by hap and circumstance

OK, so I know I've gone off on scandals in the academy and anti-intellectual rhetoric in the past, but the need to say more more more has hit again. You see, Flow: A Critical Forum on Television and Media Culture came out on the weekend, and I just got to it today. Feature article? "Academic Scandals and the Broadcast Media" by Rhonda Hammer and Douglas Kellner. Starting with Harvard President Larry Summer's January 2005 speech on why more women weren't in scientific/engineering academic positions and moving to Ward Churchill's remarks on 9/11 that had him lambasted by righty Bill O'Reilly on Fox news and then to an episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent (second season, episode: "Anti-Thesis") where American profs were presented as the epitome of all stereotypes - of the left-wing models, that is...queer, multicultural, and - of course - feminist. They also nod to the handful of books fitting an 'academy scandal' genre published in the last two years. While the article is basically a review of those books, its authors do raise some interesting points about the most recent wave of anti-intellectualism, particularly in light of my post two-days ago on new media technologies (like this one) and the academy. For starters, they note that "academic scandals have become an important part of the escalating role of media spectacle in contemporary society." True enough, but then they also cite the role the media & the internet technologies have played in the dissemination and criticism of "scholarly work and unethical behaviors." Interesting that the two play together like that, huh? Hammer and Kellner note that given the "growing hostility towards intellectuals in the United States, it is hardly surprising that these kinds of scandalous situations have become more popular within mainstream media." They write:

The significance of broadcasting media and cyberspace within the academic realm is also related to epistemological shifts in the humanities and social sciences which champion subjective narratives and multiple truths, while eschewing dominant modes of thoughts promoting empirically based, scientifically "objective" studies. New post-1960s radical scholarship and the increasing fragmentation of disciplinary boundaries have made it difficult to establish authoritative professional associations, panels of experts, and peer-reviewed scholarly journals to identify and arbitrate disciplinary disputes [...]It is within this context that questions about the legitimacy of a scholar's research can become a pretext for character assassinations which can be motivated by professional jealousy or mediated by political issues.

However, they also point out something that many (if not most) of these scandals miss:

The majority of the most highly visible academic scandals, however, involve conservative groups attacking more liberal or radical scholars.

Yes, they say, "cyberspace and media contestation" have indeed revealed what they call "serious conflicts" within scholarly studies. However,

...underlying many of these scandals are critiques of patriarchal ideologies, and especially, challenges to the dominant scholarly canons of thought. Conservatives have been taking the culture wars very seriously and often attack radical scholars who take on conventional conservative wisdom and critique dominant institutions like patriarchy, the military, or gun culture.

They end with a call for "unpacking" - an active critique of "both the form and the content of media presentation of academic scandals and how certain groups deploy campaigns to advance their point of views." Not the call to action I was expecting, but the comments listed on the bottom of the page are certainly worth the read: Matt Payne asks about 'scholastic kevlar' ("how to handle oneself when faced with a disputatious critic who subscribes to the all-too-frequent and commonsensical brand of anti-intellectualism?") and suggests taking the Stanley Fish rhetorical method in response:

“Instead of defending classics or French literature or sociology, ask those who think they need defending what they know about them, and if the answer is "not much" (on the model of "don't know much about the Middle Ages"), suggest, ever so politely, that they might want to go back to school. Instead of trying to justify your values (always a weak position), assume them and assume too your right to define and protect them. And when you are invited to explain, defend, or justify, just say no."

Don't know if that gets me any further along in my relatively recent concerns for the ever-increasing watch-your-back politics of the ever-changing academy, but it certainly made me feel a bit better, and enabled me to keep writing here.