Category: Academia

Artificial Intelligence and the Death of the University

The universities have been under assault from the Left for decades, but now advanced A. I. has its destructive role to play.

A recent article by James D. Walsh in New York Magazine, widely circulated among academics, reported that “just two months after OpenAI launched ChatGPT [in 2022], a survey of 1,000 college students found that nearly 90 percent of them had used the chatbot to help with homework assignments”. The use of Generative-AI chatbots for required coursework is, if anything, even more widespread today. At elite universities, community colleges, and everything in between, students are using AI to take notes in class, produce practice tests, write essays, analyze data, and compose computer code, among other things. A freshman seems to speak for entire cohorts of undergraduates when she admits that “we rely on it, [and] we can’t really imagine being without it”. An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education quotes multiple students who are effectively addicted to the technology, and are distressed at being unable to kick the habit — because, as an NYU senior confesses, “I know I am learning NOTHING.”

Related: Do You Really Want to Teach at a University?

Academentia Update: Harvard and Hillsdale

We of the Coalition of the Sane and Reasonable are rejoicing at Trump's treatment of Harvard. Once a great institution at the very top of the academic world, it has become a sick woke joke and a haven for antisemites and destructive DEI nonsense.  VERITAS (truth) remains emblazoned upon its seal, but truth, which has never been a leftist value, is now moribund if not dead in Cambridge, Mass., as witness the appointment of Claudine Gay, plagiarist, as president. (She has since been removed.) Truth and Gay's 'my truth' are toto caelo different. That she could be even proposed as president, let alone appointed, is indicative of deep institutional rot.

As a private institution, Harvard can do pretty much what it wants, including digging its own grave; but it is plainly wrong for it to receive taxpayer dollars to subsidize destructive leftist lunacy.  If you can't see that, you are morally obtuse.

For the view from Hillsdale, see here.  Excerpt:

Mr. Trump’s war on Harvard is largely about federal money, and Mr. Arnn’s Hillsdale “doesn’t take a single cent of it,” he says. “Nobody gives us any money unless they want to.” This means Hillsdale, founded by Free Will Baptists in 1844, isn’t bound by government mandates tied to funding, such as Title IX. Harvard, he says, was “exclusively funded by the private sector for—what is it?—it’s got to be 250 years.” (Harvard was founded in 1636.) “And now, in this progressive era, if my calculations are right, they get $90,000 per student a year from the federal government.” He recommends that Harvard, which receives about $9 billion a year from Washington, emulate Hillsdale and get off the government dole.

“They should give it all up,” Mr. Arnn says. “They should make an honest living.”

Related:

Peter W. Wood, Harvard Against America

Peter Berkowitz, Harvard Law Professors Politicize the Rule of Law

Interesting development: "Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks has called for a mass uprising to oppose President Donald Trump, going so far as to quote The Communist Manifesto." 

Kimball on Kolakowski on Marxism as a Bogus Form of Religion

I have argued time and again that Marxism is not a religion. But many have a burning need so to misunderstand it. What the great Kolakowski says below reinforces me in the correctness of my opinion.  As for Fredric Jameson, whom Roger Kimball discusses in his Guilt of the Intellectuals, I haven't read him and never will. Theodor Adorno, on the other hand, I have read with care.  I rate him higher than Roger Kimball does, who is more of a public intellectual (a very good one!) than a philosopher. (PhilPapers lists only seven works of his.) I consider Adorno worth reading and evaluating, as I do in Contra Adorno: A Preliminary Plea for Omphaloscopy.

Kimball:

Whatever Professor Jameson’s personal commitment to Marxist doctrine, there can be little doubt that his habits of thought were deeply tinged by the gnostic contempt for everyday experience and faith in a secular apocalypse that has characterized Marxism from the beginning. As the philosopher Leszek Kolakowski noted in the third volume of his magisterial study Main Currents of Marxism, this is the ultimate source of Marxism’s Utopian dreams and its great seductiveness for suitably disposed intellectuals. “The influence that Marxism has achieved,” Kolakowski wrote,

far from being the result or proof of its scientific character, is almost entirely due to its prophetic, fantastic, and irrational elements. Marxism is a doctrine of blind confidence that a paradise of universal satisfaction is awaiting us just around the corner. Almost all the prophecies of Marx and his followers have already proved to be false, but this does not disturb the spiritual certainty of the faithful, any more than it did in the case of chiliastic sects. … In this sense Marxism performs the function of a religion, and its efficacy is of a religious character. But it is a caricature and a bogus form of religion, since it presents its temporal eschatology as a scientific system, which religious mythologies do not purport to be.

That the Marxist apocalypse is declared to be the inevitable result of inscrutable “scientific” laws only means that its partisans are potentially as dangerous as they are mystifying: the revolutionary is one whose possession of “the truth” is impervious to experience. For him, “History” speaks with a voice beyond contradiction or appeal.

By the way, 'magisterial' is exactly the word to describe Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism. It is the work of a master, a magister. But would it have killed Kimball to provide a page reference? If he had, the editors would probably have deleted it.  Why do you think that is?

Victor Davis Hanson on the Higher Infantilization and its Cost

Is it not folly to go into deep debt to buy something wildly overpriced of little value?  And does it not contribute to  an unravelling of the moral fiber of the people for a morally obtuse grifter such as Joseph Biden to forgive debts freely incurred, thereby forcing sensible taxpayers to foot the bill?

Here's Hanson.

Historians Need Not Apply

At the intersection of academia and wokery lies academentia. 

I have one quibble with Hinderaker. He writes,

But the phenomenon at work here–a huge cadre of well-educated people who think they are entitled to make good money, be treated with deference, and play a significant role in public life, but who in fact are not very employable and whose expectations are doomed to be frustrated–explains a lot about the demented quality of our current culture.

The phrase "well-educated people" is surely out of place. This "huge cadre" is not well-educated by any reasonable, historically-based standard.  But you've heard this sort of thing from me before, for example, here. Tony Flood offers some excellent commentary.

Sabotage Anyone?

Should a state university add "How to Blow Up a Pipeline" to its curriculum?

This is an undoubtedly interesting time to be alive. How could anyone be bored?

Should I rename my Academia category, Academentia?

Demented POTUS, demented polity. Madness spreads and the fish stinks from the head.

Update (3:39 pm): More academentia at UCLA medical school. Unbelievable, but you'd better believe it.

America, You Don’t Understand Us Academics!

I am too busy now to comment on this self-serving piece, but it is not surprising that people who fill their bellies from some job or profession have no trouble finding reasons in justification of it.

A vegetarian once asked a man who worked in a slaughter house whether he had any moral reservations about his work. The man replied, "People have to eat."

The Racism of Reduced Expectations

To tolerate and excuse Harvard president Claudine Gay's  plagiarism has been cited by some as an example of the so-called 'racism of reduced expectations' (RRE). For what you are then doing by your toleration and excusal is lowering the standard for blacks when, or rather on the assumption that, they are as capable as any other group of meeting those standards.  Such a slighting  of blacks would indeed be racist.

But is the assumption true? The assumption underpinning  RRE is that blacks as a group are the equal of Jews, Asians, and whites in respect of intelligence, intellectual honesty, love of truth, interest in the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge, commitment to the traditional values of the university, respect for high standards of scholarship, and the like. If this is the case, then it is indeed racist to tolerate and excuse the bad behavior of blacks such as President Gay, and in her case 'sexist' as well.  

So whether there is racism here or not depends on whether the underlying assumption is true. Most establishment conservatives believe that it is.  They believe that blacks are the equals of the other groups mentioned in respect of the attributes mentioned. I don't doubt their good faith. Jesse Watters a few nights ago played the RRE card: to tolerate and excuse President Gay's plagiarism is to treat her as either incapable or unwilling due to her race of being objective, truth-seeking, and intellectually honest. It is to suggest black intellectual and moral inferiority when they are not inferior. Hence the racism of reduced expectations.  But if blacks as a group really are inferior when it comes to the appreciation and implementation of the values in question then the reduced expectations are justified and there is no racism of reduced expectations.

My point is that reduced expectations are racist only if the assumption is true.  If the assumption is false then a reduction in expectations is in order  and there is no racism.  One is entitled to play the RRE card only if one has already shown or given good evidence for the truth of the assumption.