Background:

Noted UCLA professor, writer of books, historian of note, a writer preoccupied with oppression and the search for utopia in the land of dystopia Russell Jacoby offers his opinions about academic freedom: "We live in a choice-addled society"; "the jargon of choice undermines intellectual integrity and coherence"; "choice-second cousin to diversity and multiculturalism"; "'Choice' and 'diversity' are universal passwords that unlock all doors"(magically?); "Who can oppose (choice and diversity) without appearing authoritarian?".

Demystify the demagogues:

The terms 'choice', 'diversity', and 'multiculturalism' dazzle the academic and liberal left. But now they are becoming part of the stock in trade of the conservative right. We have now gotten to the point where no one--least of all the experts--is sure about the status of such works as _Huckleberry Finn_ and _Catcher in the Rye_. Doubt lends itself to a strategy called 'teach the conflict.' This notion was merely seductive. If there was doubt about a television soap opera like "Dallas" well, you know, teach the conflict. We have moved from media to scientific theories: "intelligent design"--well, teach the conflict. We need alternative viewpoints. The Kansas Board of Education, no champion of liberal views, now espouses 'diversity of viewpoints.'

Do you have a solution?:

According to Jacoby, the 'jargon' of academic freedom, choice and diversity might corrode real academic freedom. You see, reader, academic freedom was never about appealing to those outside the disciplines: it was all about internal, peer-reviewed work. Jacoby, heavily invested in this model of academic labor, perceives a threat: a threat from the outside. I am undecided whether our worst fears concern those internal or those external: is it the hurricane that threatens your home or the heart attack that makes the mortgage a greater challenge? Jacoby doesn't want academic labor to flatter the whims of parents and students. After many years in academia, he has earned the right to make statements about what is and what isn't so.

Jacoby does...

Most rational minds will recognize this problem: we should be teaching astronomy rather than astrology (an Enlightenment view); we should be teaching the origins of Christianity when we teach it and not some forms of militant atheism; The Holocaust course doesn't require a discussion of Holocaust denial; a lecture on 9/11 need not include mention of conspiracy theories. But the real problem is that Jacoby now is facing greater and greater competition: there are a "bevy of experts behind these other viewpoints." From fake Hitler diaries to Israeli intelligence warnings about 9/11, there are "a bevy of experts" behind them.

The real issue:

In the labor market, professors have a proprietary claim: Truth itself is partisan. Truth is the property of the academy. When the masses begin to speak about the truth they usually miss the mark because their minds are weaker, preoccupied with other things, or just trying to pull a fast one. They will be the first to read an astrology chart and miss that special about Pluto on the Discovery Channel. The academy should not be a cafeteria; we all know the quality of cafeteria food.

Another master chef steps in to assure quality control. What he has demonstrated is that, yet again, ignorance of rhetoric always comes back and claims its victim. And it continues to do this to all followers of the Enlightenment.

MGGreer