 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
In the Comments
"We don’t vote for grownups in Muskogee,
Recent Posts
Top Official in Education Dept. to Lead Business-School Consortium Diane Auer Jones, the assistant secretary for postsecondary education, will become president of the Washington Campus. GAO Report Says Community Colleges Are Crucial in Training the Work Force The colleges continue to meet the needs of local industry through specific technical training, the report says. Academic Capital Flows: U. of Chicago Plans $200-Million Milton Friedman Institute The research center will honor the late economist’s free-market scholarship. Comment [8] Medical School for Physician-Scientists Will Offer Free Tuition Leaders at the Cleveland Clinic hope the move will spark more interest in academic medicine. Study Finds Varying Community-College Enrollments Among States The report also call for more research into why some states enroll greater proportions of their citizens in community colleges than others.
Most Commented This Month
Cal State Instructor Fired for Refusing to Sign Loyalty Oath | 74 Princeton U. Press Recalls Typo-Filled Book and Says It Will Reprint | 57 U. of Colorado at Boulder Wants to Hire 'Professor of Conservative Thought' | 57 Roman Catholic College Disinvites Pro-Choice Speaker | 47 U. of Florida Plans Layoffs and Enrollment Cuts as State Funds Fall | 44
By Category
Athletics
Blog Archives
Keep Up to Date
Today's most e-mailed
Prior days' news: By date | Search This week's print issue Back issues: By date | Search March 24, 2008'Atlas Shrugged,' and Some Faculty Members WinceAt least 17 colleges and universities have accepted grants from the BB&T Charitable Foundation that stipulate that Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged must be required reading in at least one course, The Charlotte Observer reported. Skeptics have said that such provisions give too much leverage over the curriculum to a major donor. The Observer quotes Richard Cohen, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, as saying, “It’s going to make us look like a rinky-dink university.” The Charlotte campus received a $1-million gift from BB&T in 2005, but the Atlas Shrugged requirement only became widely known there earlier this month, according to the Observer. The Chronicle reported last summer on the efforts of Rand’s followers to promote the academic study of her ideas. Dozens of Rand-related grants have been made by the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship, a small California-based charity, and by the BB&T foundation, an arm of a large North Carolina financial corporation whose chairman is an admirer of Rand. UNC-Charlotte is not the only place where the BB&T grants have caused tension recently. The Charleston Gazette reported last month that some faculty members at Marshall University were unhappy about an Atlas Shrugged requirement in a $1-million grant that their university accepted earlier this year. Cal Kent, Marshall’s vice president for business and economic research, defended the agreement, telling the Gazette that the course would be an elective and that “the university was free to accept or reject the grant.” Meanwhile, the University of Texas at Austin announced last week that it had received a $2-million grant from the BB&T foundation to establish a chair for the study of objectivism, as Rand’s philosophy as known. The chair will be held by Tara Smith, a professor of philosophy who has previously received hundreds of thousands of dollars in support from the Anthem Foundation. Next week, the Texas campus will play host to a conference organized by Ms. Smith on ”Objectivity in the Law.” —David Glenn Posted on Monday March 24, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Previous: Pheaa Directors Want Pennsylvania to Wrap Up Probe of the Agency's Spending
|
The key to remember in all of this is the grants are entirely voluntary donations to voluntary beneficiaries for funding of elective courses. This is in fact the most moral and just system of trade between entities: everyone who enters this transaction, does so willingly. Those who are averse to the idea of having Rand taught in their schools are free to (1) Reject the grant (2) Free to not choose that course as an elective.
Entities like BB&T are making contributions to their own selfish long-term interest, of spreading the moral defense of capitalism that allows them to survive, create jobs, provide their services, make their profits, and generate prosperity for themselves and their stakeholders.
There is no gun forcing the universities to accept money.
This highlights the perversity of altruism, wherein money is demanded not accepted, and on the terms of the beneficiary not the donor. Here the “gun” of public ridicule and condemndation is being pointed at the ones funding the survival, sustenance, and endowment of these universities.
— Jerry Mar 24, 08:39 AM #
These ‘academic’ opponents to the BB&T grants are attempting an embarrassingly obvious ‘end run’ play, to block the intellectual content BB&T is willing to put its money behind.
There are many University courses heavily steeped in arguments based in socialism, feminism, ‘white colonialism’, promotion of race interests, &c. Each of these, in some degree, bring forth well thought, legitimate objections from other faculty members, grants or no grants.
Now we have faculty members who clearly dislike the intellectual opposition they will face with the new BB&T course on Capitalism —not to mention its use of ideas from Capitalism’s most profound advocate, Ayn Rand. Rather than tackling this different point of view academically, they evade direct intellectual debate by attacking the grant process instead. Perhaps they sense a genuine intellectual threat.
— Richard Mar 24, 09:27 AM #
Ayn Rand, according to Richard, is “Capitalism’s most profound advocate.” Huh? I thought that honor would go to Adam Smith, or perhaps even Milton Friedman or some other Chicago boy—both Smith and Friedman get taught at real universities without anyone paying bribes.
I think Miltie is a bit weird, but I have assigned him to my students, and I am happy to assign Smith. Rand, on the hand, needs money to back her up since she is a bad novelist with weird rape fantasies and the delusion she is the greatest philosopher of all time—or perhaps I am being too generous.
— Nicholas Mar 24, 10:16 AM #
Exactly how does the foundation monitor the requirements of the grant? At The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, a former auditor left his estate to the university requiring it be used for training.Instead, the university uses it for baseball tickets,entertainment,parties,luncheons,lunch for the evp that oversees the memorial fund.Despite the fact the fund is not being used as required by the last will and testament and fund documents the university ,when confronted,had its auditor declare that all “expenses were 100% legitimate” …like no one can read.
— Brent Mar 24, 10:37 AM #
If this works, it is a small step to similar bribes for courses teaching L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myong Moon, Lyndon LaRouche, and other crackpots.
— bob Mar 24, 10:56 AM #
I suppose that bribes are the only way to get Ayn Rand’s absurd “objectivist” ideas on a syllabus. Significant intellectual works, however, professors will willingly include without pressures from their universities who have sold out to such bribes.
— Donald Winters Mar 24, 11:07 AM #
My concern isn’t so much the content of these studies as the incentive for their consideration. Ayn Rand deserves to be studied, certainly, but corporations invading independent faculties with financial incentives is a slipperly slope. How long will it be before we name our universities after corporations, in much the same way we name our athletic events. We seem to have become comfortable with the “Tostitos Fiesta Bowl,” but will we ever be comfortable with “Coca-Cola Emory University?” Corporate sponsorship, since it is commercially interested by definition, ALWAYS limits academic freedom.
— Jon L Albee Mar 24, 11:08 AM #
Comments 3, 5, and 6 demonstrate why it’s important that professors and institutions that want to include Rand in their curricula get support such as BB&T is offering: most people in academia today have no idea what Rand said. With such support, hopefully the next generation of academics will have no excuse for not knowing what Ayn Rand and her philosophy are all about.
— Mark Wickens Mar 24, 11:14 AM #
Private universities thrive on donations from corporations—and then academics turn and bite the hand that feeds them. BB&T is an exemplar of corporate charity and the benevolent role that corporations play in a capitalist country. Like any donor, it has the right to stipulate how it would like its money to be spent, and it is rational that it would want it spent on teaching ideas that make such generous donations possible: laissez-faire capitalism. While Adam Smith made an excellent economic argument, Ayn Rand made a profound moral argument in defense of capitalism. Capitalism is the only moral system—and it works. Capitalism works because it is the only system built on the defense of individual rights and freedom. This idea is anathema to mainstream liberal academia, and it is because the ivory towers would rather censor Ayn Rand on campus than have to challenge her overwhelmingly true ideas that BB&T’s grants have raised such hysteria. If these academicians do not want to see Ayn Rand on campus, they should refuse BB&T’s grant—they should refuse all corporate donations made possible by capitalism. And then we’ll see which schools, lacking crucial funding, become the real “rinky-dink universities.”
— Ryan Puzycki Mar 24, 11:37 AM #
In addition to the obvious issues of academic freedom, this grant presents an interesting irony that I believe Ayn Rand would understand. Her own protagonist in The Foundtainhead, Howard Roark laughs at his friend Gail Wynand wanting to place his name in the Wynand newspapers to give him free publicity. The campaign for placement of ideas by Ellsworth Toohey in all kinds of councils and newspapers as unethical and ultimately ineffective is a main theme of Rand’s novels. I always thought the point was free thought and free action, not paid advertising. I hope the BB&T board will consider this paradox as they pursue the path of paying for a readership. Their actions do not fit into the objectivism philosophy or practice.
— Marilyn Mar 24, 12:04 PM #
This is NOT about academic freedom, at least not in the way that it’s being presented. This is about faculty who want to maintain their monopoly on ideas. BB&T should be praised for helping to promote intellectual diversity and for expanding the marketplace of ideas. Ironically, UNCC is demonstrating what a “rinky dink” university it is for making a fuss over this.
— Peter Mar 24, 02:57 PM #
Ayn Rand’s ideas are weak because their study depends upon contributions from willing donors? By that logic, the ideas which oppose hers are even weaker because they depend upon the taxation of unwilling citizens.
— Grant Williams Mar 24, 03:34 PM #
It’s sort of beside the point to say that all of this is voluntary on both sides—of COURSE it is. The point is that a university should REJECT a donation that is contingent on its faculty adopting a particular philosophy.
I think it’s more than a little ironic that academia haters claim that universities are always acting against the will of their wise capitalist benefactors. If that’s the case, why do they keep giving money in record amounts? If you’re such a big believer in markets, then how come there hasn’t been some sort of widespread market response from the donor community outside of these silly little “we’ll pay you to teach Rand” efforts?
— Jake Mar 24, 03:43 PM #
It all seems very simple to me—if you don’t want to read Rand, (why wouldn’t you want students to take on a topic to challenge various points of view?) don’t take the money. Once you are free of the money, you are also free to decline to do whatever the grantor asks of you. BBT is under no obligation to make an offer to donate money to anyone…unless they want to do so. Likewise, the institutions receiving the funds are under no obligations to teach Rand, unless they agree to do so. And I don’t think it’s beside the point…I think it IS the point. Like I said, it seems pretty simple to me.
— RLP Mar 24, 03:48 PM #
Fie on Atlas Shrugged. Who wants to read it anyway, much less have it as required reading in the curriculum? Now with fond teenage memories, if it were The Fountainhead, why that would be just fine. “Howard Roark stood naked on a cliff.” Sigh—
— S. Mar 24, 03:57 PM #
Prior to my arrival as Sims Chair in Ethics, the University of Charleston had already negotiated such a grant with BB&T.
While I have some concerns about the possible “strings,” I look at the issue from Rand’s perspective: if BB&T is stupid enough to subject Atlas—shrugging or not—to the intense scrutiny of critical thinking and ethical practice in the open forum, so be it! Take their cash and throw Rand into the dialectical frey. Just check the membership of your Board of Trustees and their corresponding memberships on corporate boards, and especially, check the memberships of the President of the Institution. Atlas would bristle, not shrug, at the debilitating affect of corporate incestuous inbreeding.
— James Thomasson Mar 24, 03:57 PM #
Would not Ayn Rand would approve of the grant’s terms and conditions? Doesn’t she opine that capitalists rule? And do not capitalists rule by buying what they want? Even the hearts and minds of university professors and their students?
— Michael Grimaldi Mar 24, 04:06 PM #
I must agree with S…Didn’t we all read The Fountainhead when we were 14 and fall in love with Howard Roark? He’s so dreamy!!
I’d love to teach Ayn Rand in a class on young adult fiction…it’d go great with S.E. Hinton novels.
Stay gold, Ponyboy!!
— JCWT Mar 24, 04:09 PM #
“So you think that money is the root of all evil? In fact, it is the belief that money is the root of all evil which is the root of all evil.” – Francisco D’anconia; Atlas Shrugged
— Grant Williams Mar 24, 04:37 PM #
Ayn Rand’s works should aid greatly in developing the students’ independent thinking. If you don’t like the writer, don’t take the grant. There is no academic freedom to force donations to become unrestricted.
— Eric Jacobson Mar 24, 04:41 PM #
I’m a part owner of a small business and I would have loved the opportunity to have studied “Atlas Shrugged” in college. Ayn Rand’s uniquely moral defense of capitalism and business deserves a place in the academic canon where it can be discussed and debated alongside the other major philosophical and economic thinkers, such as Adam Smith. American business students will greatly benefit from exposure to her ideas.
I applaud BB&T for donating its money in such a fashion and I applaud the universities which have displayed the courage to teach Ayn Rand over the objections of her “politically correct” opponents.
— PaulH Mar 24, 04:41 PM #
Oh you’re so right, JCWT. Maybe what recipients of BB&T grants should do is teach Ayn Rand in a young adult fiction class. It would be one of the most popular courses on the campus. And upon completion of the course, all students could be given a lapel pin of a dollar sign. Only one thing—never let the students see a photograph of Frank Lloyd Wright. The romance of Howard Roark would be “gone with the wind” (another item on the reading list).
— S. Mar 24, 04:47 PM #
The real problem here is that universities are in need of funding to the point where they must consider accepting “strings attached” money from corporations and student lenders (see Cuomo student lender controversy). If all universities were supplied with sufficient federal funding to not have to worry about crossing the thin line between helping students afford their overpriced education and doing so by unfairly choosing to teach them a certain philosophy, this may not have been a problem. Misguided federal budgeting is largely to blame in this and similar situations.
— PM Mar 24, 05:00 PM #
It is odd to see such worry in those who for some reason haven’t paid attention to Capitalism’s foremost moral defender of all time. They should welcome the chance to show their chops and demonstrate the reasonableness of their ignoring Rand! As best I can tell, that is all BB&T wants: genuine engagement.
Of course, unlike those grousing and bristling and squirming to avoid such engagement, BB&T shows real confidence that the ideas they consider important will prevail in open competition. I say all those scandalized professors should eagerly take up BB&T’s challenge and bring out their biggest intellectual guns. The result is sure to be educational.
— Greg Perkins Mar 24, 05:04 PM #
I think it’s ironic that opponents of this grant don’t seem to realize that it is their opposition, and not the offer of the grant itself, that constiutes a dangerous and unethical attack on academic freedom. Academics who are willing to accept funding on conditions to which they agree should have every right to do so. If they don’t, then it is their academic freedom that is being restricted.
The implication of this complaint is that academics should never have to be answerable to anyone (potential funders included) for the ideas that they advocate and teach. I would be hard pressed to devise a more effective way to create and sustain an insular, academic orthodoxy than the petulant insistence on such an intellectual “blank check.” If the prevailing notion of “academic freedom” has degenerated to the point where it can be used as a pretext for silence opposing ideas in this way, then it’s past time to re-think that prevailing notion and its ethical assumptions.
— Tony Donadio Mar 24, 05:12 PM #
I don’t have time to make a point with the subtlety it deserves, but the point needs to be made: many here don’t have a clue about the nature of academic freedom!
It is not the right to say anything you damn well please but to speak from a simultaneously theoretical and empirical basis in a disciplined community of researchers. This conception ought to resonate in everyone’s mind when they hear ‘academic discipline’ and ‘academic freedom’.
I am a philosopher by discipline (though a good deal of my work is “interdisciplinary”), so I have high standards for calling something ‘philosophy’. Over the years students have from time to time called my attention to Rand and Objectivism. I have judged, and continue to judge, it as more an ideology than a philosophy.
But I think Rand’s work can be presented, studied, and taught at the university level, as long as it is examined with discipline(s). But the extrinsic imposition of it on departments and programs by administrators whose eagerness for funds makes them think donors should dictate terms of instruction is subversive of real academic freedom.
— dionysos Mar 24, 05:29 PM #
Hey I have assigned parts of Atlas Shrugged in course I teach in critical thinking. There are great examples of bad arguments throughout Rand’s works. Can I get some money?
— steve Mar 24, 05:48 PM #
I think commenter #8 is mistaken. Many in academia do know what Ayn Rand said and want to misrepresent her so that others won’t actually ever know.
— Jack Crawford Mar 24, 06:46 PM #
Of all the comments here that expose their makers’ complete nihilism, this one was the most egregious: “Over the years students have from time to time called my attention to Rand and Objectivism. I have judged, and continue to judge, it as more an ideology than a philosophy.”
If this person can[t tell the difference between an ideology and a philosophy, he must be a college graduate.
— Edward Cline Mar 24, 06:54 PM #
‘Richard Cohen, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (says) “It’s going to make us look like a rinky-dink university.”’
Not that it would, but can there be anything more rinky-dink than having a professor of “religious studies?”
— Adam Reed Mar 24, 07:01 PM #
Take the grant — and then offer a class, “Atlas Shrugged: Bad Literature (and Terrible Philosophy)” or something like that. Requirement fulfilled and money in the bank!
— Alisa Rosenbaum Mar 24, 07:20 PM #
Not that it would, but can there be anything more rinky-dink than having a professor of “religious studies
____________________________
HA HA HA!!!!
This is the latest in a long line of episodes whereby the Left attempts to maintain its ideological stranglehold upon our universities by attacking the supply train of their competitors: grant $$$ from the military, oil, tobacco and now Ayn Rand – really, anything other than the government and private foundations the Left has control over.
— TRB Mar 24, 07:20 PM #
The Randies are a social darwinistic cult just like Scientology, just like National Socialism, just like the Militia Movement. That they are all based on poorly written literature is no coincidence, but this literature shares an evil genius: a hypnotic message of elimination of the weak. That a modern university would fail to recognize this and prostitute itself for a few pieces of silver is quite pathetic.
— marci Mar 24, 07:53 PM #
SEX. LUST. PASSION. HARLEQUIN ROMANCE…..Yup, cut out all that other nonsense and that’s pretty much all that’s left of an Ayn Rand novel. And TRB, if you’re masquerding as THE TRB of the New Republic, then you’re a hoot. If you’re THE TRB, tsk, tsk; you could have done much better.
— judy pearce Mar 24, 07:54 PM #
My suggestion to all these so-called champions of intellectual “diversity” on the Left is that they should coordinate a national Ayn Rand book burning so that they never have to actually read, analyze, or debate her ideas.
— Doug Mar 24, 07:57 PM #
Jake, comment 13 above, equivocates. “The point is that a university should REJECT a donation that is contingent on its faculty adopting a particular philosophy.” No one said any such thing. The donors asked that a certain book be used in a course on capitalism. How, and with what philosophy, the book is taught is up to the instructor. Perhaps this distinction is too difficult for some people to grasp. Perhaps Jake assumes that if he teaches Marx, he must be a communist.
— Prof in the East Mar 24, 07:58 PM #
The stipulation is that the book is part of required reading. The way that the professors decide to approach or critique that reading is up to them.
— missme Mar 24, 10:18 PM #
For those who actually know Ayn Rand’s essence, her name and philosophy are virtually airtight synonymous with the founders of the United States, Jefferson, Madison, et al. So for those who somehow come to the conclusion that the Rand philosophy is a cult: Was the philosophy of Madison, Jefferson, Adams a cult. Please explain. See if you can find a single admirer of Ayn Rand(as I) who isn’t also an enthusiastic admirer of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc. (I won’t hold my breath.) I see Ayn Rand as John Adams except that she extends the discussion into the metaphyiscal realm: What governmental system is consanant with the nature of a human? Is pride an indispensable attribue of a healthy human in your family? Can a useless bum on welfare have pride? Is a human born with omniscience? Is a free press imperative in human society? Why is the entire world trying to move to America, the country with the most shreds of Capitalism remaining? Don’t expect any of these questions soon in your local lefty chapter of academia. One of the most important things I learned from Ayn Rand was the American founders absolute disdain for democracy. Of course, the level of discourse in the Captitalist-averse abomination called the public schools is not the place that you would expect to learn such vital information. It’s interesting that the universities take billions in welfare handouts from the government but we’re supposed to believe, “nah…that has nothing to do with the lefty kangaroo courts dominating academia.” One great development is that the humanities are such a joke with their Pc courses—“Women’s Studies”—that they are going the way of the Capitalist-averse Detroit auto industry. I celebrate Detroit’s demise every day. Ayn Rand asked the question, “What’s the difference, in principle, between socialism and slavery?” (Will one of the lefty socialists please answer this question before my lifetime?) I’m forced at gunpoint into this Ponzi scheme called Social Security because some anonymous shmoe says he cares so much about me, and of course, the children. Is it my life or is it your life? Do you control my life or do I control my life(read: slavery)? If I choose to work, do I get remunerated or do you get remunerated? Ayn Rand would not allow the racist Pc hoax called “Affirmative Action,” which of course determines who is qualified according to his or her skin color. Somehow, the lefties are behind this purely racist policy. I’m just hoping they’ll explain themselves someday. Lastly, the Communists slaughtered about 100 million people in the previous century. Does it not seem quite strange that there is virtually no academic inquiry into this mass slaughter by the lefty professors? All should understand why the lefties refuse to step into an honest and balanced ring of debate. I know this; I’m aching for the debate; just name the date and place.
— Bill M Mar 24, 10:26 PM #
The Randians (above) have it all wrong.
A real capitalist professor would not sell a place in the syllabus for a $1 or $2 million gift to their university.
A real capitalist professor would auction off spots on his/her course reading list on eBay and keep the money for themselves. If we’re going to sell our souls — let’s go all the way and sell them to the highest bidders. We can also put disclaimers on our syllabi, noting that the books chosen for the course weren’t based on our honest academic judgments of how to best teach our students, but were based on who was most willing to pay us off.Selling spots on our reading lists wouuld simultaneously be a great way to model capitalism for our students and also solve the problems of low faculty pay.
— honest academic Mar 24, 11:35 PM #
As a student with a particular major, I am obligated to take certain classes. The content of these classes are mandated by certain professors who want to teach certain ideas as opposed to some other ideas. So did the students who had to take these classes lose their academic freedom or their freedom to think? Were they brainwashed? It really is a non-argument to think that the class that will be established as a result of the gift from BB&T reflects less academic freedom just because one book will be included. Presumably whoever is the teacher will want to include the book in his/her course. Students don’t have to take this course. There is no threat to academic freedom here.
— Sarah Mar 25, 12:29 AM #
People are their own best revenge. The foundation giving money but requiring a particular book/author be read, reveals thereby its bias and feelings of inferiority and dislike of the judgements millions of others are already making that the book is silly. It is just like President of the US Bush—no more self destructive act by the Republican party had ever been devised in the mind of man than the puny essence of Bush, proving what critics of every stripe could not prove—that the ideology and philosophy and values and tactics were suidical for the man and the nation. The worst thing you can do to any man is leave him to hell alone with his natural propensities to make a fool of himself, by not compensating for his own well known neuroses and flaws. Left alone, we are all fools. This foundation by its reading requirement is an immense advertisement of the sillyness of the author it wishes to impose reading of onto others. Divine justice. The nice things about rich guys imposing favored ideas and readings onto others (especially young others) is the defensiveness about their own ideas’ ability to be chosen and selected by others without financial inducement they thereby reveal. Divine justice. My fools for ever continue to, by trying to say they are not fools, prove their foolishness! A just universe afterall.
— Richard Tabor Greene Mar 25, 07:02 AM #
This article refers to “Ayn Rand followers” as if advocates of her individualist philosophy are “followers.” This largely ignorant view is apparent in a Google search for “Ayn Rand followers”—662 hits, “Ayn Rand fanatics”—313 hits, “Ayn Rand acolytes”—228 hits, “Ayn Rand scholars”—9 hits.
It’s about time this major 20th century philosopher and her students received some respect.
— John W. Bales Mar 25, 08:15 AM #
Ayn Rand’s students should receive a lot of respect in places where the state has stopped impeding the individual and excellence can wander openly without being taxed out of existence. I can think of a few places where the state has withered away – Somalia, Iraq and Liberia.
— brian Mar 25, 08:42 AM #
Whether “Atlas Shrugged” has intellectual merit is not the issue. We can debate that ad nauseum and it’s unlikely that any adherent to a particular point of view on the topic will have a sudden enlightenment and adopt the opposite viewpoint. It’s not even especially interesting.
The interesting part is the decision of the universities to accept the grant. Is the love of money is leading administration to accept donations without respect to the strings attached?
We need to ask, what should the role of administration be in determining course content? What is the duty of faculty to the financial well-being of the institution? If a gift creates a rift between faculty and administration, is that healthy for the institution? If money with strings attached isn’t necessary for the health of the university, under what circumstances is it ethical to accept it?
I would submit that money which divides administration and faculty is generally not healthy for the institution. A house divided, and all that. Administration and faculty have a duty to work closely together to make prudent and ethical choices.
There’s no one right answer in this specific case; the right answer depends on the institution and requires rigorous thought.
— Debbie Carraway Mar 25, 08:58 AM #
Academia is never threatened by the open discussion of ideas, even poorly written, crackpot ideas like Rand’s. The problem comes when a university accepts money from an influential donor to teach a certain idea in a favorable light (and make no mistake, BB&T expects Rand’s work to be taught as not only a respected philosophy but also as ‘Truth’). Combine this with small universities that rarely are given large sums of money for the academic side as well as the erosion of tenure in many schools and you have an environment where it is unlikely that her writing will be subjected to the intense scrutiny that everyone assumes as a given in academe.
Does anyone reading this really believe that a university administration would look kindly upon a faculty member that openly criticized the treasured subject of a large grant to the school? Would that faculty member see favorable treatment in promotion and tenure? Does it seem that in most cases Ayn Rand will get a ‘free pass’ and her ideas, that are too week to demand study without corporate bribes, will be taught as Gospel?
When we as academics teach Marx or Bakunin we do so secure in the belief that we may freely criticize the work. We also do so knowing that the ideas contained in their works have stood the test of time and intense academic scrutiny. Not so with Rand.
Finally, I ask, what is next? A chair in white studies funded by the KKK?
— John Mar 25, 09:25 AM #
The point is not that “The Left” is censoring anything at all. The point is that a Business School Dean made an arrangement with an outside donor promising to develop a course without, apparently, consulting his faculty. At UNC Charlotte, and most other schools, faculty are specifically charged with developing the curriculum. This task falls outside the realm of responsibility for administrators, and so a promise was made to a donor that was simply not in the authority of the Dean to make. These rules exist not only to protect the rights of faculty, but to protect administrators themselves from undue outside pressure, whether from business, government, or the community.
— Gregory Starrett Mar 25, 10:00 AM #
Be it Dr. Seuss or Plato, if you don’t want to use the work, don’t take the money. The donor is within his rights to attach strings to his cash and the university would be within its rights to decline it if they object to those strings. It seems fairly simple.
— Dave H Mar 25, 10:03 AM #
This is unconscionable! Buying spots on reading lists? Why, that’s dishonest. Can you imagine? What next, professors writing and then requiring their own books in classes? I’ll happily accept money for MY special ideas, just not someone else’s. I’m taking a moral stand on this issue—being alone in my special rightness is a burden, but one that I must bear.
— Alberto Jones Mar 25, 10:12 AM #
All this talk about academic freedom and the authority of the faculty to control the curriculum is just so much nonsense on stilts: it IS a smokescreen put up by those who want to preserve their monopoly on ideas and to prevent certain new ideas or books from entering the marketplace of ideas. That’s it. That’s what this is all about.
One thing we know with certainty: expanding intellectual diversity and the marketplace of ideas on our college campuses is something that students want. I’m willing to bet that students don’t want these ideas and books banned under the cloak of faculty governance.
— Peter Mar 25, 10:54 AM #
I say take the money. Include the book in a moral philosophy class as one point of view among many. Critically analyze the book, Ayn Rand’s views, and also the issue of teaching books for money. If the foundation had stipulated that the school must endorse Rand’s view in order to get the money, then we’d have a problem. “Teaching” a view should mean subjecting it to critical analysis, not adopting it.
— K Pierce Mar 25, 11:35 AM #
Edward Cline of #29: Do you know Cabanis and De Stutt de Tracy? Do you know the history of ideology? I meant something quite precise when I distinguished ideology from philosophy and put Rand’s ideas more in the former category than in the latter (notice, too, that that is a question of proportion).
To put it into 25 unhistorical words or less: ideologies are closed conceptual systems that have a label ready for every phenomenon. What something is, is for the most part decided in advance.
Followers of the greatest philosophers often cultivate their master’s work as though it were an ideology—one reason that followers rarely rise even close to the level of the thinker they love.
By considering something, then being willing to come back to reassess the earlier judgment later, I didn’t intend to convict myself of nihilism. But I guess that an ideologue knows that an ideological judgment is good forever, and anyone who even thinks about reconsidering must be a nihilist.
— dionysos Mar 25, 11:40 AM #
As for naming the room after Rand: pathetic, yes, but no worse than naming the Gianinni Foundation at Berkeley after the owners of the Bank of America, as a think tank for agribusiness.
— david Mar 25, 11:45 AM #
This again? Rand followers immediately accuse those who criticize her of false consciousness or of misunderstanding her or of never having read her. :::yawn:::
— JKW Mar 25, 11:49 AM #
I would like for once to see scholarly analysis and discussion of Rand’s ideas in place of saracasm, ad hominem, and the like. If her ideas are so laughable, then why hasn’t a simple refutation of her arguments been offered by the “serious” academics (the same academics who propound socialism, environmentalism, Keynesian economics and all the other wonderful ideas of the 20th century)? It’s clear to me that Objectivist intellectuals are able and willing to defend their ideas and only want to be heard. Why is the Left so afraid of open debate? Perhaps they should simply add Rand and Objectivism to the list of prohibited topics in their speech codes. Problem solved.
— Doug Mar 25, 01:53 PM #
How many universities teach a class in Ayn Rand’s ,oral justification of capitalism without being paid to do so?
— John Mar 25, 02:28 PM #
“So you believe that money is the root of all evil? In fact, it is the belief that money is the root of all evil which is the root of all evil.” – Francisco D’Anconia, Atlas Shrugged
— Grant Williams Mar 25, 02:51 PM #
Of course, any faculty member who wants to include Atlas Shrugged on a reading list is free to do so, with or without the grant. So for the $1 million, the foundation is either (a) having the book taught by someone who is thinks it’s junk but is coerced into teaching it, or (b) getting it taught by someone who would have done so without the grant. I don’t think I’d go to these folks for investment advice.
— Ed Hynes Mar 25, 03:45 PM #
Mr. Hynes,
Read up on what exactly BB&T is attempting to fund. It’s much more than just including Atlas Shrugged on a reading list. They’re attempting to create entire departments – “Centers For The Advancement of Capitalism” – within these universities; replete with their own professors, courses, and extracirricular activities. What is already going on at Clemson University, courtesy of a BB&T grant, is a find example.
— Grant Williams Mar 25, 04:17 PM #
Thanks for the conspiracy theory update, Grant. I have some bad news, though. The “centers for the advancement of capitalism” are in place as we write. They’re called colleges of business. Although they haven’t taken over the world, they have produced many thousands of college graduates who seem to be doing well. Hope that relieves some of your concerns.
— Margaret McGill-MacNamara Mar 25, 04:36 PM #
Miss McGill-MacNamara,
Margaret, a conspiracy theory? In my previous comment, I didn’t express my approval or disapproval of what BB&T is doing. I simply explianed that they are doing much more than just adding Atlas Shrugged to a few reading lists. That was the false evidence Mr. Hynes used when he implied that BB&T’s investments – either in charity or in business – don’t produce profitable returns. You’d do well to read more than just the latest comment before you barge in on the discussion.
As for your assertion that America’s colleges of business are centers for the advancement of capitalism, given their results – the pitiful phenomenons of today’s mixed-economy which are passed off as capitalism, I beg to differ. In fact, this is precisely why BB&T’s efforts, so very unique among it’s peers, deserve as much praise as possible.
— Grant Williams Mar 25, 05:37 PM #
Well, to start, Ms. Rand was a novelist, of dubious ability I might add.
Her blanket endorsement of erotic capitalism seems to have taken something of an empirical beating of late, as unhampered capitalists and their corporate fronts have run rampant over the ethical, moral and even economic underpinnings of our nation.
If BB&T and others are actually interested in “unfettered capitalism”, they might do a better service by focusing on the plain corruption and thievery that pass in so many “conservative” circles as the normal course of business, not to mention the self-dealing that has virtually eliminated any practical manifestation of the vaunted “level playing field”.
Maybe we should eliminate all inheritance, and then everybody could start the game from square one…
This is, among other sad things, a good example of what happens when money is equated with free speech.
Finally, perhaps the numbers cited in comment 42 reflect an obvious condition: few academics have chosen to take Rand seriously as either novelist or philosopher because they are smart people who have been trained to recognize second rate thinking, and find it of little interest to teach or talk about. Rather, she is often included in reading lists because of the bulk of her influence socially speaking.
— Old Left John Mar 25, 11:50 PM #
#61,
Don’t be ridiculous. Rand was not in favor of “unfettered” capitalism if that means unfettered by moral considerations.
— A Mar 26, 01:14 AM #
#58
Mr. Williams,
I’m quite willing to sit corrected. I was responding the article—perhaps too literally. I was also responding to the assumption, which seems to be repeated in a number of the comments, that there’s something keeping people from teaching Rand if they want to.
— Ed Hynes Mar 26, 11:34 AM #
This is akin to helping a beggar and him complaining that you stipulate that some of the money be spent on certain things rather than at his whim. Rather simple, accept the money and the conditions, or say ‘no thank you’ and refuse it. What a bunch of liberal, pansy-butt pantywaists. Oh Gaia, ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is such a threat to their indoctrination manifestos of collectivism and victimization.
— Keith Mar 26, 12:17 PM #
A stand can be made against invasion by an army; no stand can be made against invasion by an idea.
— Victor August Hugo Mar 26, 12:34 PM #
Mr. Williams,
Your eloquent, but incorrect take on this issue highlights the paranoia that has become my trampoline.
— Margaret McGill-MacNamara Mar 26, 02:20 PM #
Comparisons between Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard are absurd. In fact, the two philosophies, at their ontological roots, are complete opposites. Hubbard/Scientology takes a subjectivist position that reality is whatever people agree upon and is created by consciousness, whereas the Randian/Objectivist position is that reality exists, regardless of anyone’s wishes or desires. Scientology espouses a supernatural epistemology whereas Objectivist epistemology is that reason is our means of acquiring knowledge. As for the grant, I don’t see what all the uproar is about a grant that simply requires one elective course to be taught where Atlas Shrugged is required reading. This is not a violation of academic freedom at all. Prior to accepting the grant, the school can inquire if there is a faculty member willing to teach the course and if there isn’t the school is free to decline the grant. Given all the other topics that get funding in the academe, there ‘s an obvious double standard being espoused here.
— Monica Mar 27, 08:34 AM #
Thank you, Monica. By far the most useful and thoughtful response to this story. Double standard indeed.
— Mikkey Kim Mar 27, 10:28 AM #
God, there are already 68 comments on the Ayn Rand piece. Frankly, the only devout Randians I ever knew were self-centered, self-important idiots. Good God. I’m #69. That evokes interesting reflections.
— Donald Winters Mar 27, 10:39 AM #
Donald (#69), you need to upgrade your ad hominems. Being self-centered and self-important is the central tenet of the objectivist ethics and is a badge worn by Randians with unflinching pride. Apparently unbeknownst to you, however, is the caveat that the hierarchy of one’s values must be rationally defined and consistently invoked. To succeed as a derogatory remark, your meaning has to imply guilt of irrational selfishness and then find enough readers who are still so uninformed about Rand that they can’t spot the self-contradiction therein that renders it inapplicable to anyone in sync with Rand. That is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve.
The persistent expansion of Rand’s influence is, I admit, not easy to detect given that advocates of the power of reason applied to ideas do not proffer throngs of warm bodies waving banners before the press as an intellectual argument. Instead, the Ayn Rand Institute quietly gives Rand’s books to high school teachers free on request — 300,000 last year, 400,000 this year, and so on. While you are citing this as proof that the book is juvenile, there will be among these readers each year a small number of independant minds for whom objectivism is the only magnet around. It is they who will multiply exponentially and come to wreak havoc on the influence of professors whose public offenses/defenses rely solely on the emotional connotations of derogatory words and phrases like “erotic capitalism”, “second-rate thinking”, “crackpot”, “bribes”, and your classic, Donald, “idiots”.
I and other Randians would much prefer that you guys dig a little deeper into her oeuvre and bolster your blogability with some red-meat substance worth sinking our teeth into. Your first test is coming up in ’09 when Angelina Jolie makes Dagny Taggart a household name and the whole world will be blogging over Atlas Shrugged. Old Left John (#61) calling it a film of “dubious” merit (which it could well be) will not constitute a learned critique of Rand’s philosophy then any more than it does today. In the words a bunch of capitalists once bribed a feisty dame to make immortal, “Where’s the beef?!”
— Michael M Mar 27, 04:25 PM #
Thank you, Michael. Your response to my comment reminded me of two essential adjectives for describing Randians: pompous and painfully didactic.
— Donald Winters Mar 27, 08:55 PM #
To follow-up on #46’s comments, the fact that Atlas Shrugged would be required reading was never divulged by the Business School Dean who negotiated the agreement with BB&T. Indeed, he deliberately misled an incoming Chancellor regarding the conditions associated with the gift. This Dean claims to be “an admirer of Rand’s work,” but I leave it to the Randians to explain how such behavior comports with her philosophy.
— William Mar 28, 12:30 AM #
#72,
Do you expect fair play in an educational system who’s very existence depends – at least in part – on coercion? The governments, the administrations, and the faculties of public schools can make all of the rules they wish to achieve a “conflict of interest-free” environment, but the bottom line is that the conflicting interest of some one, single tax payer who doesn’t want to pay will be ignored.
I don’t know all of the details of what you and comment #46 allege, but assuming they are alll true, what else – besides pressure-group warfare and political intrigue – to you expect from such a fundamentally flawed idea as government involvement in education?
What would drive a company like BB&T – under daily assuault by taxes and regulations; enacted by people educated by the very faculty members who so desperately clamor for a way to remain insulated from the consequences of the ideas they spread – to do something like you allege?
“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral.” – Francisco D’anconia, Atlas Shrugged
— Grant Williams Mar 28, 03:32 AM #
I take issue with Percy G. Swisher.
— The Spirit of P.G. Wodehouse Mar 28, 01:36 PM #
Exactly how does the foundation monitor the requirements of the grant? At The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, a former auditor left his estate to the university requiring it be used for training.Instead, the university uses it for baseball tickets,entertainment,parties,luncheons,lunch for the evp that oversees the memorial fund.Despite the fact the fund is not being used as required by the last will and testament and fund documents the university ,when confronted,had its auditor declare that all “expenses were 100% legitimate” …like no one can read.
Sound like a university to take to court after the Robertson Foundation versus Princeton case is finally settled, hopefully in favor of the Robertson Foundation. Donors are not likely to continue giving money (shares of stock) to American Universities in the future if the universities are not required to follow the wishes of the donors. You cannot just take/accept the money and do what you want with it. At least any university with any sense of morality and ethics would not do so. Princeton should just repay the money it used for other purposes (with interest) and turn over the funds to the Robertson Foundation, so that they can give the money to a university which will: Yale or Brown, for example.
— Karl Mar 29, 06:35 AM #
William (#72), The standard for judging the Dean will depend on the breadth of the context within which one makes the judgement. In the narrowest context, the standard would be his contract with the university. Exceeding the bounds of his autonomy as specified in the contract would be a fraudulent withholding of values promised and due. That would be condemned by any adherent to the principles of Ayn Rand’s objectivism.
In the broader context, however, introduced by Grant Williams (#73), the interrelationships are more complex, the issues more significant. They derive from our most fundamental socio-economic principle governing the behavior of interacting human beings, namely: all interrelationships among men shall be voluntary, and no person may act to gain or withhold any value of another by initiating the use or threat of physical force. The fundamental socio-economic alternative in the politics of Rand’s philosophy is freedom vs. force.
In violation of this principle, the government of North Carolina long ago concluded (wrongly) that universities could never be funded by parents with the moral obligation to educate their own children and corporations who desperately needed educated hirelings, so they simply extracted it also from the childless who have no such obligation, those already paying for private schooling, and other potentially unwilling citizens by threat of force. There is no moral distinction between this and any other theft. That it was authorized by a democratic vote means only that the thieves outnumbered their victims in the voting booths.
The Randian, applying the standard that any accomplice shares the guilt of the perpetrator, recognizes that all who agree with and support this scheme are, as accomplices, also guilty of theft. Since thieves and their accomplices have no moral claim to benefit from their own booty, only those victims who oppose funding the university by taxation would have any moral right to benefit (qua reimbursement) from the existence of UNC. This applies, of course, only to the degree that UNC is funded by taxation, and not to what is funded by private bequests.
You can see the ensuing ethical quagmire in separating the two, which the Randian already grasps to be the inevitable product of injecting government force into the marketplace of ideas and not worth pursuing beyond that fact. Thus, the Dean’s transgression, though damnable, becomes merely one among other irrational minutiae enmeshed in a far greater evil and with no significant relevance to the validity or desirability of the gift itself.
The BB&T gift is virtuous. It is money voluntarily given, to be voluntarily received or rejected that would introduce to students who would volunteer to expose their minds to a book in which the characters embrace the moral principles that are the base for a politics that mandates only freedom and forbids only force. To the Randian, that is the immanently satisfying core of this issue that supersedes any interest in the Dean without excusing him.
— Michael M Mar 29, 06:20 PM #
Jeez, Michael M….write a friggin dissertation next time. Perhaps YOU should teach the class on Rand and accept the money.
— Arnold P. Ziffle Mar 31, 04:07 PM #
While I also disagree that Rand belongs in a philosophy course, I will say this: in the philosophy courses I have taught and taken over the years, there have been any number of books that have appeared on the syllabus, and were never read or discussed in the course due to time constraints. Thus, there is little preventing an instructor forced to add Rand to his syllabus from simply passing over Rand in the course of the class.
In fact, individualism is highly touted by Rand, is it not? Forgetting for a second the problematic issue that Rand believes that her way is the only way to truly be an individual (seems paradoxical, doesn’t it?), we might also be able to say that Rand herself would approve of the instructor who takes the personal initiative to make money for his university without actually changing the meaningful content of the curriculum. :)
— Tom Apr 1, 05:17 PM #
What a wonderful comment, Arnold! It captures the duality of my own very first impressions of the Randians 40 years ago — at first take, overbearing (Donald’s “painfully didactic” in #71), yet at the second, in spite of it all, something intriguingly positive. In my own case, as I delved deeper into objectivism, that impression grew into a conviction that an honest mind will be hard pressed to ignore the efficacy of a philosophy in which knowledge means ideas, not feelings, ethics means a code of values, not a tablet of rules, and politics means freedom, not force.
— Michael M Apr 1, 06:40 PM #
Sociology 11,431 elective Spring 20014:
Bigots I have Known,
This course will discuss people lacking self confidence who invent over-weening philosophies and pay people to read boring books about them—Karl Marx, Jesus, Ayn Rand, Shakespeare are included in the readings. Students found agreeing with any of the readings will immediately be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Apparently the above course will fulfill the donor’s requirements. Stupid is as stupid does.
For eons colleges have restricted themselves to teaching sophisticated well thought of (historically speaking) philosophies. They thereby have missed this boat—teaching silly, ill-thought-out bigotted philosophies that rich people like because they equate all virtues with wealth attainment and the rich guys apparently are in continual guilt and shame about the poor quality of lunch conversations they generate while sitting on such should-be-impressive piles of wealth. Wealth is all!!!!
Fall down and worship!!!!
— Richard Tabor Greene Apr 1, 09:19 PM #
Tom (#78), your dishonest little scheme to take the money and run is subjective individualism: acting on whim with responsibility to nothing and no one at another’s expense. Rand touts exactly the opposite, objective individualism: acting under obligation to honor reciprocally all rights claimed for oneself.
And your false assumption that “Rand believes that her way is the only way,” is the product of gossip among the uninformed. How would one ever derive that out of these:
“It is only your own knowledge that you can claim to possess or ask others to consider. Your mind is your only judge of truth— and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is the court of final appeal.”
“… the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.”
(both from Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged, excerpted in “For The New Intellectual” pp. 126 and 128).
— Michael M Apr 1, 09:59 PM #
#81: “How would one ever derive that out of these”
Right. How could I possibly derive an overall opinion of a writer from two quotations…egad, the temerity.
My ‘dishonest little scheme’ is A) not dishonest at all—according to the article, the grants are accepted with the condition that Rand’s book be ‘required reading’ for a course…this does not mean that the book be required discussion or test material for a course.
My scheme is also B) not one of acting on a whim…where do you get the notion that it’s a whim? It’s actually a carefully conceived plan, you only use the word ‘whim’ in a semantic attempt to discredit the plan…nor is it a case of neglecting any responsibility to anyone else—I am in fact honoring a prima facie responsibility to my university by making sure they get the money via my sticking to the letter of the contract, and I am also honoring my committment to my students by not teaching something that did not make the syllabus on its own merits.
Furthermore, if you go on to claim that by sticking to the letter of the contract (at least as it has been presented) I am not honoring the ‘spirit’ of the contract, I will simply reply that the Randroids…sorry, the BB&T…are being duplicitous in not acknowledging what their ultimate aims are with these grants.
— Tom Apr 1, 11:25 PM #
I’ll stick with “dishonest” (meaning intellectual dishonesty, not theft). You have no moral responsibility to “get the money” at the expense of your integrity. If you believe Rand should not be in the course, avoid it or politely decline to teach it. If your contract does not allow that, go elsewhere.
And “whim” in this context does not mean you acting impulsively. It means acting on an ethical standard with no validation other than whim, as in “whatever I can get away with.”
“How would one ever derive that out of these” does not anticipate an “overall opinion” of Rand. It expects you to question your derivation and motivation of that specific accusation. Were it literally meant, the statement that she “believes her way is the only way” would be pointless nonsense. Everyone, including you, who draws a conscious conclusion as to the nature of individualism (or anything else) excludes at the end of the process other versions and offers their own version as the right one.
That cannot be “problematic” without insinuating that her standards for drawing her conclusion are arbitrary and issued as dogma. That would then constitute an attempt to diminish the validity of her definition of individualism by smearing it with the connotations associated with claiming infallibility.
The quotes specifically refute that case, and are a profound indication of the fact that intellectual independence is a major tenet of her ethics. Galt’s speech is widely known and easily discoverable to be a distillation of her philosophy in the form of a literary action. As she said, “… and I mean every word of it.”
— Michael M Apr 2, 02:49 PM #
Too funny. Michael M absolutely crushes Donald Winters, so Winters comes back with more name-calling. Well done, Winters, you must have graduated from an Ivy League school.
As for Old Left John, the quote: “Maybe we should eliminate all inheritance, and then everybody could start the game from square one…” says it all abou socialists. They won’t be happy until we’re all poor, standing in line for bread, shivering in the cold, or herded into a concentration camp. It’s guys like Old Left John that make me pine for a new McCarthy because frankly we don’t take the Red Menace seriously enough.
— just me Apr 3, 04:26 AM #
Michael M.: What great comments! I especially enjoyed #2, #13, #15, #19, #22, #31,and #35. However, #s 37, 40, 48, 52, 61, 67, 73, 74, 77, and 79 were also noteworthy. I must say, however, that the 47 comments you posted after #80 lacked the intensity of your previous work. I do look forward to your upcoming publication “The Pedantic Blog Responses of Michael M. to Unimportant Chronicle Articles, Volumes I-IV”.
— P. Ellet Gunn Apr 3, 11:14 AM #
“For those who actually know Ayn Rand’s essence, her name and philosophy are virtually airtight synonymous with the founders of the United States, Jefferson, Madison…”
Say what?! Jefferson and Madison were NOT Objectivists. Besides the obvious gulf between their religious beliefs and Rand’s irrational hatred for religion, both of them, for instance, deeply distrusted industry! That’s “synonymous” with Rand’s exultation of it?!
— Nick Danger Apr 3, 02:03 PM #
Academe, wake up. In the battle for young minds, there are no “Unimportant Chronicle Articles” (#85). The reach of the search function is universal. It levels the playing field in perpetuity. Titles, diplomas, and the prestige of old, august institutions can no longer fabricate a special credence or filter the topics of discussion. Every comment exists individually as a cluster of keywords. Anyone wondering what Ayn Rand or objectivism is all about need only set a Google Alert for those keywords to be notified of such unimportant articles containing those words the instant they arrive on the Google servers.
To curious young intellects obsessed with the “why” question, “Pedantic Blog Responses” will be a plus if they contain reasoned ideas and the alternatives are no better than the supercilious comments utterly devoid of content and peppered with ad hominems like those spliced in between my postings on this page.
And that is all the opposition there will be as long as the Randian detractors who are capable of functioning intellectually regard themselves as above competing with Rand idea v. idea or as way too good to descend into the blogosphere. Just look at this topic alone. Academe’s plan to combat the rising tide of Randians is clearly to ignore it in the classroom and insult it on the internet. But how does hiding your weapons and holing up for the duration become a good strategy against such a determined opposition?
— Michael M Apr 3, 04:26 PM #
Michael M. is not correct encouraging taking up arms against randy authors. Where does Michael M. keep these weapons? At university? I become frightened by this talk.
— Jaren Anke Apr 4, 12:43 PM #
Then don’t stop, Michael. Be bold! Tell us more, much more, about why Ayn Rand is teh awesome.
— c Apr 11, 07:25 PM #