Rachel Lu At Richocet: ‘Protecting The Caste’

Full piece here.

This seems like a reasonably balanced view from an adjunct:

‘I understand how this all happened. Originally adjuncts were supposed to be a temporary stop-gap to fill the occasional teaching shortage. A faculty member had to leave for a semester, so you hired some young graduate student or new PhD to fill in temporarily. Now adjuncts pull a major share of the workload, but nobody really wants to sacrifice their own interests to accommodate us, so they go on treating us like we’re a minor and temporary phenomenon even when we obviously are not’

I remember thinking when I was an undergraduate (most people view higher ed through the undergraduate lens, and it’s a limited view), that there was clearly a supply/demand problem for teaching positions.

There seemed to be lots of talented post docs, pressured to publish, many of whom would likely make excellent tenured material, with no place to go.

Addition: My view, of course, was as a student of the humanities.

Related On This Site: Reihan Salam At Reuters: ‘Online Education Can Be Good Or Cheap, But Not Both’

Repost: Mark Cuban From His Blog: ‘The Coming Meltdown in College Education & Why The Economy Won’t Get Better Any Time Soon’…From The New Criterion: ‘Higher Ed: An Obituary’,,,Ron Unz At The American Conservative: ‘The Myth Of American Meritocracy’

Analagous to old media? What to change and what to keepFrom The Arnoldian Project: ‘Architecture, Campus, And Learning To Become’

Should you get a college degree, probably, but you also probably shouldn’t lose sight of why you’re going and divorce yourself entirely from the cost:  Gene Expression On Charles Murray: Does College Really Pay Off?…Charles Murray In The New Criterion: The Age Of Educational Romanticism

Hate Is A Strong Word-Some Links On The BBC, The CBC, & NPR

A mildly provocative link-roundup for a friend:

1. ‘Why I Hate The BBC‘-Libertarian Briton and climate skeptic James Delingpole at Ricochet.

From his own comments:

‘They’re self-selecting, Richard. The BBC does its recruiting through the pages of the (left-wing) Guardian, so its staff have the same bien-pensant world view. They would consider themselves centrist, moderate, reasonable, not politically biased. But that’s because everyone in the circles in which they move thinks the same way. Very few of them, I think, set out deliberately to distort the truth. It comes to them quite naturally and unconsciously.’

2. ‘How Do I Hate NPR?  Let Me Count The Ways‘-writes Glenn Garvin at the Chicago Reader.

‘It’s not that the network’s editorial brain trust meets each morning to plot the day’s campaign to rid America of Republican taint. It’s that the newsroom is composed almost entirely of like-minded people who share one another’s major philosophical precepts. When my sister says that she wants to hear news from people who think like me, she’s put her finger on the problem’

3.  100%* Of Canadians Hate The CBC-Satire,really, from The Network.

Bonus***Gavin McInnes, founder of VICE and Streetcarnage.com, goes on an entertaining anti-CBC rant on the Sun network:

————————-

Extra special bonus***-Anti-multiculturalist provacateur of the Anglosphere!, Mark Steyn discusses complaints brought against Macleans, Canada’s largest publication, by the President of the Canadian Islamic Congress (who sent three representatives) to TVOntario.   They were upset at the pieces Steyn had published there.  The complaints went through the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for alleged “Islamophobia” and “promoting hate:”

The connection here is what happens in Canadian society in the wake of the ideas the CBC promotes, and beneath the umbrella of more Left liberal ideas:

————————–

The CBC actually defends Steyn a bit, which is slightly remarkable as Canada does not have nearly the same broad definitions of free speech we have here in the U.S.

—————————-

Clearly, “hate” can get you viewers and make some fun.

My two cents:

Nationalization protects the BBC and the CBC from market competition and thus they remain less open to criticism, innovation, and the interests of large swathes of their taxpayers.  Those who have self-selected and made a niche for themselves in such institutions, can more easily discriminate on that basis, even unconsciously.  They don’t tend to be friendly to business interests and people in business because they don’t as directly depend on business for advertising dollars.  This insulation allows some to think of themselves as gatekeepers to higher culture and above such incentives in the first place.

Generally, all of them seem to put environmentalism and multiculturalism first, above other ideas.  A kind of world-mash humanism is the norm and it’s never hard to find a story that trades in the same stuff as the “studies” disciplines that have sprung up in our universities where an “expert” can always be found to comment on the story of the day.

In addition, there is coverage of the Sciences and world events which does the public good, but there seems to be a penchant for science coverage that supports the more liberal worldview along with a penchant for psychology, literary analysis and music criticism that usually favors their own interests:  feminism, equality between the sexes and among the races (multiculturalism and humanism again).

Higher culture, modern liberal assumptions and current events are usually combined into bite-sized, well-produced, reasonably thoughtful morsels.  A high-end product is produced, but at what cost?

Any thoughts and comments are welcome.

Related On This Site: They’ve got to keep up with the times:A Few Thoughts On NPR And Current Liberal Establishment Thinking Under Obama

 Ken Burns makes a good documentary, but he’s also arguing he absolutely needs your tax dollars in service of what he assumes to be a shared definition of the “common good” as he pursues that art.  The market just can’t support it otherwise. Repost-From ReasonTV Via Youtube: ‘Ken Burns on PBS Funding, Being a “Yellow-Dog Democrat,” & Missing Walter Cronkite’From NPR: Grants To The NEA To Stimulate The Economy?…We’re already mixing art and politics, so…
——–
Here’s a suggestion to keep aesthetic and political judgements apart-Roger Scruton In The American Spectator Via A & L Daily: Farewell To Judgment
——–
The classical liberal tradition…looking for classical liberals in the postmodern wilderness: Isaiah Berlin’s negative liberty: A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”… From George Monbiot: ‘How Freedom Became Tyranny’…Looking to supplant religion as moral source for the laws: From The Reason Archives: ‘Discussing Disgust’ Julian Sanchez Interviews Martha Nussbaum.New liberty away from Hobbes?: From Public Reason: A Discussion Of Gerald Gaus’s Book ‘The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom And Morality In A Diverse And Bounded World’…Richard Rorty tried to tie postmodernism and trendy leftist solidarity to liberalism, but wasn’t exactly classically liberal:  Repost: Another Take On J.S. Mill From “Liberal England”

Paul Rahe At Ricochet: ‘What Is Wrong With The Individual Mandate?’

Full piece here.

Rahe responds to a commenter thus:

‘There is a simple answer to the question posed by ParisParamus. Government exists first and foremost for the sake of our protection. Without it, our lives and our property would not effectively be our own. Government exists also to promote our well-being. For its support, however, taxation is necessary, and we have tacitly agreed that, to be legitimate, these taxes must be passed by our elected representatives. By our own consent, we give up a certain proportion of our earnings for these purposes.

The money left in our possession, however, is our own — to do with as we please. It is in this that our liberty largely lies. Romneycare and Obamacare, with the individual mandate, changes radically our relationship vis-a-vis the government.’

Rahe sees Romneycare as an intolerable compromise away from first principles (however pragmatic it may have been for Romney as governor of Massachussetts…as well as for the Republican party to oust Obama).

He concludes:

‘I doubt that anything will be done by this managerial progressive to roll back the administrative entitlements state. If I am right in my fears in this regard, the Tea Party impulse will dissipate; the Republican party will split; the Democrats will return in 2016; and 2012 will be seen in retrospect as just another bump in the long, gentle road leading us to soft despotism.’

Comments are worth a read.

Also On This Site:  Straussians likely see a long fall away from virtue, from Natural right, from the reason/revelation distinction into the flawed logic of moral relativism and the triumph of a post-Enlightenment pursuit of truth under reason alone (addition: and the 1st and 2nd crises of modernity); the successes and dangers of historicism:  From Volokh: Harvey Mansfield Reviews ‘The Executive Unbound’From The Weekly Standard: Harvey Mansfield Reviews Paul Rahe’s “Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift”Update And Repost: ‘A Few Thoughts On Allan Bloom–The Nietzsche / Strauss Connection’Some Tuesday Quotations From Leo Strauss

Peter Singer discusses Hegel and MarxFrom Philosophy And Polity: ‘Historicism In German Political Theory’

From The New England Journal Of Medicine Via CATO: ‘The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate’

From If-Then Knots: Health Care Is Not A Right…But Then Neither Is Property?… From The New Yorker: Atul Gawande On Health Care-”The Cost Conundrum”Sally Pipes At Forbes: ‘A Plan That Leads Health Care To Nowhere’Peter Suderman At The WSJ: ‘Obamacare And The Medicaid Mess’