« Founders College? | Main | Election 2006: The war »
September 05, 2006
NS touches a nerve
My post asking critical questions about the new Founders College proposal has raised the dander of some internet critics. I expected there to be disagreement among cheerleaders for the project, but I didn't quite expect condemnation.
Over at the "Forum for Ayn Rand Fans," Stephen Speicher wrote the following:
"[I]nteresting perspective" would not be my choice of words. That piece is one extended smear by implication and innuendo. And, as it has so properly been characterized to me by another, it is a piece worthy of modern skeptics. Note the skeptic's favorite epistemological trick: arbitrary questions designed to instill doubt in the unfocused reader.The "interesting perspective" of that piece is worthy of the tabloid journals, not mention on THE FORUM. I only allow the reference now so that those who would be so unfortunate to see it anyway, have the benefit of my relegating that piece to the trash heap in which it belongs.
Perhaps Mr. Speicher thinks he is refusing to sanction my post by not deigning to justify his conclusion that it is "trash," but it is hard to see how anyone could justify that conclusion.
It is claimed that my piece is "smear." This is a curious, question-begging charge. A "smear" is a slanderous defamation of someone's reputation, a malicious falsehood spread to hurt the good name of another. The point of my post is precisely to question whether there is evidence that the Founders principals have earned the kind of reputation needed for their project, as many Objectivists presume they do. It is not a "smear" to ask for the evidence of someone's reputation. And it is not helpful to respond to such inquiries by alleging malicious intent of the inquirer, rather than providing the evidence he seeks.
More importantly, it is claimed that my piece relies on the use of arbitrary questions intended to induce skeptical doubts. This is a maddeningly ironic response. The "arbitrary" is the defiance of the need for evidence. The point of my post was precisely to ask for evidence of how the Founders project could possibly achieve its stated goals, given what we know about its available resources. Now it would be arbitrary to wonder whether Founders is lying about its financial resources or whether it might really be planning on being an Objectivist college after all. There is no special reason to raise these doubts. But there is a special reason to ask for evidence that Founders' goal of "igniting an education revolution" can be achieved: the fact that given what we know, this is a very difficult goal to achieve, particularly for individuals with no established record of success on such matters, and particularly given the kind of obstacles Founders has erected for itself (e.g. the rejection of the tenure system). In fact, given everything we know, it would be arbitrary to give this project the benefit of the doubt--which is what many (at least on the internet) seem to be doing.
"Tabloid journalism" is sensationalistic, non-objective reporting. Ask yourself who in this matter is making the sensationalistic unverified claims.
Posted by admin at September 5, 2006 03:02 PM
Comments
Seeing that response was the main reason I chimed in to agree on the comments of your original post (espec. since it was disallowed on that forum). I certainly hope that members of Mr. Speicher's forum are critical of his assertions even if they cannot say so there.
Posted by: msb ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.noumenalself.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 5, 2006 06:16 PM
I don't agree with everything you've said about Founder's College, but you clearly pointed to evidence and made an argument. I do agree, furthermore, that nobody should leap onto the Founder's College bandwagon without thinking about it. I may not agree with particular points that you've made, but you are to be lauded, not condemned, for speaking up and encouraging Objectivists to think critically.
Posted by: Daniel Schwartz at September 5, 2006 07:00 PM
In response to NS's critics. The reasons to think that Founders will not be a good school are not mere speculation. Providing a quality education requires more than good intentions: it requires ideas and skills that there is no evidence that the founders possess. Indeed, their web site provides strong evidence that they do not possess them. People who have serious and viable ideas about how to accomplish something ambitious do not trade in vague clams about how wonderful they are, without providing the content necessary to evaluate their self-assessments. Founders, on the other hand, claims that its curriculum and faculty are superlative and revolutionary without telling us anything substantive about them. This action counts as positive evidence of mediocrity.
Because Founders has been associated with Objectivism in numerous news articles and web posts, it is an embarrassment to Objectivists who recognize the bizarre and subjective nature of the venture. This embarrassment is heightened by the enthusiasm found for Founders in several Objectivist web forums and by the lack of any public criticism of the venture from Objectivists. The embarrassment I speak of is not just a feeling. It is a recognition of the fact that a negative impression of Objectivists is created in the mind of a reasonable reader by the material about Founders on the web.
Imagine an intelligent student who has recently read Atlas Shrugged, and wants to learn more about Objectivism. After hearing about Founders though his Google News Alert on Ayn Rand, he visits their web site and is (properly) put off by its content. He knows from the news reports the founder of the College has taught classes for ARI, and he finds that the denizens of Objectivist web sights are enthusiastic about the project. The student is unlikely to abandon his study of Objectivism, but he might be more reluctant to attend an Objectivist conference or to take classes from ARI. Consider in the same way the case of a businessman who is considering becoming an ARI contributor. Or, think about the most reasonable sort of non-Objectivist professor, the kind that might be interested in learning more about Ayn Rand or in sponsoring a Anthem or BB&T program at his institution. He will surely be disturbed by the Founders web page, and if he learns of Hull's relation to ARI and the BB&T-funded program at Duke, might be more reluctant to have dealings with Objectivist organizations, or to take Objectivist intellectuals seriously. Thus we can see how the subjective nature of Founders drives away from Objectivists the sort of people that we want to attract. Probably the damage isn't irreversible in any of these cases, but it is real, and it would be mitigated if it were more generally known that many Objectivists are not enthusiastic about Founders.
Whatever the merits of his individual points, and whatever defects there may be in his tone, Noumenalself has done us a service by showing that not all Objectivists support Founders College and by giving voice to some of the reasons why so many of us do not. Founders is not important enough to crusade against. It's not even the most embarrassing project that's related in some way with Objectivism. (_The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies_, for example is worse.) But it is a good thing that some popular Objectivist web sites now contain criticisms of the venture.
(P.S. To head-off a possible confusion: An action or product can be subjective, without the actor being a subjectivist or a bad person.)
Posted by: GS at September 7, 2006 10:16 PM
NS raised perfectly legitimate questions. If anyone wanted to support Founders, they would work to see that those questions were answered.
Posted by: JO at September 25, 2006 05:15 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)