Ross Douthat, the Core Curriculum, and other tidbits from The Atlantic

Well, I finally got around to reading Douthat's Atlantic piece about Harvard. And, like the character in Green Eggs and Ham -- I have a two-year-old, what do you expect? -- having finally bothered to taste it, I find I agree with much of what he wrote, especially about the Core, which truly sucked ass as a means of getting a general education. The whole thing should be replaced with a Great Books curriculum coupled with real science and math courses. But this should come as no revelation; people have been complaining about the Core forever, so when Mr. Douthat claims to be revealing "The Truth About Harvard" I do think he's a bit, um, full of himself. And I saw he has a whole book out now about it, which I think is ridiculous and obscene. I am sick and tired of Harvard graduates undermining my self-esteem by getting book contracts at younger and younger ages. There oughta be a law, I swear.

But Douthat also trots out the old "the humanities are irrelevant and have an inferiority complex" canard:

Attempting to explain the left-wing biases of his Harvard colleagues, the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick once hypothesized that most professors oppose capitalism because they consider themselves far smarter than boorish businessmen, and therefore resent the economic system that rewards practical intelligence over their own gifts. I'm inclined to think that such resentment -- at least in money-drunk America -- increasingly coexists with a deep inferiority complex regarding modern capitalism, and a need, however unconscious, to justify academic life in the face of the fantastic accumulation of wealth that takes place outside the ivory tower.

It does not seem to have occurred to Douthat that professors may oppose, not capitalism per se, but the idolatry of the believers in the absolute truth of the free market. Money-drunk America may consider it heresy that a democratic society might successfully implement something other than untrammeled capitalism and yet be a wonderful place to live; but such places exist -- not without their troubles, of course, but they are different troubles than those we have here, and some of us might prefer those troubles to our own. It is a question of values. Do people whose intelligence and efforts are directed to something other than business or science secretly believe they are smarter than businessmen? Some of them do, I'm sure, just as many businessmen believe, and not especially secretly, that humanities professors are parasitic elitist snobs who waste their lives thinking about useless crap that doesn't make any sense.

But perhaps, just perhaps, many academics do what they do because they believe that, especially in a society where the accumulation of wealth seems to have trumped all other concerns, it's important for some people to think about other things. Is it possible that some people might genuinely not believe that the fantastic accumulation of wealth is really that valuable in life? Douthat might reply that such statements are sour grapes: academics don't make much money, so of course they insist that money is not that important. Douthat cheerfully deploys a favorite tool of humanities professors when he psychoanalyzes them and pronounces their behavior to be the product of a "need, however unconscious, to justify academic life." (What behavior, exactly, is never quite clear. Grade inflation? Postmodernism? The teaching of courses on obscure subjects? Hatred of capitalism?)

Those of us who choose paths in life that are not primarily concerned with the accumulation of wealth are not immune to envy and resentment and feelings of inferiority and all the other nasty emotions Douthat says are 'really' behind whatever behavior he's complaining about in humanities professors. That we feel such emotions, however, does not mean that our behavior is dictated by them. Humans, happily, are able to make choices that are quite at odds with their urges, emotions, desires, and instincts. All the research that's been done on the accumulation of wealth, for example, shows that above a certain level of comfort, wealth has no particular effect on human happiness. Even though at times I think, "oh, if we just had more money, I could get that plasma TV, and then I'd truly be happy," and I truly feel it, I know, intellectually, that it's not true. Even though at times I wonder if I'm "not doing anything important with my life," or "not contributing enough", or "not successful enough," those values are not the ones guiding my life. So I let these thoughts and feelings pass, as they do, and I get on with the things that I think are actually important in life.

Of course colleges should provide a liberal education to future bankers, diplomats, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. And I agree with Douthat that they are failing to do so. But in a country as anti-intellectual as ours, where academia is constantly attacked, it may be difficult for the children of capitalist privilege, on their brief sojourn in a world where capital is not king, to even get a liberal education. Perhaps students like Douthat, groomed since childhood for success in the world, simply are unable to hear what their professors have to say. Is this the fault of their professors?

Christian Nation

Ed Kilgore thinks the new National Association of Evangelicals political manifesto is, if not exactly 'good stuff', promising. :

There's some interesting ferment going on in evangelical Christian circles at the moment which may spell trouble for the God-Mammon Alliance the Republican Party has so painstakingly put together. As Rob Garver explains in an American Prospect online piece, the National Association of Evangelicals, with 50,000 church affiliates representing 30 million or so people, is meeting next week in Washington, where it will consider a manifesto on "civic responsibility" that might cause Karl Rove some heartburn.

To be sure, the manifesto reiterates familiar Christian conservative positions on abortion, gay marriage, and so forth, but also has surprisingly bold sections on economic justice, environmental stewardship, and even war and peace.

This is a development worth watching. I'm sure GOP leaders think of these folk as reliable foot soldiers in the conservative movement. But they do, ultimately, report to a Higher Authority.

As usual, I am less sanguine than Mr. Kilgore. When I start seeing evangelical activism around economic justice and environmental stewardship; when prominent evangelicals demand an accounting of the Bush administration's use of torture; when they suggest we repeal Bush's tax cuts to ensure that we can fund universal health insurance for the post-born; then maybe I'll find something to cheer about in their manifestos. It's not that I don't think they could start making trouble for the cynical men who take their votes and, for the most part, give their issues only lip service. But I don't think a country in which the evangelicals were even more organized and demanding than they are now would be superior to a country in which evangelicals reliably either don't vote, or vote Republican, and the Republicans throw them some bones and leave it at that.

What good will it do me if the Evangelicals start making more trouble for the Torture Party? Will it be good for me and mine if they start getting more of their policies enacted? No.

If Evangelicals used their voting power to complain about the torture, yes, that would do me some good. I would like that very much. Please, if you see any of the major Evangelical political groups complaining about the torture, do pop me a link, cause I see zip-all. The NAE manifesto makes all the appropriate noises about torture -- elsewhere in the world. On our own country's, to put it far too generously, lapses, nothing at all. I looked at Christianity Today for something on torture; a few articles on Abu Ghraib, and then nothing when that died down. Never mind that the most damning information about the U.S.'s policy of torture came after the Abu Ghraib revelations.

So, Evangelicals don't seem to care about the same stuff I care about. Even when they do care about the same stuff, their policy prescriptions are things like "strengthen marriage to alleviate poverty." How about: stop giving our taxes away to rich people to alleviate poverty?

Will Evangelicals get fed up with the crony capitalists running the Republican party and come running to Democrats, having realized that Democrats actually give a crap for those at the bottom? Sure, if Dems stage en-masse conversions of liberal hedonists.

The problem is, I don't want to live in a country where 25% of the voting population is Evangelical, and votes. I don't want Evangelicals having that much power. They think I am on the side of "The Evil One". Well, perhaps I am. Who doesn't like to drink the blood of Christian babies sometimes?


Let's look at some of the stuff in this manifesto. I won't annoy you with their standard calls to action on the usual issues. My problem is not just with their issues. It's with their whole damn worldview:

The presence and role of religion in public life is attacked more fiercely now than ever, making the bias of aggressive secularism the last acceptable prejudice in America.

I thought these guys liked to argue that prejudice could only refer to discrimination against someone for things they can't help, like the color of their skin. Isn't that why they claim that discriminating against gay people is okay, because they choose to be gay? So why isn't discriminating against religious people okay? Don't they choose to be religious? Also, um, aggressive secularism a myth. If secularism is so awful, how come other industrialized countries that are more secular than we are haven't dissolved into the chaos of orgiastic hedonism that should predictably follow the rise of secularism?

Since the atrocities of September 11, 2001, the spiritual and religious dimensions of global conflict have been sharpened.

What exactly do you mean by this statement, guys? It's one of those things that I suspect wouldn't sound pretty if you came right out and said it.

Jesus calls on his followers to love our neighbors as ourselves. Our goal in civic engagements is to bless our neighbors by making good laws.

Is there an opt-out for this? I'd prefer to skip that particular blessing, thanks.

And now we come to the most disturbing statement in the whole manifesto:

Religion is not just an individual matter, but also refers to rich communal traditions of ultimate belief and practice. We resist the definition of religion becoming either radically individualized or flattened out to mean anything that passes for a serious conviction. Thus, while the First Amendment protects religiously informed conscience, it does not protect all matters of sincere concern.

Er, if my First Amendment freedoms apply only so long as my speech, association, press, etc. are the product of a "religiously informed conscience", this is the first I've heard of it.

I don't hate Evangelicals. But the people who issued this manifesto think "radical secularism" is a great evil, and that only religious people are protected by the First Amendment. Far from merely responding to some sort of aggressive assault on their ability to practice their religion, they appear to want to silence those who do not practice a religion. If they're going to make such a statement, I do think they ought to define what they believe does constitute a religion. "Only belief systems that involve crucifixions"?

In conclusion -- and this is a long post, which is too bad, because we're leaving for New Zealand tomorrow and I had a bunch of other posts I was going to make before we left, but we all got the flu instead, and oh well -- I see nothing hopeful about this manifesto. When evangelical christians take positions that favor the poor, the tortured, and the marginalized, I'm very happy about that. But I prefer not to be blessed by their laws on abortion, homosexuality, pornography, marriage, etc., and I'm profoundly disturbed to hear that their idea of the First Amendment is that it does not apply to atheists, or indeed to anything anyone says or does that is not religiously motivated.

30% of New Zealanders claim no religion at all.

And we're off to the New New World, to see if, indeed, the streets are paved with Wifi Hotspots. No worries, we're taking the beloved OS X laptop, so we'll be posting on the road.

Dear Readers...

Okay. So most of you (I know you're out there, guys, I get site stats) won't tell me who you are. Fine. (Those of you who do leave comments, I loves you very much. You are all fabulous supplements to my array of crazymeds.)

But, if you read Biscuit, and you like Biscuit, do consider, you know, telling other people about Biscuit. Biscuit is not an Atrios wanna-be, but of course everyone likes to expand their readership a little, I do my part to publicize me -- i.e. I try to add insightful comments to other peoples' blog postings and just happen to link to my own blog (but not in a "great blog. buy cheap viagra here!" comment-spammish way).

But if, you know, any of you felt like suggesting me over at Elayne Riggs' Estrogen Month, or on other blogs that are looking to give free publicity to relatively-obscure bloggers, I would not mind, not one little bit.

Oh, and also, the Biscuit blogroll is very small, we shall expand soon, so please do offer your own suggestions. I'm not adding the biggies to the blogroll, everyone knows who they are. As Ms. Riggs writes:

one of the things that draws me to women's writing in the lefty-liberal blogosphere is that it seems to have less of the "echo chamber" effect of lots of blogs saying more or less the same thing about the same news item (the "where are the women bloggers" 90-day-cycle meta-question aside). I've found more unique voices on a wider range of topics in the female end of the 'sphere, and that tends to energize rather than drain me. When you read as many blogs as I do, energy is a good thing!

Okay, that's it for blog publicity hounding, back to your regularly scheduled dose of torture!