Ivy League castroti, ports-for-peace, and trickle-down insanity

By Curtis Dahlgren

"Wear your learning, like your watch, in a private pocket: and do not merely pull it out and strike it; merely to show that you have one." — Earl of Chesterfield (1694-1773)

THE SPANISH HAD THEIR INQUISITION AGAINST "HERETICS," and Harvard University has its own version: a jihad against anyone who refuses to bow down to the PC doxology that "there is no difference between the sexes." Given Larry Summers' apologies and surrender, a sheepskin from Harvard is no longer worth the paper it's written on. Much of their "learning" is now worth no more than a pocket watch that's right twice a day. In Academicaland, the Truth is relative, irrelevant, and a firing offense.

In football terminology, the Summers flap was "student body right, faculty fumbled," but the minority "wins." Despite the fact that two-thirds of the student body defended Summers, along with much of the faculty, the "smart set" went on a mutinous witch-hunt because he had had the gall to imply that a good education should involve exposure to "two schools of thought" (which is heresy in the Ivy League, as on most American campi).

BUT BACK TO THE BASICS:

Boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen alike: The word-for-the-day is heresy:

"Etymologically, a heresy is a 'choice' one makes . . Greek hairesis 'choice' [is] a derivative of hairein 'take or choose.' This was applied metaphorically to a 'course of action or thought which one chooses to take,' hence a school of thought,' and, ultimately, to a 'faction' or 'sect.' . . .

"Another derivative of hairein, incidentally, was diairein [meaning] 'divide' . . ."

— John Ayto, Dictionary of Word Origins

A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY, IF YOU WILL:

THE LATEST CATCHWORD our young scholars are hearing is "multicontextualism." I guess that relates to the word "multiculturalism," which is steadily losing its PR appeal. However, the academic eggheads are as opposed as ever to giving our young people the most important "context": the context of history. Therefore, our kids have as much "context" for current events as someone who walks into a theater near the end of the movie.

In the history of the "university," there have almost always been "two schools of thought" — except under totalitarian governments or monolithic faculties! The word division does not necessarily equate with evil; it normally equates with "academic freedom" in fact.

For example, I have never accepted the conventional wisdom that all scholars thought the world was flat before the so-called Enlightenment. With all the mathematical skills of the ancient Egyptians, I refuse to believe that they looked at the movements of the shadow of the round earth on the moon during an eclipse and didn't have any clue as to the shape of the earth. Are you kidding me?

It was "division" or "dissent" during the Middle Ages that settled the question — not the kind of totalitarian scholarship on display at Harvard. The "social scientists" seem to be "bothered" by the certitude and lack of grey areas in the hard sciences and math departments, so they evidently "compensate" by demanding "absolute" shades of grey in the soft sciences — thus, the Inquisitions and witch-hunts for anyone who departs from the PC "grey zone"!

If that last sentence didn't make any sense to you, it wasn't supposed to, but it accurately reflects the situation at Harvard. Essentially, the "smart sect" is saying; "Not only is the other school of thought wrong, it must not even be allowed to exist (or at least not be allowed to speak out loud)."

[I wonder if Harvard is still taking applications for prez? They should be careful what they wish for. Harvard Yard has become a Brownfield, and I think they should hire a Waste Management consultant.]

Historically speaking, one can find many, many examples of "division" in institutions of Higher Education (what more could be natural?). In the article "Dahlgren, [C]arl Fredrik (1791-1844), the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica says:

"At a time when literary partisanship ran high in Sweden, and the writers divided themselves into 'Goths' and 'Phosphorists,' Dahlgren made himself indispensable to the Phosphorists by his polemical activity. In the mock-heroic poem of Markalls somnlosa natter (Markall's Sleepless Nights), in which the Phosphorists ridiculed the academician Per Adam Wallmark and others, Dahlgren, who was a genuine humorist, took a prominent part."

[My grandfather was a polemicist, but I have no idea if Carl was a relative of ours. That is beside the point.]

Other examples of "polarization," "divisiveness," or "two schools of thought" in the academic world can easily be found in the history of the early English universities. Their dominant schools of thought have gone from Catholic to Calvinist, etc., down to "modern" secularism. Again from the Britannica, 11th (article "English History"):

"The strong Protestantism of Elizabeth's reign had assumed a distinctly Calvinistic form, and the country gentlemen who formed the majority of the House of Commons [in the 1620s] were resolutely determined that no other theology than that of Calvin should be taught in England. In the last few years a reaction against it had arisen especially in the universities . . . [!]."

By the way, our Pilgrims were Calvinists — but not in favor of a state religion — and it was their fundamental belief in more than one "school of thought" that impelled them to move to Holland and then to the New World. Their "dissent," coupled with the trials

that accompanied their decisions, propelled them into a New Exodus that probably happened much sooner than it would have without a challenge from the powers-that-be.

What's the point? The point is — "divisions" in Old English intelligentsia deeply affected the pioneers of the New World (the most critical "New World" Order), and thus also shaped the thinking of the Framers of our Constituion, whether they ever attended Oxford or Cambridge or not. To repeat myself, "division" produces academic freedom, which produces choice, which produces challenge, which produces more choices and, hence, the only true "progress" for the human race. To cut off academic choices, as the Ivy League has done for many decades, equates with regression, not "progressivism"!

The status quo, right or wrong?

While we're at it, let us note here that the word "reactionary" is not a curse word, nor does "conservative" always mean defense of the status quo! In the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement was anti-status quo, and the conservatives' concerns had more to do with HOW TO DO IT (without the curse of "excess rising expectations" burning down Watts, Newark, Detroit, and so on, which resulted).

In the 21st century, the roles have been reversed regarding "status quo": The liberals are defending the status quo of the 1960s-style nanny state, while the conservatives are proposing the anti-status quo ideas (such as school choice, and by bucking the failed and discredited fads that are defining deviancy down). The conservatives, because of their belief in a "second school of thought" are now accused of being DIVISIVE — and Larry Summers got booted out of Harvard for daring to even consider realistic "old" theories that go against the "modern" grain. The operative word here is "realistic"; "old" and "new" are irrelevant.

THE TWIST IN ALL THIS:

Most of my columns involve a great paradox or two, and here is this week's: While defending the time-honored "two schools of thought" concept in Academia, at the same time, I say that this is a good week to stop, look, and listen to see if there are ways we laymen can get past some of the picayune divisions that have plagued America in the last few decades.

I ran into a person last night who describes herself as a "liberal," but she agreed with me when I said that our partisan leaders have been squabbling viciously over MINOR differences for years ("minor" in comparison to what faces us now), and that we really really need to start working on these MAJOR problems together. This could be "one moment in time" where most of us can agree on certain basic beliefs.

On the other hand, a talk show host who has a "really big shew" is imputing strictly devious motives to Democrats who are agreeing with many Republicans who, like their constituents, are asking whether the dubious port deal was just "rubber-stamped" (by middle managers in the federal government). I, on the contrary -believe it or not — rarely question the motives of people who AGREE with me (what could be more ungrateful?). That reminds me of a story:

There was a shipwreck and only two men made it to a tropical island. They were strangers, so one of them says, "What do you do?"

"I'm a teacher," said the other.

"Me too!" said the other. "Public school or parochial?"

"Parochial," said the other.

"Me too!" said the first. "Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant," said the other.

"Me too," said the first. "Evangelical or otherwise?"

"Evangelical," said the other.

"Me too," said the first. "Charismatic or non-charismatic?"

"Charismatic," said the other.

"Me too!" said the first. "Apostolic or reformed?"

"Apostolic," said the other.

"ME TOO," said the first. "Christian Apostolic or Apostolic Christian?"

The other guys says, "Christian Apostolic." And the first guy says:

"IDIOT!"

[While the ludicrousness of conformity is monumental, the ridiculousness of unlimited divisions can also become a joke. While the basic joke idea above came to me over the transom via an e-mail, there really was a church sect in Illinois that broke into two branches, one the A.C. branch and the other the C.A. branch. You too can change the punchline to suit yourself, as follows.]

"Catholic or Orthodox?" ["Orthodox."] "IDIOT!"

"Conservative Republican or conservative Democrat?" ["Democrat."] "IDIOT!"

"Sunni or Shiite?" [take your pick] "IDIOT."

The ultimate joke to me is the "progressive" African-American who tells another "You're not black enough, Uncle Tom!" That often happens when people like Bill Cosby or Lynn Swann try to show their brethren the light at the end of the tunnel.

The so-called black-advocacy groups don't want their people to see that light at the end of the tunnel, because their own incomes are dependent upon keeping the vicious cycle of children-having-children in perpetual motion. If your "victimhood" is your source of income, the solution to the problem becomes your "enemy."

A GLIMMER OF HOPE; A RED-LETTER DAY:

The Wisconsin legislature yesterday passed an enlargement of the school CHOICE program in Milwaukee, which nearly all "progressives" fought tooth and nail (even the Milwaukee inner city legislators). Most of the Democratic legislators evidently feel that CHOICE is "heresy." Technically it used to be (see above), but now there are "good" heresies and "bad" heresies.

Teaching a child how to read is "bad"; killing that child before birth, or at birth, is "very good!" YOU GOT THAT NOW?

CONCLUSION:

The dueling emotions of optimism and pessimism are maddening, but the Lord said that we must not be "anxious." During the Second World War, a small private group in England formed a prayer circle that stopped to pray for a minute at the same time every day. Many believe that this group "made a difference."

Today there's another group that stops to pray during war-time for one minute every day. The time is 9 PM EST, 8 PM CST, 7 PM MST, and 6 PM PST.

Just thought you'd like to know. How about a little Shakespeare in closing:

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages . . .

The art of our necessities is strange,
That can make vile things precious.

Keep thy foot out of brothels, thy hand out of plackets, thy pen from lenders' books, and defy the foul fiend.

And a few words by Rudyard Kipling for the "final answer":

O, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat . . .

We know that the tail must wag the dog, for the horse is drawn by the cart;
But the Devil whoops, as he whooped of old: "It's clever, but is it Art?"

. . . For the sin ye do by two and two ye must pay for one by one . . .

With the mouth of a bell and the heart of hell and the head of a gallows-tree.

Then said the soul of the Angel of the Off-shore Wind . . .

And Ye take mine honour from me if Ye take away the sea!

[or, as "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" put it:]

One if by land,
Two if by sea.

More to come.

© Curtis Dahlgren