728 x 90

The Chain Reaction of Academic Lying

An uneasy relationship with the truth seems especially prevalent in America’s most prestigious schools. Ambitious academics quickly realize that upward mobility requires a knack for convincing deceit. Long gone are the days when brilliant scholarship was the ticket to moving up the ladder. The provost who can say with a straight face, “all of our students are equally capable of excelling in computer engineering” is a man soon to be short-listed for the school’s presidency.

Lying in the academy is similar to Leo Szilard’s insight on atoms, which are increasingly split until their release of energy theoretically equals that of an A-bomb. In higher education, a single lie is too embarrassingly self-evident and therefore must be obscured by a second lie which, in turn requires four additional lies and, eventually, a torrent of lies to bury the initial falsehood. But, instead of the release of energy, the output of these layers of lies is an explosion of bureaucracy and turgid, dishonest reports.

The lie starts with one academic dean, who begets two associate deans, who in turn produce four assistant deans and before you know it, armies of special assistants, project coordinators, and administrative assistants. Committees proliferate, staff is hired, and thick reports come forth, but none of this has anything to do with creating knowledge.

This chain reaction of mendacity is most evident when universities are confronted by accusations of racial discrimination in admission. The reality is self-evident: blacks receive substantial preferences and Asians are penalized. Such racial discrimination is, of course, unconstitutional and unfair but no matter, universities for decades have routinely denied this plain-to-see reality.

The college president fires the first mendacity particle into the nucleus: everybody admitted to his institution meets the highest standard, and the incoming freshman class has been carefully “crafted” to reflect a range of backgrounds to maximize every student’s educational experiences. Trusted subordinates then explain how the school will develop the heretofore hidden talents of students with low test scores who will, assuredly, now thrive thanks to all the stellar support services. The loyal legal department twists or hides smoking gun statistical evidence exposing these preferences, or just insists without a scintilla of evidence that admission policies are “broadly consistent” with court rulings since they reflect the admittee’s contribution to his community and leadership potential.

Meanwhile freshly hired campus bureaucrats offer up convoluted “research” demonstrating how blacks are struggling in STEM courses due to their instructors’ prejudices, or how minority students have been denied access to high schools offering advanced calculus. If the handful of minority admittees are overwhelmed academically, the university announces it will double or even triple their numbers on campus to achieve a critical mass of such students, as if reaching yet deeper into the application pool will boost classroom performances. A committee is tasked with fixing the “too-white” physics department, though nobody can explain how physics is too white.

Elsewhere, campaigns are launched to end racially tinged micro-aggressions, purge the names of racist donors on buildings, and remove all inanimate objects that hinder black students from achieving their full potential. Everybody receives mandatory anti-racism training. If asked why all the effort to only target blacks, or why it will work as advertised, “rooting out systemic racism is not easy or cheap” is the answer. End of permissible discussions.

In such an environment, why agonize over what is true or false? Better to just sense which way the ideological wind is blowing and follow the politically correct mob. It will not be easy to reverse a culture where War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and where keeping the campus peace is a college president’s most notable accomplishment.

Perhaps we should return to an earlier era when leadership required the display of physical courage. Why not require all candidates for university positions to announce in a public forum, “I have read and fully understand Charles Murray’s Facing Reality,” a book which offers copious data on race-related differences in IQ, violent crime, and the damage due to affirmative action, “and I would be happy to answer any questions”? To be sure, the winning job candidate may lie, and if he gained the position, would still promote illegal racial preferences. Nevertheless, his or her performance before the politically correct mob may help cull the worst of the worst so those in university life will no longer suffer by pretending to embrace blatant lies.

Dear Readers,

Big Tech is suppressing our reach, refusing to let us advertise and squelching our ability to serve up a steady diet of truth and ideas. Help us fight back by becoming a member for just $5 a month and then join the discussion on Parler @CharlemagneInstitute and Gab @CharlemagneInstitute!

Image Credit: 
Pixabay

2 comments

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

2 Comments

  • Avatar
    Joe
    September 27, 2022, 4:10 pm

    Modern academics in a field like, say, that discipline formerly called, "Orientalism", which provided the theories of the "Germans are Aryans" nonsense, along with many more equally absurd theories that did not end with genocide.

    The idea that there was a school of philosophy that is accurately described as "Neoplatonism" in the 3-4th century AD when the truth is that this fictitious school of philosophy was invented by academia and includes philosophers who were adversaries of one another while pretending that they were of the same school of thought.

    Plotinus, the honorary founder of this fake school, according to Porphyry his most famous student, followed no school of philosophy but his own.

    It is pretended that Christianity, Islam and Judaism were "influenced" by the "neoplatonists" often but in reality Plotinus was unknown to the Muslim world, his work apparently being abridged and attributed to Aristotle. Al-Kindi was the first and only Muslim who was interested enough in this book to write about. The "Philosopher of the Arabs" was mentioned by An-Nadim as having wrote a commentary on the Theology of Aristotle. This book was not popular in the Muslim world. Augustine despised Plotinus, Porphyry and Plato and other than a few individual Jews and Muslims like Maimon and Ibn Sina, philosophy in general was looked upon as speculative at best, entirely erroneous at worst, by the majority of the adherents of all 3 religions.

    Academics have been on a mission for hundreds of years to cast the ancient Hellenes as a great nation in antiquity when in fact Hellas or Greece was never a single, united nation until it was annexed by the Macedonians, into the Kingdom of Macedonia. It remained a territory of the dominant local powers until the 1800’s when powerful European nations supported the secession of the nation now known as Greece from the Sultanate of the Turks.

    As an identity "Hellene" ceased to be used by any Christians, who preferred to be Roman and Christian and saw the Hellenes as a defunct sect of pagans. Which is accurate.

    REPLY
  • Avatar
    Joe
    September 27, 2022, 4:30 pm

    Recently I read some Greek author using the Alexiad of Anna Komnena to argue that the Romans of the Eastern Roman Empire, who spoke the Hellenic language, actually identified AS HELLENES themselves, simply because when Anba writes about the Pre-Christian, ancient Hellenes, she refers to them as Hellenes. He ignored the fact that she often calls herself a Roman and never calls herself or anyone from her time, "Greek." No Christian is ever called a Greek by Anna.

    It could not be more clear that her use of the term Hellene is restricted to the heathen Greeks before they became Roman Christians.

    The first Apologists, Quadratus, Justin, Aristides, and authors like Tatian and Clement of Alexandria clearly equate the word Hellene with heathen or pagan. In fact the "Exhortation to the Ellinas" by Clement is called, in translation, "Exhortation to the Heathens."

    The fact that Hellene was synonymous with pagan to Jews and Christians is not unknown to scholars, who prefer to dismiss it as "religious bias" while not commenting on the fact that most of the first Christians writing in Greek, were converts from Hellenism who were certainly qualified to judge the character of the culture they renounced.

    This is not only a feature of Greek language Christian literature. All ancient Christians, in whatever language, whether calling them Greeks, Hellenes or Ionians, know that they were pagans, polytheists and heathens.

    Porphyry (real name Malakh) was Aramaean. He belonged to the Hellenes in matters of religion and philosophy but was a Semite, not a Hellene or white or European. Nevertheless he is considered one of the last great "Greek" philosophers. Pythagoras was from the middle east and taught in Italy.

    Tatian of Assyria was another Semite who was a Hellene, before he converted to Christianity.

    After which he was no longer Greek. Like Aristides of Athens or Clement of Alexandria, he converted from the Hellenes to the Christians.

    You don’t see people converting from ethnicities, it is simply not possible. If you could quit being Greek, being Greek was optional.

    Unlike being a Roman or Syrian or Egyptian or Macedonian, being a Hellene was optional.

    REPLY

Posts Carousel