[MD] The Academy is Evil! Here's what I'd do instead...

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mark]
The example I will present is Darwinism.  Please tell me how this has changed
over the last 100 years... and this concept of survival of the fittest.

[Arlo]
I am not an expert in anthropology, but if by Darwinism you mean "evolution", I
think the entire field of genetics has undergone profound expansion, as one
example, and this effects the fields of agricultural and virology, for two
other examples. 

But I think you are trying to point to one specific thing, and that is
"intelligent design" and/or "creationism" being adopted as valid, scientific
alternatives to "naturalistic" evolution. So while the mechanics described by
Darwin continue to be refined and tried and retried in many fields, I doubt
this is what you mean.

Nonetheless, the Academy has seen "Darwinism" shaped into "social Darwinism",
and if I am permitted a layman's use of Wikipedia there appears to be a branch
of study now called "Neo-Darwinism", and this appears to be from something
called Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

Also I see modern evolutionary thinking considers two main mechanisms, natural
selection and genetic drift, and just a cursory look at the Wikipedia entry for
that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift) shows a robust evolution of
ideas across several domains.

[Mark]
After that we can discuss Hegelianism or one of the many philosophies which is
stagnant.

[Arlo]
Do you mean that the Academy is not open to new "interpretations" of Hegel? I'd
say if its "stagnant" its crying out for a dissertation to that effect. 

What new ideas about Hegel do you feel the Academy has hindered or turned a
blind eye to? If there is little "new" being done about the ideas of Hegel, I
wonder if its not so much that the Academy is suffocating ideas about Hegel but
more that no one has anything really new to say. Do you? 

I mean, if something new and better about Hegel came along, I can't see the
Academy squelching it.

I also think you are being too narrow here. I suppose fields like 18th French
Poetry aren't exactly fertile grounds for rapid dynamic changes, but consider
Poetry as a whole and you'll see quite an evolution in the Academy over the
past 100 years.

[Mark]
Show me a philosphy from the 1800's which has progressed significantly in the
last 100 years.  This way we will be on your turf.  Maybe I'll learn something.

[Arlo]
Personally I see much interesting work being done about the ideas first offered
by Lev Vygotsky. Activity Theory is a direct result of the evolution of his
ideas. Where I work, we are looking to take his ideas about the "zone of
promixal development" into new areas of assessment methodology, a form of
"dynamic assessment".

I've also seen a huge progression in the field of semiotics, and I've worked
with a professor who has brought Peirce's ideas into a theory of creativity
(Carl Hausman).

[Mark]
If you want to paint me as an enemy that is fine.  But that is your doing, not
mine.

[Arlo]
Well you made a comment about those who can't do, teach. I was only pointing
out that berating people is one thing, offering something better is entirely
different. Anyone can condemn the Academy for being too rigid, but what I am
asking in response is what steps would they make to fix that.

You've got quite a quick list below, I'll try to respond to few...

[Mark]
Open institutions...

[Arlo]
I am not sure what you mean. No tuition? No application process? 

[Mark]
no tenure...

[Arlo]
Tenure was implemented to ensure professors were not answering to social
institutions, but only to reason. If you remove it, how would you ensure that
what professors taught was not dictated by whatever social body happened to
hold power?

[Mark]
limited professorship tour of duties which is rotating for new ideas...

[Arlo]
I wouldn't have wanted Carl Hausman expelled from the Academy just because he
was there for a few years. I am lucky he was around when I was able to learn
from him. So I am not sure that this serves students any better.

[Mark]
No professorship after the age of 50. 

[Arlo]
I take it all the best professors you have had were younger? I will admit when
I first read this I laughed because I have long thought this should applied to
politics, but I'd go further and say no politicians at any level over the age
of thirty.

But now you seem to be suggesting that "intellectual quality" is a function of
age? And if we fired all professors at 50, I am not sure we'd be attracting the
best to the field.

[Mark]
Open availability of all ideas, rather than just the ones promoted. 

[Arlo]
This is a restatement of "rigidity", but how would you accomplish this?

[Mark]
The abolishment of Truth as something real.  The introduction of Quality into
academia instead.

[Arlo]
Which is precisely what Ant, and DMB, are trying to do.

[Mark]
Abolishment of the old boys network in terms of what can be published and what
cannot.

Okay, I am going to have to respond to your other points in another post, this
is getting too long.