Jump to content
OfficerTom

[Article/Author Needed] Impact turn to academia / the university

Recommended Posts

I'm looking for something generic that can be used as an impact to using the academy. I'd rather it not be so generic that it's just "institutions bad", but not so specific I can't use it in a debate round. Does anyone know of authors that write negatively about academia / universities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking for something generic that can be used as an impact to using the academy. I'd rather it not be so generic that it's just "institutions bad", but not so specific I can't use it in a debate round. Does anyone know of authors that write negatively about academia / universities?

Harney + moten wrote a bunch of stuff ,also all that occupied uc berkley stuff.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harney + moten wrote a bunch of stuff ,also all that occupied uc berkley stuff.

 

I feel like the uc berkley stuff is a double turn because deploying it in a round would be contributing to the legitimacy of the university as a site of resistance. Or does that ev assume resistance via the university?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick, I have an Academy file I can send you. You might have it already though.

 

nvm my dropbox is confusing

Edited by Arturo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the uc berkley stuff is a double turn because deploying it in a round would be contributing to the legitimacy of the university as a site of resistance. Or does that ev assume resistance via the university?

Read the Harney and moten stuff and draw distinctions between injecting knowledge and stealing knowledge from the academy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the Harney and moten stuff and draw distinctions between injecting knowledge and stealing knowledge from the academy.

 

Which harney & moten articles have been used before? I wrote a 1AC based on the undercommons stuff but I didn't realize they had other works.

 

Edit: I guess I'd also like to know if "stealing from the university" is equatable to a claim for the ballot (breaking the logic of the better debating team) or if it is simply a destruction of the things that produce knowledge in the academy (ex. not giving your speech, or stealing the other team's laptop) so that "knowledge" is not exchanged. Or am I perhaps misunderstanding the phrase entirely?

Edited by OfficerTom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The Ph.D. Circle in Academic Economics” DANIEL B. KLEIN; Department of Economics, Santa Clara University; Econ Journal Watch Scholarly Comments on Academic Economics Volume 2, Number 1, April 2005

In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith developed an incisive criticism of academia (pp. 758-81). He at least touches on all of the following familiar criticism of academia: • Academic societies are organized “not for the benefit of the students, but for the interest, or more properly speaking, for the ease of the masters” (764). • They self-organize as self-validating societies, in which members indulge each other’s conveniences (761). • Academics tend toward an esoteric language that excludes outsider participation (765). • Democratic decision making by professional units fails to make individuals accountable for their actions within the process of collective decision making (779). • The clubs are prone to groupthink and the lock-in of foolishness. They were sometimes “the sanctuaries in which exploded systems and obsolete prejudices found shelter and protection, after they had been hunted out of every other corner of the world” (772). They have generated sciences that are “a mere useless and pedantick heap of sophistry and nonsense” (781). Smith acknowledges that there are no easy solutions. There is no easy way for outsiders to evaluate or regulate the inner workings of the scholarly community (761). As for public-policy judgments, while Smith is ambiguous on the education of children (815), on colleges and universities he is libertarian. He clearly opposes “the privileges of graduation” (762, 780), or, in modern parlance, licensing requirements that create much of the demand for the services of accredited schools.1 And he comes across as against public funding (776-81). As for charitable foundations, he suggests that they shift from producer-side to user-side subsidies (763). In the midst of his criticism of academia, Smith launches into a wandering account of how ancient Greek philosophy evolved into various scholastic fields (766-72). He describes how academia elevated “Metaphysicks or Pneumaticks,” producing, “after a few very simple and almost obvious truths... nothing but obscurity and uncertainty” (771). This subsequently evolved into Ontology. “But if subtleties and sophisms composed the greater part of the Metaphysicks or Pneumaticks of the schools, they composed the whole of this cobweb science of Ontology” (771). Smith’s account concludes as follows: The alterations which the universities of Europe thus introduced into the ancient course of philosophy were all meant for the education of ecclesiastics, and to render it a more proper introduction to the study of theology. But the additional quantity of subtlety and sophistry, the casuistry and the ascetic morality which those alterations introduced into it, certainly did not render it more proper for the education of gentlemen or men of the world, or more likely either to improve the understanding, or to mend the heart.... This course of philosophy is what still continues to be taught in the greater part of the universities of Europe, with more or less diligence, according as the constitution of each particular university happens to render diligence more or less necessary to the teachers. (p. 772; italics added) Smith’s five-page digression is a way of positing a single fact: As he looks out his window, Smith sees an academic establishment that to him appears wasteful and foolish. That is the fact to be explained. The explanation does not seem to lie in the intemperance and prejudice of Smith’s character. Rather, Smith suggests that the structure of academia makes it priestly and almost impervious to criticism. Insiders seek to secure a place on the pyramid and must curry favor and conform. Outsides are deemed unqualified to judge. The hazards are inherent, and the best way to deal with them, according to Smith, is to remove privilege and coercion from the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...