On 24 Oct 2001, at 22:29, Kakki wrote: > > > Did you read the introduction?
I did read the introduction. I've also read other commentary about the book, both favorable and unfavorable. And most of the commentary seems to point to examples in the book of student cases since the whole anti-PC movement began (roughly around 1990). So personally, I will be more inclined to buy the connection to the 60's as outlined in the introduction, if it is about more than speech codes and the "PC" era because I'm of the opinion that the PC phenomenon is not of a Marxist origin. And it's a far cry from totalitarianism in my book. I really would love to see the case made with examples from the 60's on, not just from the 90's. On the campus where I attended college, "political correctness" and multiculturalism was a response to blatant and acknowledged racist acts by the administration, campus police and students. The trouble is that it has gone too far in the other direction. What I've read so far about the book leads me to believe that the writers make their case that individual liberties have been compromised by speech codes and that there is a lack of due process on campus. However, I want to see how they prove the re-education to collectivism. These are two separate things to me. I'll let you know what I think after I read it. You mentioned that you did not > experience any of this in college in the 80s, and I wonder if maybe that > influence was dampened a bit in the Reagan years. Wasn't being a preppie/yuppie > kind of the "in" thing at that point? Maybe certain teachers felt a little > buried in the "capitalist" avalanche of those years ;-) lol! You've got to be kidding.... I was in college from '84-'88 and in my crowd being a "yuppie" was considered shallow. And I was Republican! ; ) I don't think anything was dampened. I think it just wasn't there. In fact there were plenty of capitalists among the faculty who didn't hesitate to spin their positions to get hefty fees for speaking engagements. And some of them had really amazing book deals! ; ) > > I mentioned to Kate that I would research more evidence to support my points but > that it would take some time. I cannot write a total thesis on this overnight > or provide you with extensive examples immediately. What concerns me, however, > is that even if I did send reams of reams of evidence, it would not convince > some people and then I have to go around and around again. It's not the end of > the world for me not to have people believe it's true. I wish more people would > acknowledge it, even though it may go against their ideals, but at some point > it's maybe just something people have to come to know on their own. I think the question is what are we acknowledging. Hell, there are people who spend their every day working lives studying and writing position papers on this stuff. We are certainly not going to be able to contribute to the canon in our spare time in the wee small hours of the morning! And nor should we feel obligated to. I happen to enjoy these discussions, but changing minds is not on my agenda. Exposure to new people and new ideas is what I'm after. And if it's not fun...<delete>. Brenda n.p.: Leno
