“How can you say such things!” This German student, whose name I no longer remember, was angry at Patrick Burke, our graduate school professor. It wasn’t that he thought Patrick was saying something wrong. He was convinced in his mind that what Patrick was saying was true, but this was unacceptable to him.
His response was, “I can see that what you are saying is true, but if I go back to Germany and say these kinds of things I will not have a job, and I will disappoint those who sent me here.” His concern was for his career and for the response of those he was going back to in Germany. The truth was immaterial, and by presenting truth that was unacceptable, Professor Burke was creating problems.
This overwhelming concern about careerism is one of the things that put me off in the academic world. I had thought, going in, that this was a place where truth mattered, that if one made a strong argument others who disagreed would be expected to respond with a counter argument. But I found just the opposite; that truth is fine, as long as it remains within acceptable boundaries; unacceptable truth is subjected to outrage, not counter arguments.
The concern about maintaining one’s career led to a lack of courage which, it seems to me, has continued to characterize much of the academic world today. Making an argument really doesn’t count for anything unless that argument supports the “correct” point of view, and making an unacceptable argument, even one that seems inescapably true, often endangers one’s career, with the result that very many academics are unwilling to ask questions that might lead to unacceptable ends.
This student had a strong sense of obligation to the community of those who had sent him to America to study. “If I go back to Germany and say these kinds of things, I will betray those who sent me here.” But this is a troubling sort of community. They will only welcome him back if he continues to think in ways that they find acceptable. If pursuing the truth leads him outside of this acceptable range he will no longer be welcome as a member of the community.
But what kind of community is this, really? It appears to lead to a sort of bondage in which one doesn’t have the freedom to think, to pursue the truth wherever it might lead. It requires closing one’s mind to anything that the “community” might not approve of. This is what Richard Neuhaus described as the “herd of independent minds.” This is what soured me on the idea of becoming an academic and still today causes me to have a negative view of the academic world. Not because I am opposed to education or the life of the mind, but because I no longer believe the environment of the academic community is intellectually healthy. It’s a place where one is expected to toe the line and think like other academics think.
I was actually shocked at this guy’s honesty. I know he didn’t plan any of this in advance. It took him by surprise to find himself agreeing with what Professor Burke was saying. The usual thing would have been to respond with something more like a sneer. But he didn’t. He spoke honestly and clearly, said he believed the argument was good and that what Patrick was saying was true; his point was that the truth was unacceptable to the people he had to answer to. So, to his credit, he responded with honesty, and the conflict led him to anger. I wonder what became of him. I assume he went back to Germany and became a professor. But did this conflict continue to plague him in the back of his mind, or was he able, eventually, to squash it in the interest of happily pursuing his career?
No comments:
Post a Comment