What? The National Association of Scholars in Sapper's Rants & Raves?

Here I go. Including a piece from the National Association of Scholars in my Rants & Raves. What grabbed me was Reeves' assessment of Ann Coulter's Treason in his fourth paragraph. Reeves' attack on the Coulter nonsense has brought the rightwing academic nuts out of the woodwork. I have read a defense of Coulter's garbage within an attack on Reeves' polemic. The old stereotype of liberal/left professors is as nonsensical as Coulter's praise of McCarthy as a patriot. A lot of the professors at major public and private universities are paid in the six-figures for teaching 2 or 3 courses per year. Most would be more at home at a meeting of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce than at a faculty meeting. I know a guy (a closet racist) who teaches in a black studies department in a major state university. The stuff this guy spouts is closer to something said by Josef Goebbels than by Thomas Reeves. I am certain that this guy — if he's read Coulter's nonsense — would endorse her book as a great read.

Shouldn't We Be Talking About What Colleges Teach Rather than Just Who Gets into College?

by

Thomas Reeves

Mr. Reeves is the author of A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy. His latest book is America's Bishop: The Life and Times of Fulton J. Sheen (Encounter, 2001).

The U.S. Supreme Court's verdict in the University of Michigan case, upholding Affirmative Action in admissions to institutions of higher education, has received extensive analysis, much of it critical. The most formidable critiques I have read were by Carol Iannone, Stanley Rothman, Shelby Steele, and by officials of the National Association of Scholars (NAS) in their formal statement. These commentaries call attention to the myth of the magic of diversity in the classroom, to the unconstitutional and immoral nature of reverse discrimination, and to the fuzzy thinking backing up the Court's narrow decision. What we need now, I think, is a careful study of the Affirmative Action bureaucracy that pervades American business, government, and industry. My guess is that such a study would discover much cynicism and blackmail.

But what struck me during the recent uproar was the complete lack of attention in the major media to the deeper problem in higher education. The vital issue facing us today is not who gets in but what goes on once they're there. That is to say, why do we fuss endlessly about admissions (especially when the great majority of colleges and universities in America let almost anyone in) when we seem to care little or nothing about what is taught and what graduates come away with? The great triumph, it seems, is to be admitted to a prestigious college or university. After that, silence.

The story of the debasement of higher education in recent decades is familiar to NAS members: the "life-experience" credits, courses (and majors) without intellectual content, leftist propaganda masquerading as scholarship, lowered expectations and inflated grading, and the failure to require the basics of a traditional, rigorous, and meaningful education.

Being a historian, I am especially sensitive to the lack of required history courses. I recently lunched with a young graduate of a prestigious university who majored in marketing and had not had a history course since his second year of high school. Such innocence is dangerous. It leads otherwise thoughtful people, for example, to accept all sorts of nonsense, such as the recent dismissal of the whole concept of McCarthyism by right-wing ideologue Ann Coulter in her book Treason. Anti-Catholicism, thick in the intellectual air of our time, is based in great part on historical ignorance.

Very few seem to pay any attention to the contents of higher education any more. College and university administrators, of course, are not eager to rock the boat. A contented faculty and student body can translate into salary increases and personal promotion. Whatever people want, they can have, say many chancellors and presidents. Unless, of course, the request infringes upon an assortment of widely-held assumptions about racial, ethnic, and sexual diversity. Or is conservative.

Why should administrators argue for tougher courses or higher requirements when they can simply contend, ad nauseum, that "academic excellence" reigns on campus and never be required to define or explain what they mean? Why propose the elimination of the Mass Communications major or the Film Studies program when that will only result in outcry, especially from the cash-producing Athletics Department?

Faculty members are primarily interested in their careers, as well, and like to keep students happy. High grades and low requirements very often lead to high teaching ratings, which can be converted into higher pay and promotions. Why assign three books when the students complain about one? In time, this approach often leads to take-home exams. Only a professor's conscience demands academic rigor, and it takes little to stifle that inner voice.

Students, of course, do not seek higher requirements. They want to have fun, graduate by any means, get a good job, and buy a Lexus and a McMansion. Polls show consistently that financial prosperity is the major student goal, not education. "Easy is better than hard." That should be printed on campus sweatshirts. Or perhaps, "Loot not Latin."

Business doesn't seem to care what graduates are taught, beyond the basics of business itself. When was the last time you saw a business leader on a board of regents suggest higher educational standards? One might think business would want people to take graduation, not just entrance, examinations. This lack of concern requires further study. Is anti-intellectualism wed to American business? Then how do you account for the consistent excellence of the Wall Street Journal and the assortment of first-rate think tanks, magazines, and cultural institutions supported by business people?

Alumni seem interested primarily in the success of campus athletic teams. Where is the grad who promotes the return of required foreign languages, lab sciences, history, political science, literature, and philosophy? The people receiving the loudest cheers from alumni are seven feet tall.

Politicians seem to care mostly, if not solely, about the costs, rather than the content, of higher education. Name a governor, for example, who goes beyond the cant of "excellence" when discussing his state's colleges and universities.

So, if few care about what goes on, anything will go on. And so it does. And we spend our energy fussing exclusively about who gets into the few "great" institutions. Why not concentrate on what students will learn once they are enrolled…in every accredited college and university in this country?

© 2003 National Association of Scholars