24 July, 2006

Reed: Abolish Universities

Posted by alex in academia, AmeriKwa, anthropology at 5:07 pm | Permanent Link

by Fred Reed

A Modest Proposal To Abolish Universities

About Time

I think it is time to close the universities, and perhaps prosecute the professoriat under the RICO act as a corrupt and racketeering-influenced organization. Universities these days have the moral character of electronic churches, and as little educational value. They are an embarrassment to civilization.

I know this. I am sitting in my office in Jocotepec, consorting with a bottle of Padre Kino red—channeling the good Padre if you will. It is insight cheap at the price. A few bucks a liter.

To begin with, sending a child to a university is irresponsible. These days it costs something like a quarter of a million dollars, depending on your choice of frauds. The more notorious of these intellectual brothels, as for example Yale, can cost more. This money, left in the stock market for forty hears, or thirty, would yield enough to keep the possessor in comfort, with sufficient left over for his vices. If the market took a downturn, he could settle for just the vices. In the intervening years, he (or, most assuredly, she) could work in a dive shop.

See? By sending our young to college, we are impoverishing them, and ourselves, and sentencing them to a life of slavery in some grim cubicle painted federal-wall green. Personally, I’d rather be chained in a trireme.

Besides, the effect of a university education can be gotten more easily by other means. If it is thought desirable to expose the young to low propaganda, any second-hand bookstore can provide copies of Trotsky, Marcuse, Gloria Steinem, and the Washington Post. These and a supply of Dramamine, in the space of a week, would provide eighty percent of the content of a college education. A beer truck would finish the job. The student would save four years which could more profitably be spent in selling drugs, or in frantic cohabitation or—wild thought—in reading, traveling, and otherwise cultivating himself.

This has been known to happen, though documentation is hard to find.

To the extent that universities actually try to teach anything, which is to say to a very limited extent, they do little more than inhibit intelligent students of inquiring mind. And they are unnecessary: The professor’s role is purely disciplinary: By threats of issuing failing grades, he ensures that the student comes to class and reads certain things. But a student who has to be forced to learn should not be in school in the first place. By making a chore of what would otherwise be a pleasure, the professor instills a lifelong loathing of study.

The truth is that universities positively discourage learning. Think about it. Suppose you wanted to learn Twain. A fruitful approach might be to read Twain. The man wrote to be read, not analyzed tediously and inaccurately by begowned twits. It might help to read a life of Twain. All of this the student could do, happily, even joyously, sitting under a tree of an afternoon. This, I promise, is what Twain had in mind.

But no. The student must go to a class in American Literatue, and be asked by some pompous drone, “Now, what is Twain trying to tell us in paragraph four?� This presumes that Twain knew less well than the professor what he was trying to say, and that he couldn’t say it by himself. Not being much of a writer, the poor man needs the help of a semiliterate drab who couldn’t sell a pancake recipe to Boy’s Life. As bad, the approach suggests that the student is too dim to see the obvious or think for himself. He can’t read a book without a middleman. He probably ends by hating Twain.

When I am dictator, anyone convicted of literary criticism will be drawn and quartered, dragged through the streets as a salutary lesson to the wise, and dropped in the public drains.

Why is the ceiling spinning? Maybe I’m caught in a gravitational anomaly.

The truth is that anyone who wants to learn anything can do it better on his own. If you want to learn to write, for example, lock yourself in a room with copies of Strunk and White, and Fowler, and a supply of Padre Kino, and a loaded shotgun. The books will provide technique, the good Padre the inspiration, and you can use the shotgun on any tenured intrusion who offers advice. They tend to be spindly. A twenty-gauge should be sufficient.

Worse, these alleged academies, these dark nights of the soul encourage moral depravity. This is not just my opinion. It can be shown statistically. Virtually all practitioners of I-banking, advertising, and law began by going to some university. Go to Manhattan and visit any prestigious nest of foul attorneys engaged in circumventing the law. Most will have attended schools in the Ivy League. The better the school, the worse the outcome. Any trace of principle, of contemplative wonder, will have been squeezed out of them as if they were grapes.

Perhaps once universities had something to do with the mind, the arts, with reflection, with grasping or grasping at man’s place in a curious universe. No longer. Now they are a complex scam of interlocking directorates. They employ professors, usually mediocre, to sell diplomas, usually meaningless, needed to get jobs nobody should want, for the benefit of corporations who want the equivalent of docile assembly-line workers.

See, first you learn that you have to finish twelve years of grade school and high school. The point is not to teach you anything; if it were, they would give you a diploma when you passed a comprehensive test, which you might do in the fifth grade. The point is to accustom you to doing things you detest. Then they tell you that you need four more years in college or you won’t be quite human and anyway starve from not getting a job. For those of this downtrodden bunch who are utterly lacking in independence, there is graduate school.

The result is twenty years wasted when you should have been out in the world, having a life worth talking about in bars—riding motorcycles, sacking cities, lolling on Pacific beaches or hiking in the Northwest. You learn that structure trumps performance, that existence is supposed to be dull. It prepares you to spend years on lawsuits over somebody else’s trademarks or simply going buzzbuzzbuzz in a wretched federal office. Only two weeks a year do you get to do what you want to do. This we pay for?

What if you sent your beloved daughter to a university and they sent you back an advertising executive?

I think we’re having an earthquake. When the floor stops heaving, I’m going to send out for more Padre Kino.

* * *

Fred on everything


  • 8 Responses to “Reed: Abolish Universities”

    1. lawrence dennis Says:

      Permanent link to the original article:
      http://fredoneverything.net/PadreKinoUniversity.shtml

    2. Shabbos Shabazz Says:

      Universities are shit houses as they are almost completely under the thumb of the Feds, both in terms of regulations and subsidy.

      B. F. (Burrhus F.) Skinner’s book Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1969) was financed by American taxpayers (NIH grant) to the tune of about $1.8M (to-day’s dollars). Skinner called for Global Dictatorship in that book.

      Dr. Skinner was buried in a Skinner box, with 20 Jewish rats.
      They will will require “stimulation” to wake up.

    3. Theseus Says:

      I have sympathy for that line. Linder takes it too. It’s wholly incorrect for the times, but I can understand how they both come to this conclusion.

      I wince when Linder tells us young maies that we shouldn’t go to college. Sure, it doesn’t satisfy anything approaching an intellectual pursuit, but it doesn’t pretend to.

      Whomever makes up our new elite will have gone to university.

      I travelled and surfed and lived abroad for a little while in my early/mid twenties. It stretches out grad school, and worse yet it delays child-rearing, but it can be worth it.

      I guess it depends on what you want to study. If you want to be a literary critic, then yes, I guess college never was a good place unless you wanted connections. It really depends on what you want to do.

    4. Celtic Warrior Says:

      There is some truth in that statement but we must get our people into the university system to create change favourable to our cause. Let’s not concede the field of battle to the enemy.

      As a product of the ‘system’ it seems to me that many officially sanctioned text-books, even in the sciences, are deliberately designed to confuse the unwary fresh-faced student.

    5. Zoroastro Says:

      90% shouldn’t even be thought to read and write. D. H. Lawrence had some terrific thoughts on this entire “educatah” charade. I can’t remember which essay but he had foreseen so many things some eighty years back. On the other hand, technical knowledge, engineering and such, still have their place at the higher levels of schooling. Real knowledge in other words. The rest, the artsy-patsy-psycho-paedo-femibitchy-marcuse-zion-first-po’-lil-slave BS is virtual loss of money. You might as well burn your precious savings in the oven (No pun intended). If your brat really needs to study art or literature send him to Petersburg, Prague or Heidelberg, at least they’ll receive some solid humanist education. They still can.

    6. -JC Says:

      One is better off having been to college and knowing that it fails in what boosters claim it offers, not to mention offering a lot of good that the prospectuses and syllabuses leave out like an endless supply of nubile coeds, than not having been to college and regarding it as sour grapes. I think a good approach is starting working one’s way through community college part-time. At today’s wages, one quickly decides what has value and what does not. Furthermore, evening classes are usually filled with similar students who are usually older, frequently more mature, and definitely more demanding of their instructors than young kids spending their parents’ life savings.

    7. van helsing Says:

      Technical schools are the only ones to go to, imho. There are lots of places anymore (most, on the web) to get a cultural education.

      Liberal arts were a wasteland when I attended college 25 years ago, and then… they went downhill.

      Society will have to rebuilt someday. Practical skills will be in demand first, and often, then, too.

    8. Coup d'Etat Says:

      Going to a university is definately not for dumb asses, although I have seen a surge of negresses entering more so than their dark male counterparts. These institutions do love the darkies regardless of how stupid they really are.

      Look, if you are already a smart person with good thinking abilities, a university will enhance those skills. It won’t hurt for a racially white person to attend and get a Bachelors or Masters. In fact, we need smarter people who are racially aware. However, if you don’t know how to do a simple search on the internet on anything without asking someone, then you have no business going to college.