Some interesting comments from the earlier thread, that might warrant separate discussion:
"Canadian philosopher" writes:
Professor Lowrey argues that there are three elements that together threaten to undermine the academy. The “new Ptolemaism” is one piece but is combined with: (2) the Foucault-inspired insistence that academics identify a hierarchically arranged binary and then work to invert it; and (3) the surprising alliance between two groups: (i) the professional managerial class currently running universities; and (ii) a large percentage of social science and humanities faculty, which both, for different reasons, see the traditional/current university as in need of reconstitution, if not outright dismantling. My experience, which includes multiple terms as chair of a department, suggests that all three phenomena exist to different but significant (and generally increasing) degrees, and may well add up to a non-trivial threat to universities as most people over the age of fifty understand them. A particular concern that professor Lowrey raises is how the public and its elected officials will view the value of supporting institutions of higher learning if they are remade in the way she fears.
Philosopher Charles Pigden (Otago) writes:
[T]here is one thing that Lowery suggests that rings true to me. A lot of people in academia, especially in the humanities, fancy themselves as champions of the underdog and speakers of truth to power. Since actually championing the underdog or speaking truth to the genuinely powerful (at least in the kind of way that might actually make a difference) is time consuming, often boring, and (even in a relatively free society) mildly dangerous, and since it is often inimical to a successful career, this is not a role that they want to fulfil in reality. Hence a lot of their intellectual energy is devoted to creating fictitious narratives in which they champion underdogs and speak the truth to power without actually championing any real underdogs or speaking the truth to any dangerously powerful people. Getting rid of a gender critical feminist (for instance) is a great deal safer than challenging the neoliberal ideology of a university president. If you can pose as a champion of the underdog and a speaker of truth to power whilst ingratiating yourself with the neoliberal regime, that kind of hits the jackpot, by combining the ego gratifications of being a tribune of the people with the career benefits of being a lackey of the establishment. Consequently this is what a lot of people do.
And "Chronos," agreeing with Professor Pigden, writes:
At my university there are some social science and humanities people in other fields who don't publish lots nor (for lack of a better description) have significant research programs. I think research is quite difficult to do at a competent level and often hard. In its place these people turn their attention to changing their university, and, basically, become focused on social projects. There is something fine with this since one should be concerned with one's place of employment. But it seems to me that this inward focus often gives people gratification without having to go far from their offices.
