Skip to main content

Academic Stalinism

To those of us of a certain generation, Cristina Odone's piece in the Telegraph Notebook today will have raised a wry smile. Her comment that a middle class background may become a barrier, ceteris paribus, to University entry was intended to be a humorous dig against government imposed political correctness.

In fact, and certainly at Aberdeen - fairly middle of the road in most ways- a substantial proportion of the faculty were unashamed Communists even in the 1980s. Class background was the primary issue and the source of their entire weltenschaung.

Over the weekend, I attended a performance of Tom Stoppard's Play Rock and Roll . David Caldwell has taken over from Brian Cox the role of Max- the unrepentant Marxist academic, although both playwright and actor make the character sympathetic, my personal reaction was to remember those of my tutors who regarded anti-Marxists, like myself, as deluded trash. The relief I felt when I moved to study in Canada and did not have to even address the concept of Marxism, was great indeed.

In the context of academic freedom, there may be a place for the Marxist analysis, but Cristina's piece just reminds me why I want to see the role of the state in the Universities diluted substantially. Neither admissions policy nor most other facets of University life can be free for as long as the government pays the piper.

One of the best lines in the play was that it is not the government that is the source of the people's freedom, but the people themselves. We have says one of the characters "created a democracy of obedience". We are not permitted to know how much our hospitals cost for utterly spurious reasons of invented commercial confidentiality, we are stripped of our privacy- quite literally- by CCTV X-Rays. We permit criminality at the highest level of government.

At least we can role back the state from the Universities- can't we?

Comments

Tristan said…
People at my school were warned not to apply for King's College Cambridge as they don't like middle class people there (I had a friend who got in, but perhaps because that was because she's Russian...)

Amusingly one summer they redecorated the bar without telling the students to remove the red walls and perennial hammer and sickle. The reason: To avoid upsetting any Tory students.

Kings was a very silly place - they wouldn't wear gowns because they're a symbol of the upper classes or something... and refused to have May Balls as well.
And of course, they loved rent striking.
Etzel Pangloss said…
It must have been hell for you, both sides filled with certainty and loathing.

Thomas Paine gave us your 'best line' in 'Common Sense' if I recall well.
Liberal Polemic said…
"At least we can role back the state from the Universities- can't we?"

Such optimism in one "of a certain age"!

Since Thatcher replaced the University Grants Commission with a funding body managed by bureaucrats and broke the link between local universities and local funding, Universities have effectively been another nationalised industry.

Evidence of what might have been survives only in Buckingham, where a rump of right wing academics survives by selling post-graduate degrees, free from the shackles of statist conformism.
Liberal Polemic said…
BTW...

CCTV X-Rays? That's a new one on me. More information, please!
AverageEarthman said…
CCTV X-Rays?

Don't worry about the *health* implications, they're not X-Rays, they're terahertz, so they don't have the health implications of X-rays. The BBC are a bit thick, though, so their article on them calls them X-rays throughout.

X-rays have wavelengths of 10 to 0.01 nanometers, these have wavelengths of ten to one millimetres. So, that's only a million times out. Well done, BBC.

Privacy issues on the other hand - well, they see through clothing.

QinetiQ make them:

http://www.qinetiq.com/home_us/case_studies/case_studies_homeland_security/millimeter_wave_imager.html

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...