is in the business of selling low-cost goods. While Sowell wants to define them as non-market actors (hence his strange definition based in the language of occupation), most if not all market intellectuals are selling a brand. Books by Foucault, Derrida, and even his beloved Milton Friedman mostly sell because of the brand these guys (or their admirers) have created, not because of their truth. One would think that a free marketer like Sowell would understand this!

What I find ironic here is economists are typically not all that bothered by mistaken judgments as they are part of the market mechanisms. If a company errs in their understanding of the market and plans to sell a product at too high of a price, free marketers don't mind if they go out of business. Or conversely, if a business misunderstands what the public wants, they ought to go out of business even if there product is good. Consider the case of the mom-and-pop hardware store getting run out of business by a big box store, like Home Depot. Free marketers will argue that customers merely preferred lower prices to personal customer service or something like that.

The issue that really appears to be bothering Sowell is that intellectuals, particularly left intellectuals continue to make movies, write books, and give lectures even if many of their central arguments turn out to be wrong. He seems to be suggesting that the market is wrong and should not be purchasing their books. But how can markets be wrong? If you are a free market economist, they are not. Perhaps the market values the moral outrage, the theoretical language, and hearing tales of corporate greed and injustice.

In response to this apparent failure of the market to act rationally, Sowell trots out the truth standard as some sort of verification mechanism. The problem with this methodology (like much economic analysis) is you cannot evaluate a prediction about the future until the future arrives and you know all the contextual data. By then, it is too late to change course. (Consider how many economists -right or left- predicted it in its full misery). It is this point that Jacoby really grabs onto. What Jacoby and Sowell seem to miss is that intellectuals do a lot more than offer predictions about the future. Sowell appears to reduce intellectuals to mere political pundits. Most intellectuals ideas are way too nuanced to get fully enacted even if they can provide some of the general scaffolding for government action. So, what do intellectuals do best? Intellectuals ask provocative questions and examine our moral responsibility. I think many intellectuals leave the question of verification and experimentation to others (whom Sowell does not define as intellectuals).

Now, I am not disagreeing with Sowell's observation that intellectuals have been wrong a lot and those errors probably have social consequences. He is probably correct about this and, who knows, he might even be correct that left intellectuals are wrong more frequently than right intellectuals. However, this cannot save the form of his argument. Intellectuals are both market actors and interested in generating more ideas and in evaluating the morality of our current habits and social structures. We cannot merely evaluate them as intellectuals based on their predictions about the future (especially if you promote free market economics like Sowell).

As for Jacoby, I think he too readily takes the bait and tries to refute Sowell's attack on past left positions. For a supposed leftist, I also thought he missed an obvious opportunity to explain why someone like Antonio Gramsci relied on the figure of the intellectual as an antidote to the rise of modern capitalism and totalitarian dictatorships. I have not read his Prison Notebooks in a long time, but I always thought this metaphor was to remind workers that they were not mere cogs but human beings with minds and morality.

Sowell's form of economic thinking seems to find wisdom and morality in markets but not individuals, certainly not "experts or intellectuals". As a result, he appears to want to severely curtail the rhetoric of wisdom and morality in political discussions of markets and/or government action. I would think that Jacoby would have been more effective if he stayed focused on this disagreement with Sowell (are markets or individuals the locus of moral insight and wisdom?) and would have identified the real consequences in Sowell's efforts to rely on his brand of economic thought to evaluate the work of intellectuals.