Splitting the Baby at Kennesaw State

After much haggling, the baby has finally arrived. Kennesaw State University recently announced the birth of a new department of “Odds and Ends Radicalism.” Actually, the official tile is the “Interdisciplinary Studies Department.” In any event, this is a huge improvement over what was originally proposed.

As an active participant in the controversy that led to this development, I feel impelled to make some observations. Much time and effort went into making a decision intended to be wise, but that, in fact, did what King Solomon only threatened. At KSU, the authorities actually split the baby; they did not merely offer to do so.

Mind you, this was a step forward. Interim Provost Ken Harmon has been quoted as saying he gave my objections a “fair hearing”—and he did. But he did more. He also changed that name of the new department so that it does not directly jeopardize my home discipline of sociology and he reduced its intended funding. As importantly, he designated a genuine academic as the initial chair.

All this was a concession to my side of the debate. But the other side got something as well. Most notably, they were awarded the department they desired with all of the legitimacy this implies. They also—despite protestations to the contrary—received scarce institutional resources not otherwise available.

The idea was evidently to make everyone happy. My department’s existence was removed from the chopping block, while a large and vociferous professorial constituency had its central demand honored.

That should be the end of the matter, only it isn’t. It might seem the KSU administration only used common sense. After all, if a large number of faculty members believe materials worth teaching, why not let them. Moreover, if these are already being offered, why not draw them together under a single roof? Where’s the harm?

At first blush, the choice is between offering the courses in question—or not offering them. Nevertheless that is a false dichotomy. The real question is not whether to teach these subjects, but how to teach them. The central issue is maintaining academic integrity in the face of an ideological challenge.

The question that must be asked is this: What is the point of gathering such disparate subjects as women’s studies, peace studies, environmental studies, and African and African Diaspora studies, in the same department? What do they have in common that justifies the grouping?

The answer is stupefying obvious. Their most determined partisans are all committed to what they would characterize as a “social justice” agenda—as defined by a left wing perspective. They regard themselves as moral people who have a duty to enlighten students about what is right and wrong.

Given this attitude, the courses they provide will clearly be more moralistic than academic. And yet there is an alternative. If instead of subsuming these topics under a deliberatively value-oriented heading, they are allocated according to their subject matter, the incentives on how to construct them differ. As a result, they would be more neutral and academically valid.

For instance, if environmental studies were assigned to the geographers, in all probability they would teach it from a geographical perspective. Similarly, if African and African Diaspora studies were assigned to the anthropologists, they would emphasize the cultural aspects. In both cases the materials would be taught—albeit on a more academically sound footing.

As things stand, little has been gained by capitulating to the professorial activists. If asked, these academics would affirm their dedication to promoting “critical thinking.” Yet, the details of their ideological agenda confirm the opposite. Their fundamental goal is not learning, but social reform.

In the end, academic integrity and the needs of KSU students have been sacrificed for the sake of institutional peace. But as Winston Churchill said with regard to his colleagues who decided to appease Adolf Hitler, in the final analysis they lost both their integrity and the peace.

The bottom line: Splitting babies does not produce viable offspring. It surely does not promote academic honesty.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Entitlements and the Dependency Culture

Decades ago, when I worked for New York City’s Department of Welfare, one of my duties was to visit clients in their homes. The goal was to verify that they were genuinely eligible for our services. But this task was very depressing. It required me to wallow in human misery at first hand.

All too often, I entered dilapidated tenements to call on multi-generational families mired in poverty. Frequently, once inside, a grandmother, a mother and a daughter could be found living in squalor. As per the cliché, the hallway was urine-soaked, the apartment littered with dirty clothing, and half-eaten food sat on a rickety kitchen table.

Many times, the daughter would herself be pregnant. Soon she would add another child to the many already running around the apartment screaming at the top of their lungs. When asked who the father was, she was liable to shrug her shoulders and murmur she was not sure.

If, in the midst of this chaos, I suggested that someone in the family consider preparing for a job, the reaction was revulsion. Then they would explain why. First of all, no jobs were available. Second, they did not possess the qualifications. But third, there was no way they were going to give up “their check.” The money was theirs, they were entitled to it, and I was out of line asking them to risk its loss.

What I was witnessing was the misery of dependency. Sociologists have long documented that extended reliance on public assistance robs people of their initiative. Instead of trying to improve their situation, they accept its shortcomings as unavoidable. They therefore do nothing, in the belief there is nothing to be done.

Even Franklin Roosevelt realized that giving people free money tempts them to be helpless. Nevertheless it is difficult to blame the recipients. An old adage has it that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and they are not about to release the bird they have firmly in hand.

It was heartbreaking to watch so many people destroying their own opportunities, however we are today in the midst of a greater dependency crisis; one that has penetrated to the core of our culture. Moreover, it too can be laid at the feet of government entitlement programs. At present, it is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security that are destroying the chances of millions. And as before, their victims cling to what seems common sense.

Recently, Republicans have been accused of seeking to “kill” Medicare and Social Security. They responded by arguing that they are merely trying to save these programs, but with mixed results. So far, for many, the mere prospect of modifying these entitlements is tantamount to dismantling them.

And what do these critics say, especially the older ones? They declare that they “paid for their benefits and therefore deserve them.” As far as they are concerned, they are a literal entitlement. Many also insist that they have an ironclad contract with the government that must be honored.

What these complainants refuse to recognize, however, is that the government is going broke and in time the bills cannot be paid. Nor do those who grumble perceive themselves as passively dependent like my welfare clients. They too are unwilling to make changes on the grounds that they merit free money. Oh yes, they insist these are their own funds because they contributed to the system, but they neglect the fact that they will receive far more than they paid.

Nonetheless, the biggest problem is that what they want will have more tragic consequences than welfare dependency. My clients back then were ruining their own lives through misplaced greed, whereas today’s freeloaders are ruining the prospects of an entire nation. Because they refuse to see the implications of their desires, they are willing to condemn everyone to financial ruin.

Worst of all are my elderly peers who, although reassured their own benefits will not be touched, are adamant on doing nothing. They should be ashamed that they are condemning their own grandchildren to poverty, but many seem not to have noticed. They are so busy holding on to what must inevitably be relinquished that they fool themselves into believing everything will be all right.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Waving the Bloody Shirt

To hear vice president Joe Biden tell it, Barack Obama is our most courageous president since George Washington exposed himself to British fire during the Battle of Monmouth. In making the decision to send the Seals to kill Osama bin Laden, he presumably demonstrated a degree of bravery above and beyond the call of duty.

In addition, his valor in achieving this success is said to underline the courage he has exhibited during his entire presidency. After all, he was equally heroic in fighting for ObamaCare, in the initiating the stimulus package, and in defending the Tarp bailout. Moreover, so valiant has he been that it is the duty of every American to reelect him.

All of this, of course, ignores the courage shown by earlier presidents. It disregards George W. Bush’s daring in launching the Iraqi surge despite warnings it would fail; it discounts Ronald Reagan’s audacity in utilizing a recession to wring inflation out of our economy, and it overlooks John Kennedy’ steady nerves in facing down the Russians during the Cuban missile crisis.

While it is true that Obama deserves credit for taking out the man most responsible for al Qaeda, how much praise has he earned? There was indeed a chance the raid would explode and he would look as bad as Jimmy Carter did when the attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages failed. There was also that possibility he would incur the ire of the Pakistanis—with dire consequences.

Nevertheless, what were his alternatives? Rather than a commando raid, he could have ordered the bombing of Osama’s compound. In this case, there were two possibilities. Either he killed our number one enemy, or he did not. If the former, Osama would have been just as dead. If the latter, failure was always on the table.

In either scenario, the Pakistanis were liable to be dismayed by our violating their territory. Therefore this did not distinguish the two attack options. The only real difference was that the Seal operation could capture useful documents—which it did. This, it must be admitted, was of real value.

Or, alternatively, the president could have decided to do nothing. But was this a real option? Given the way government secrets leak, this decision would surely have become public knowledge. And if it did, what would have been the reaction? No doubt the man who boasted that he would follow Usama into any cave in order to get him would have looked like a world-class hypocrite.

Furthermore, the chances of failure were nowhere near as great as during the Carter fiasco. We must keep in mind that the distances were not as great and that there were no hostages to extract. This meant that the odds appearing incompetent were drastically reduced.

In any event, the Republicans were appropriately gracious in acknowledging Obama’s success. Despite this many Democrats seem determined to take advantage of their courtesy. Yet the president’s accomplishment should not be elevated to the equivalent of storming the beaches of Normandy. What the president did was sensible, but there was little else he could have done. Yes, pulling the trigger took courage, but not very much.

So why the great ballyhooing of his triumph? The answer can be found in the wake of the Civil War. For decades after the guns fell silent when Republican candidates were in trouble, they “waved the bloody shirt.” In this, they sought to remind voters of their valor in winning that conflict. They needed to be elected this time because of what they did then.

Obama’s partisans are now waving their own bloody shirt. They too want their man to be perceived as usually courageous. The trouble is there is precious little blood on the garment they are waving. Once people take a closer look at it, they may realize it is more theater than substance.

Americans have notoriously short memories. They are also easily diverted. But will they forget that ObamaCare was foisted on the nation in the dark of night. Or will they be seduced into believing the Democratic stimulus package “saved or created” three million jobs when their own pockets are empty? Or realize that the president has no proposals from saving the nation from bankruptcy?

Time will tell.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University