Category Archives: Academia

Petition to Protest Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Proposed Boycott of Israeli Academics



[H/t Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME)]

I received this email and thought you might be interested:

We, the undersigned university faculty members from around the world call upon the members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) to oppose any resolution to ban Israeli academics from teaching in Ontario or anywhere else. The current resolution invokes, as justification for the proposed ban, bombing that damaged the Islamic University in Gaza on December 29. Sid Ryan of CUPE’s Ontario University Workers Coordinating Committee says: “Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general.” No other country’s academics have been the targets of such union action before, whether or not their country was at war. Israel is engaged in a war to defend its people against an enemy that has been firing missiles at Israeli civilians for years. The enemy, Hamas, had been using the Islamic University as a training camp, launching pad, and weapons depot. Other universities in Gaza were not Hamas facilities and were therefore not bombed.

The proposed ban clearly represents ethnic discrimination, and the proposed ideological litmus test is a violation of free speech. The members of the University and College Union in England recently rejected a similar proposal because of its discriminatory nature, and we urge the Ontario CUPE members to reject the proposal now before them.

To show our solidarity with our Israeli academics in this matter, we, the undersigned, hereby declare ourselves to be Israeli academics for purposes of any academic boycott. We will regard ourselves as Israeli academics and decline to participate in any activity from which Israeli academics are excluded.

Visit Scholars For Peace in the Middle East website

To Sign this petition click here.

To see current signatures click here.

Please consider making a donation to SPME

Canadian Union of Public Employees-Ontario Pushes for Boycott of Israeli Academics


[H/t Labourstart]

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports:

The Canadian Union of Public Employees [CUPE–e.d.] in Ontario, the largest labor union representing staff members at the province’s universities, plans to introduce a resolution at its conference next month to ban Israeli academics from teaching, speaking, or doing research at Ontario universities if they do not first condemn Israeli actions in Gaza.

Ben Cohen (Z Word) rightly describes this as a “disloyalty oath.”

The push for an academic boycott is ostensibly in response to the bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza. However, CUPE-Ontario has a history of anti-Israel activities. In 2006 the union supported a boycott of goods made in Israel and CUPE president Sid Ryan let it slip that, “It’s a logical next step, building on policy adopted by our provincial convention in 2006.”

What Ryan and CUPE-Ontario do not mention is the Islamic University of Gaza is controlled by Hamas. The university is used to develop and store weapons, a sanctuary for wanted terrorists and a jail for enemies of the organization. In February of 2007, Israel Insider reported, “kidnapped soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit spent most of his time in captivity imprisoned on the campus of the Islamic University in Gaza,” according to “senior Palestinian sources.”

B’nai B’rith Canada released a statement calling for the national union to distance itself from the noxious resolution supported by CUPE-Ontario:

CUPE-Ontario has betrayed a pattern of agitating against Israel that must be addressed at the national level by its parent body. We urge CUPE-National to take steps to immediately distance itself from this biased and discriminatory resolution and to undertake a wider review of CUPE-Ontario’s operational practices that have systematically tried to delegitimize the Jewish State and its right to self-defence.

RIP: Samuel Huntington and Freddie Hubbard


Political Scientist Samuel Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Political Order in Changing Societies, The Soldier and the State and many other influential books has died at the age of 81. Robert Kaplan writing in Atlantic (Dec 2001) notes:

The Soldier and the State constituted a warning: America’s liberal society, Huntington argued, required the protection of a professional military establishment steeped in conservative realism. In order to keep the peace, military leaders had to take for granted—and anticipate—the “irrationality, weakness, and evil in human nature.” Liberals were good at reform, not at national security. “Magnificently varied and creative when limited to domestic issues,” Huntington wrote, “liberalism faltered when applied to foreign policy and defense.” Foreign policy, he explained, is not about the relationship among individuals living under the rule of law but about the relationship among states and other groups operating in a largely lawless realm. The Soldier and the State concluded with a rousing defense of West Point, which, Huntington wrote, “embodies the military ideal at its best … a bit of Sparta in the midst of Babylon.”

The subject that Huntington has more recently put on the map is the “clash of civilizations” that is occurring as Western, Islamic, and Asian systems of thought and government collide. His argument is more subtle than it is usually given credit for, but some of the main points can be summarized.

• The fact that the world is modernizing does not mean that it is Westernizing. The impact of urbanization and mass communications, coupled with poverty and ethnic divisions, will not lead to peoples’ everywhere thinking as we do.

• Asia, despite its ups and downs, is expanding militarily and economically. Islam is exploding demographically. The West may be declining in relative influence.

• Culture-consciousness is getting stronger, not weaker, and states or peoples may band together because of cultural similarities rather than because of ideological ones, as in the past.

• The Western belief that parliamentary democracy and free markets are suitable for everyone will bring the West into conflict with civilizations—notably, Islam and the Chinese—that think differently.

• In a multi-polar world based loosely on civilizations rather than on ideologies, Americans must reaffirm their Western identity.

The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon highlight the tragic relevance not just of Huntington’s ideas about a clash of civilizations but of his entire life’s work. Since the 1950s he has argued that American society requires military and intelligence services that think in the most tragic, pessimistic terms. He has worried for decades about how American security has mostly been the result of sheer luck—the luck of geography—and may one day have to be truly earned. He has written that liberalism thrives only when security can be taken for granted—and that in the future we may not have that luxury. And he has warned that the West may one day have to fight for its most cherished values and, indeed, physical survival against extremists from other cultures who despise our country and who will embroil us in a civilizational war that is real, even if political leaders and polite punditry must call it by another name. While others who hold such views have found both happiness and favor working among like-minded thinkers in the worlds of the corporation, the military, and the intelligence services, Huntington has deliberately remained in the liberal bastion of Ivy League academia, to fight for his ideas on that lonely but vital front.

You can read the entire article here.

The exceptional jazz trumpeter and composer Freddie Hubbard passed away this week as well. He was 70. Hubbard’s oeuvre, from bebop to fusion, is incredibly diverse and reflects the changes in jazz from the late 1950s, through the 1960s and into the 1970s. The following is from

Freddie played mellophone and then trumpet in his school band, studying at the Jordan Conservatory with the principal trumpeter of the local symphony. He worked as a teenager with Wes and Monk Montgomery, and eventually founded his own first band, the Jazz Contemporaries, with bassist Larry Ridley and saxophonist James Spaulding. Moving to New York in 1958 at the age of 20, he quickly astonished fans and critics alike with the depth and maturity of his playing working with veteran jazz artists Philly Joe Jones (1958-59, 1961), Sonny Rollins (1959), Slide Hampton (1959-60), J.J. Johnson (1960), Eric Dolphy, his room-mate for 18 months, and Quincy Jones, with whom he toured Europe (1960-61). He was barely 22 when he recorded Open Sesame, his solo debut, in June 1960. That album, featuring Hank Mobley, McCoy Tyner, Paul Chambers and Philly Joe Jones, set the stage for one of the more meteoric careers in jazz.

Within the next 10 months, Hubbard recorded his second album, Goin’ Up, with the same personnel as his first, and a third, Hub Cap, with Julian Priester and Jimmy Heath. Four months later, in August 1961, he made what many consider his masterpiece, Ready For Freddie, which was also his first Blue Note collaboration with Wayne Shorter. That same year, he joined Art Blakey’s Jazz Messengers (replacing Lee Morgan). Freddie had quickly established himself as an important new voice in jazz. While earning a reputation as a hard-blowing young lion, he had developed his own sound, distancing himself from the early influence of Clifford Brown and Miles Davis and won Down Beat’s “New Star” award on trumpet.

He remained with Blakey until 1966, leaving to form his own small groups, which over the next few years featured Kenny Barron and Louis Hayes. Throughout the 60s he also played in bands led by others, including Max Roach and Herbie Hancock. Hubbard was a significant presence on Herbie Hancock’s Blue Note recordings beginning with the pianist’s debut as a leader, Takin’ Off, and continuing on Empyrean Isles and Maiden Voyage. He was also featured on four classic 60s sessions: Ornette Coleman’s Free Jazz, Oliver Nelson’s Blues And The Abstract Truth, Eric Dolphy’s Out To Lunch!, and John Coltrane’s Ascension during that time.

Freddie achieved his greatest popular success in the 1970s with a series of crossover albums on CTI Records. Although his early 70s jazz albums Red Clay, First Light and Straight Life were particularly well received (First Light won a Grammy Award), this period saw Hubbard emulating Herbie Hancock and moving into jazz fusions. However, he sounded much more at ease in the hard bop context of his 1977 tour with the V.S.O.P. quintet, the band which retraced an earlier quintet led by Miles Davis and brought together ex-Davis sidemen Hancock, Hayes, Wayne Shorter and Ron Carter, with Hubbard taking the Davis role.

Freddie Hubbard “Bird Like”

“Red Clay”:

Professor Denied Tenure Due to International Zionist Conspiracy


Another professor has been denied tenure due to the power and influence of the International Zionist Conspiracy, this time at Ithaca College:

Margo Ramlal-Nankoe, a member of the sociology department for the past 11 years, said she has more than met the standards for tenure but has been denied twice — once in 2005 and again in 2007.

Ramlal-Nankoe said she was denied tenure not based on her teaching, service or scholarship, the three areas considered by tenure review boards, but her politics, which she says other faculty members and administrators called anti-Israel.

The Board of Trustees says this claim “is unsubstantiated and at best serves only as a smokescreen for the less than excellent performance by Dr. Ramlal-Nankoe in the areas used as an assessment for the granting of tenure at Ithaca College.”

Ramlal-Nankoe said her work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a direct link to her being denied tenure.

“For me it is so clear it is about the politics of my work,” she said. “(The dean) would go out of his way to cut or reject funding for our activities,” especially for the student organization Students for a Just Peace*.

Ramlal-Nankoe has filed a discrimination complaint against the college and has hired Norman Finkelstein’s lawyer to prove her case. You know how Fink’s case went.

*I can imagine what sorts of events “Students for a Just Peace” organizes. Israel = bad, Palestinians = good, Hamas is a social justice organization, etc. etc. etc. You know the deal.

Anti-Zionist Pens Encyclopedia Chapter on Zionism


[H/t to A.L.]

Encyclopedia entries are at the bottom of the academic publishing market. Lacking the prestige of peer reviewed journals, editors and publishers are lucky to find skilled professionals willing to take the time to write an entry. Occasionally they will settle for whoever they can find. This appears to be the case when the editors of the Encyclopedia of Race and Racism decided Noel Ignatiev would make a fine choice for the chapter on Zionism. (See: AJC Calls on Publisher to Retract Zionism Chapter in Encyclopedia).

Ignatiev is a controversial American Historian who seeks to “abolish the white race.” Setting aside his notable lack of scholarship in the fields of European History, Middle Eastern History, or Jewish History, it is surprising the editors did not realize he is a partisan anti-Zionist who simply parrots the lies and distortions of the radical left milieu he is enmeshed in. You can read a pdf of the chapter here. Take a look at the sources (Norman Finkelstein, Lenni Brenner, etc.).

I recently finished reading Ruth Wisse’s “Forgetting Zion” in the recent Commentary and thought of this passage:

From the very beginning, what set Zionism apart from other national-liberation movements was its nemesis: anti-Zionism. Unlike every other new member state of the United Nations, from Algeria to Zimbabwe, Israel, from birth, had been denied its national legitimacy.

Campus based anti-Zionists are a continuation of that legacy.


ZWord has an excellent post on this issue here:

Some of you will be wondering who Ignatiev is. I first came across Ignatiev’s name a few years ago, when the antisemitic writer who uses the name “Israel Shamir” referred to him as “our good friend.” Lest I be accused of damning by association, I should point out that Shamir and Ignatiev appear to have their disagreements, although these will be barely intelligible to those not familiar with the obscurantist doctrines they represent.

What strikes me is that Ignatiev, like Shamir, is a provocateur and a propagandist who relentlessly pushes themes shared by far left and far right alike. He makes statements like this one: “Osama bin Laden was no more than telling the truth when he said that the Muslim world is facing an alliance of Zionists and Crusaders.” And this one, from the same article: “Is one permitted to say above the level of a whisper that U.S. policy toward Israel has something to do with Jewish influence in the US?”

So why, then, is he writing for this encyclopedia? An encyclopedia is not, say, Counterpunch, the frequently antisemitic online magazine which Ignatiev has also contributed to, or Race Traitor, the strange online journal he started. One turns to an encyclopedia for an overview, a dispassionate account of the development of a particular subject, a summation of its key controversies. “The purpose of an encyclopedia,” wrote the French philosopher Diderot, who devoted himself to assembling the great work of the French Enlightenment called the Encyclopédie, “is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe.”

Judged by this yardstick, Ignatiev’s effort falls woefully short. Imagine a creationist writing about evolution and you will have some sense of the crackling errors and ugly distortions which litter the text. It was not surprising, therefore, that the Zionism entry was noticed by several academics and that it was brought to the attention of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the organization which sponsors Z Word.

Solomonia posted about this as well.

What is Your “Teaching Philosophy”?


[H/t Varnam whose post discusses the influence of Marxist, Nationalist and Orientalist historiography in India. Have a look. I also want to thank Varnam for introducing me to Maps of War. Watch 5,000 years of imperialism and conquest in the Middle East play in 90 seconds.]

Whenever I go on academic job interviews or send out application packages the interviewers always want to know my “teaching philosophy”. It is often hard to know what they are looking for. Do they want trendy , “I take a post-colonial approach to questions of race, class and gender, comparing the resistance strategies of subaltern groups to empire and oppression, blah, blah, blah” . Or do they want old-school, “I teach the historians craft, an emphasis on archival research, sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating.”

If you are in the second group, here is a simple video presentation that may assist you with your beginning students. Many of my students arrive at college or university with little, if any, understanding of what historians actually do. They know we study the past but beyond that it is all a mystery to them.

The video is from Historical Thinking Matters:

Boring names, facts, dates – this is history for a lot of people. But historians think about history differently. They see themselves as detectives, often unsure about what happened, what it means, and rarely able to agree amongst themselves. This process of trying to figure out things you don’t already know is as different from mindless memorization as you can get.

Varnam writes:

[W]hat we need are historians who understand the social, economic, political and cultural context in which the events happened and are able to write history with that perspective. By sourcing, contextualizing, close reading and corroborating source materials, historians can come up with an analysis of what really happened.

[read it all here]

University of Michigan Cuts Ties with Crackpot Press


[H/t Solomonia]

This is a bit dated (last month) from Inside HigherEd:

In September, the University of Michigan Press faced intense criticism from pro-Israel groups — and questions from some regents — over its distribution of a book called Overcoming Zionism, which argues that the creation of Israel was a mistake and urges adoption of the “one state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which Israelis and Palestinians would form a new country, without a Jewish character. Michigan wasn’t the publisher, but it distributed the book under a deal with Pluto Press, a leftist British publisher with extensive lists on the Middle East and international affairs.

Some critics of the book demanded that Michigan stop distributing the book, which it briefly did, and cut ties to Pluto immediately. The university declined to do so, and resumed distributing the book, citing both contractual obligations to Pluto and concerns that halting distribution because of content would raise issues of academic freedom. By the end of this year, however, Michigan will no longer be distributing the book or have any ties to Pluto Press.

[read it all]

In the comments below one finds the following:

“Shame on zionists for seeking to suppress views they disagrees with. What next: book burnings? Shame on the University of Michigan Press for caving into this pressure.”

“This is a good example of how much muscle the Israeli Lobby has in the US. The U of Michigan should be ashamed to cave in to the unjustified bantering of the Israeli groups who seek to control American thought and policy.”

“What conspiracy? The right wing Zionist lobby targeted the University of Michigan and applied enough pressure to force them to sever ties to Pluto. No conspiracy — it’s a transparent fact, and a chilling one. Attention all university presses: if you publish or even distribute anything critical of Israel, you will be treated the same way.”

This was my favorite:

“No one should demand that outside groups meet the same academic standards as the university.”

Ivanhoe nails it:

“You guys are pathetic, just pathetic. If the U. Michigan had been discovered to be distributing, exclusively and without review, thirty or so right wing books that bashed the Palestinians, denied their claims to a state, attacked and mischaracterized Islam and talked about the great worldwide conspiracy of terrorists, every single one of you so called “free speech” advocates would have been marching in the street to kill it.

And what would your argument have been? That the books are political, non-academic and polemical, and occasionally racist. Or, put another way, exactly what Pluto Press books are.”

Other titles published by Pluto include:

Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak. Forewords by Gore Vidal, Edward Said, Norton Mezvinsky and Ilan Pappe.

Israel’s Vicious Circle by Uri Avnery

Israel and the Clash of Civilizations by Jeff Halper

You get the picture…

David Castle, Commissioning Editor, Pluto Press has this to say:

The reason that Kovel’s argument is so controversial is not for any scholarly reason – the reason is purely political. The pro-Israel lobby is an extremely powerful force in US politics – highly organised, very well funded, with influence in the heart of government – and through persuasion, chastisement and not a little bullying, the lobby has managed to establish in many people’s minds that criticism of Israel and Zionism is no less than anti-Semitism – that is to say, that criticism of the actions of a state and a political ideology is equivalent to an attack and denigration of a whole people…

In the face of the controversy surrounding Overcoming Zionism, a group of scholars, campaigners and lawyers have established the Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism, which aims to defend the principle of free speech on debate over Israel. The Committee asks for your support – you can find them at

You can email him at:

Support Ariel University Center of Judea and Samaria


[h/t to Engage]

In the June 11 online edition of Haaretz:

The Council of Higher Education has ruled that it will not recognize the degrees awarded by The Academic College of Judea and Samaria (ACJS), Army Radio reported Wednesday, after the college, located in the West Bank settlement of Ariel, unilaterally declared itself a “university center.”

The heads of the college said that the upgrade from “college” to “university center” represents an interim phase ahead of its evolution into a full-blown university.

However, the state has announced that in the next five years, no new universities will be established in Israel, and that is does not recognize the category “university center.”

Representatives from the Council of Higher Education emphasized that should the college rescind its unilateral decision, the degrees it issues will be recognized again, according the report. Nahum Finger, the council’s deputy chairman, called on students to rethink their future plans should the college resist the council’s orders.

Army Radio also reported that Ariel students have threatened to strike, or to turn to the High Court of Justice, should the sides fail to reach a compromise.

Boaz Toporovsky, the chairman of the National Student Union, promised that he and his colleagues “won’t leave the Council of Higher Education alone in order to prevent the students from being harmed.”

“We’re fed up that every conflict in the higher education system comes at our expense,” Army Radio quoted Toporovsky as saying. “All that interests us is that the degree of a student who studied in Ariel be recognized by every institution in Israel.”

The Council of Higher Education has warned that additional, harsher sanctions will be placed on the college should it not obey the council’s directive.

Representatives from the Student Union and the Council of Higher Education will meet on July 1 in order to discuss the fate of students who will be affected by the decision.

I read about this on Engage. Most of my readers are probably aware Engage is devoted to challenging anti-Semitism on the left, and many of the individuals affiliated with the project describe themselves as leftists. I really appreciate all the positive work they do.

However, I was disappointed to read David Hirsh’s perspective in the comments. He views Ariel as a “settler-college” and while he is a dedicated opponent of the academic boycott of Israeli educational institutions, he claims, “If the Palestinian trade unions argued for a position of boycotting Ariel, on the basis that it was illegitimate because in the occupied territories, then this would be worth listening to.” Mr. Hirsh is not alone in this perspective, but most Jews continue to view Judea and Samaria as liberated, not occupied.

I think this move by the state speaks to the need for more private universities and colleges in Israel. I noted this in a comment at Engage but my comment was never posted. Not sure if it was deleted as SPAM or what happened…

The Jewish Press reports:

The College of Judea and Samaria (CJS), located in the city of Ariel, is really quite an incredible phenomenon. Established in 1982 in Kedumim, it began by offering evening classes to area residents. The school steadily grew and in 1991 relocated to its present location in Ariel.

With more than 9,000 students, CJS is now Israel’s largest public college and its fastest growing academic institution.


Israel Today: Stifling coexistence in the name of peace and Arabs studying at “settler” college

Jewish Virtual Library

Ariel: From a college to a university

Israel Democracy: From Star Wars to Medicinal Marijuana: the College of Judea and Samaria

One Jerusalem: Biggest educational experiment in Israeli history is taking off

For more information:

In Israel

The Ariel University Center of Samaria
The Office of University Center Foundations
Ariel, 40700
Tel. 972-3-937-1418
Fax. 972-3-906-7440
Web site. Moving From a College to a University

In Israel

Israeli Friends of the Ariel University Center of Samaria
The Ariel University Center of Samaria
Ariel, 40700
Tel. 972-3-937-1418
Fax. 972-3-937-1418

In the United States

American Friends of the Ariel University Center of Samaria
National Office
P.O. Box 235029
Encinitas, CA 92023-5029
Tel. 760-634-8458
Fax. 760-477-7009

American Friends of the Ariel University Center of Samaria
New York Regional Office
3145 Coney Island Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11235
Tel. 718-891-9102
Fax. 718-891-0062

In Canada

Canadian Friends of the Ariel University Center of Samaria
4936 Yonge Street, Suite 220
Toronto, ONT M2N-6S3
Tel. 416-818-5444

In the United Kingdom

UK Friends of the Ariel University Center of Samaria
c/o Education in Israel Trust
90 Northgate, Regents Park
London, NW8-7EJ

In Europe (Continental)

European Friends of the Ariel University Center of Samaria

Chomsky on May 1968 or was that 1973?


[h/t Oliver Kamm]

Noam Chomsky recently penned a short article on the 1968 uprisings for the New Statesman. In this article, the events of 1968 are presented as the impetus for human rights, “an international global solidarity movement,” and even environmentalism. In short, the social movements that exist today are a direct result of the events of 1968. But, given that this is Chomsky, he focuses less on what he views as the positive developments of the moment than the nefarious political forces operating behind the scenes. In standard fashion, he focuses on the actions of the Trilateral Commission.

The main gist of the piece is something we’ve been reading from Chomsky for a long time. Unaccountable political and corporate elites were outraged by the urban riots of the late 1960s (in Chomsky’s parlance, “too much participation of the masses”) and so they bolstered the institutions of consensual domination “schools, churches” to keep us in our place, etc. etc. etc.

Never mind the fact that—as Kamm points out, and is easily found on the organization’s website—the Trilateral Commission was not formed until 1973. Never mind that it was American voters who wanted law and order in the face of the “participation” that Chomsky lauds. But what is the matter of inconvenient facts to intrude on Chomsky’s scholarly interpretation?

We also get a glimpse into the myopic mindset of the radical left and what they view as democracy. Faced with a failure of a mass anti-war movement to develop, Chomsky notes:

[W]ith the Iraq War, opposition was there from the very beginning, before an attack was even initiated. The Iraq War was the first conflict in western history in which an imperialist war was massively protested against before it had even been launched…In 1968, it was way out in the margins of society to even discuss the possibility of withdrawal from Vietnam. Now, every presidential candidate mentions withdrawal from Iraq as a real policy choice…There is also far greater opposition to oppression now than there was before [emphasis mine].

I see absolutely no proof of this. If there was, people like Chomsky and his ilk would be speaking out and writing more about the actual large-scale human rights violations taking place on this planet in places like Zimbabwe, Burma and Darfur. Sometimes I wonder if these people are simply delusional or if they are being manipulative. Maybe it’s a bit of both.


Hitchens, Hymowitz, Stern and others in the City Journal (Spring, Vol 18, No. 2).

Jean-Claude Guillebaud, “France’s Bright Shining Lie

Perhaps more than an ambiguity, it was an irony of history. The real legacy of May ’68, as we see in France today, is individualism, the rejection of civic sense and ideology, the rehabilitation of the idea that personal and financial success is a worthy pursuit — in short, a revival of capitalism. To borrow an expression of Lenin’s, we were useful idiots. Indeed, the uprising was more a counterrevolution than a revolution.

The New Criterion: Special Section on Education


The recent edition of The New Criterion has a special section concerning education. I’ve only had a chance to read Paquette’s article but all of them look interesting:

Introduction: What was a liberal education?

by Roger Kimball

An introduction to our special issue on education.


On the sadness of higher education

by Alan Charles Kors

On comparing the university life then with now.


The world we have lost: a parable on the academy

by Robert L. Paquette

On the Alexander Hamilton Center affair at Hamilton College.


The new learning that failed

by Victor Davis Hanson

On the value of classical learning.


Liberalism vs. humanism

by James Piereson

On the battle between learning for the sake of learning and learning for utility.


The age of educational romanticism

by Charles Murray

On requiring every child to be above average.