The Academy's Shift, In Their Own Words
The Academy's Shift, In Their Own Words
Virginia Magazine, the alumni publication of the University of Virginia says of its recent survey of generations of grads: “We struck a nerve. On our list of 18 topics, openness to conservative ideas ranked as the No. 1 area where UVA needs to do more, though that wasn’t the prevailing view on the subject. Consistent with other survey patterns, it is of greater concern among the older classes than the younger: An average 55 percent across the class years 1970 to 1990 want UVA to be more hospitable to ideas on the right—but as many as 32 percent of the 1995 to 2020 cohort agreed with them. It made for an average of 42 percent saying UVA tilts too far left.” [1.] In their own words, the academy admits to a bias that many of us have known all along. Also telling is the decline in the esteeming of Thomas Jefferson, who founded the school as well as our Republic. The reason they give is “better” scholarship of our founding father. But if you studied Jefferson at a place like Hillsdale College in Michigan you might have a totally different opinion. You see, recent forays into history are more concerned with pointing out the flaws of our founders. That would be fine, “all have sinned and fallen short…” but ‘historians’ like Howard Zinn and the writers of the 1619 Project are all too ready to discard the brilliance of Jefferson’s recasting of the ideals of John Locke. You see, the new intellectuals reject the notion of absolute truth – truth that might inform men of clay to loftier ideals. The problem is that they still see the sin, and THAT is their own “absolute truth.”
For them there is no redemption short of reconstructing society as it exists. Indeed, you could overlay the decline of Jefferson with some societal influences and find clarity. Let’s begin with Saul D. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” published in 1971. Alinsky begins with this thought: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins— or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom —Lucifer.” It means little to Alinsky that that world is Hell, and that so many Marxist experiments have resulted in Hell on earth for their inhabitants, we must rebel. Forgetting the amazing principles of freedom espoused by our founders, young people were encouraged to rebel against the system.
Lucifer had to love the effects of moral relativism and the youth culture’s rejection of faith. Howard Zinn published his “History of the American People” in 1980 and though the era of Ronald Reagan bolstered Conservatism, Zinn’s book became a standard text for the academy. ‘Mainstream’ acceptance of works like the 1619 Project, written in 2019, further diminished academia’s opinion of men like Jefferson. Sally Hemming has little or nothing to do with it at all. In fact, the wonderful truth that flawed men can be inspired to lofty ideals is to be celebrated. That is the challenge to which the academy should strive to rise to.
The academy likes to point out that their “better” narrative on our founding father is why he is less revered. I would have to agree that the emphasis on our failings and the diminishing sense of wonder at the nation we have inherited play large in this. The survey also tells us that those class sizes in the beginning of the period tracked were smaller. Indeed, the academy has marketed itself well and enrollment is much larger. Still, I read in City Journal that the average 25 year old in 1964 was highly likely to be a veteran going to school on GI Bill. He was married with possibly one child. His wife worked to make ends meet. They might have lived in married student housing. Oh, there might have been another child on the way. Historian Ed Hendricks used to tell a very funny story about his graduate student days at UVA. Married student housing was literally right by the railroad tracks. When the Southern Railway increased its nighttime freight schedule, the ensuing use of train horns was responsible for a bit of a population explosion as awakened students and spouses – well – couldn’t get back to sleep. Dr. Hendricks was also quite a scholar of the Reynolds family (mentioned last week).
Fast-forward to this decade. The average 25 year old male lives a different life from his 1960s counterpart. He’s not married. If he’s not still living at home, he’s living in an apartment with three other guys. If he’s not beginning a career, he’s probably working in a stopgap job of some kind. He probably has discovered that not all college degrees are equal when it comes to getting a job. Whereas his 1960s counterpart could have skipped college and worked in industry, his choices are a bit more limited.
The 25 year old from just the decade before may have actually stared Communism in the face in Korea. I am pretty sure he wanted no part in any Socialist Utopia. In the sixties, the radicals began to attack American values. By the 1970s and 80s, they were teaching in the academy. They were also entering professions like journalism in droves. When asked why they went into journalism, the answer was usually “to make a difference,” not “to accurately report the news.” Entertainment also carried the message. The patriotism of a Jimmy Stewart is a rare thing today. I remember when he played band leader Glenn Miller in a movie. Those days are log gone.
Finally, we live in an age where C. S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man has been realized. Objective truth, though it may be found historically in all cultures, has been cast aside. Everything is supposedly subjective – my opinion, your opinion – all are supposedly equally valid. But they’re NOT. DIVERSITY and INCLUSION are the new ‘objective truth,’ you might surmise from the state of the academy today. Your deeply held religious views are trumped by these standards. In fact, when Mrs. Clinton said that “you are free to practice your religion,” it is clear that she meant “keep it in the church building.” Like so many of her generation, she set out to “make a difference” and was seduced by the rhetoric of Saul Alinsky. Whereas Alinsky was ready to violently tear down the established world, Mrs. Clinton felt the system could be ‘changed from within,’ so she turned down an offer to work with Alynsky after college, though she admired him, and went to law school instead.
The Decline of American Citizenship
In this eight-lecture course, students will examine the origins and history of citizenship in the West and the grave challenges American citizenship faces today. Topics covered in this course include: the erosion of the middle class, the disappearance of sovereign borders, the rise of tribalism, the growth of the deep state, the modern assaults on the Constitution, and the emergence of a new form of global government.
Join the thousands of citizens committed to learning how to defend liberty in America by enrolling in this free online course, "American Citizenship and Its Decline," today! (read more)
THYME Commentary Has a New Home
[click to read]
Here are links to articles and publications we're reading. (read more)
