then don’t take the money or don’t teach the class.... wah.

i have a strange feeling, a gift that qould require das kapital wouldn’t be met with such resistance.

K.T., at 8:00 am EST on February 27, 2008

rand and the syllabus

So, who IS John Gault? The possible answers may surprise the right-wing.

The issue is not which book is being required since most faculty present multiple points of view in classes such as those being funded. The issue is the buying and selling of the syllabus, yet another indication of the commodification of ‘education.’

If education is data/content to be bought and sold on the ‘free’ market, then what happens to the challeges that spark the intellect when the spark does not sell to the general population? The John Gaults of the world opt out, leaving the world to the accountants, the corporate mananges and to both the neo-cons and neo-liberals

theron, at 9:00 am EST on February 27, 2008

So Jane Warner worries that “you could see neo-Nazis giving money and saying that you have to teach Mein Kampf.“

What is the matter with these people?

Academic freedom means one can turn down “Mein Kampf” or “Das Kapital", or accept “Atlas Shrugged” or “The Wealth of Nations” should they be attached to any donation agreement. Choice has not been removed, anymore than it has been removed from students.

Do the academics think that they have some special knowledge about how money should be spent— knowledge that supersedes the judgment of the donor? What extraordinary arrogance not to mention a disregard for those who own the money in the first place!

Atlas Shrugged shows and contrasts reason, reality, individual achievement, production and virtue, with unreason, the imaginary, individual sacrifice (both voluntary & coerced) and looting. Is it this clarity of focus to which academics (&, Larry, who’s ‘argument’ is a mere smear) object? Or are they concerned that their intellectual control, a kind of power they enjoy over others, might be undermined? Furthermore, the decision was not theirs to make, another loss of power.

Rand has often pointed out that many academics want to have their cake and eat it too. Opponents to the BB&T donation are unwittingly putting themselves up as examples of that mentality. Accepting a donation and admitting Rand’s reason into their academic culture must be quite a threat.

RnBram, at 10:10 am EST on February 27, 2008

The broader issue

Does one have to be a fan of Ayn Rand just to read Atlas Shrugged, and talk about her philosophy? Are opponents of Atlas Shrugged so afraid of its possible corrupting influence that no school—state or private—should be encouraged or allowed to use it in a course? And is it really such a terrible thing to enrich a bland curriculum with an elective course paid for by a donor, with strings? Or is it possibly the broader philosophy of libertarianism—and its anti-welfare state tendencies—that so infuriates critics from the left? Would a course examining libertarianism—neutrally, one would at least hope—spark a similar uproar? Remember, Rand herself rejected the label, but the book—whether viewed as medicore or excellent—expresses many of its principles. State schools seem to have no qualms about teaching required courses with “approved” texts—or approving syllabi with texts those right of center find objectionable. Does academic freedom these days mean that ONLY the wise, benevolent state—or those who worship it— may place such a stipulation? Sometimes I weep for the future of a world in which only the shrill and narrow-minded “intellectuals” who reject Rand—without having read her, of course, or thought very deeply about her implications—reserve the right to set the standards, and so loudly pontificate. Whatever happened to a free and frank debate over competing ideas in the academic arena?

Ben, at 10:10 am EST on February 27, 2008

I’m glad to see that Atlas Shrugged is being taught in more colleges. Though I may not be as smart or sophisticated as Larry or Pickle Puss, I find her novels inspiring and her ideas profound. Since there are Objectivist (I.e. Randian) philosophers at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Texas (top philosophy departments), it’s fair to say her ideas are taken more seriously than other comments would like to admit.

Mike, at 10:10 am EST on February 27, 2008

Numbers (ooh!)

Brute-force analysis, via Google (soft-side academics, beware):

“Karl Marx” in.edu domain: 68,600 references.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=e...22+site%3Aedu&btnG=Google+Search

“Ayn Rand” — 14,700

http://www.google.com/search?num=...n+Rand%22+site%3Aedu&btnG=Search

Communism — 183,000

http://www.google.com/search?num=...communism+site%3Aedu&btnG=Search

Objectivism — 12,600

http://www.google.com/search?num=...jectivism+site%3Aedu&btnG=Search

Clayton’s friend, at 10:20 am EST on February 27, 2008

No requirement about HOW to teach Atlas Shrugged? So, one could teach it as a case study in cardboard-cutout characters who are either totally virtuous or completely depraved? Or as a case study in the need for a good editor to keep what might have been an interesting novella from becoming a doorstop?

drew, at 10:40 am EST on February 27, 2008

Triumph of Reason and Choice

So we can all conclude that Clayton, RnBram, and Ben have no issue with, say, a college with fundraising ambitions or just plain old financial need that *initiates* the offer to require whatever books a donor chooses to be taught in one of its courses. No problem if the Saudi royal family makes a donation like this one requiring that the Koran must be taught in the college’s religion department? “Free market,” right?

An Old Goat, at 10:50 am EST on February 27, 2008

This is not about academic freedom

Professor Warner is misrepresenting the BB&T grant, distorting it into seeming like a threat to academic freedom.

“You could see neo-Nazis giving money and saying that you have to teach Mein Kampf.” By analogy, Professor Warner is saying that Marshall has sold its soul, giving up control over the curriculum in exchange for money. In reality, BB&T is offering a simple deal: if you will include Atlas Shrugged in your curriculum, we will give you $1 million dollars. Once Marshall has decided that it will include the book, BB&T has no more say in the matter. They have no control.

The opponents to the grant claim that you are opening the door to the forced inclusion of Mein Kampf and Communist Manifesto. That’s silly. All a Nazi or Communist donor could do is offer money for the inclusion, at which point it is up to Marshall whether that’s something they want to do.

The article notes that the opponents dislike Atlas Shrugged. You have to wonder if that’s the actual cause of their objection. In that case, Professor Warner and the like should be making their case on their criticism of the book’s merits, not by carelessly tossing around serious accusations.

Randal, at 11:00 am EST on February 27, 2008

Nothing new here, really

Donors frequently fund new endowed professorships in a specific field—say, Civil War history—so they are already influencing the curriculum with money. Doing the same for a specific book may look like a shift from established practice, but it isn’t really (though it sounds like a cheaper route to influencing the curriculum).

Details covering things such as how the book must be taught, or forcing the school to offer the book even if no professor wants to teach it, could constitute a problem, but the basic principle is already well-established.

Dance, at 11:25 am EST on February 27, 2008

Not buying Utah

” .. Pastramin on rye cross-referenced with.edu-867 results-are you suggesting that there is an anti-pastrami bias in academia?”

At least (1) an inability to spell and display correctly and (2) to post URLs properly.

Then again, “close enough for government work” has been the motto of public academia for at least 25 years, so what the heck. Everyone knows; it shows.

This work, res ipsa. And for future funding.

Clayton’s friend, at 11:55 am EST on February 27, 2008

a troubling case

There are good reasons to be alarmed at this gift.

For a chapter in a book on the value of the humanities that I’m currently writing, I have done a fair bit of research on the nexus of BB & T’s CEO, the Program for Values and Ethics in the Marketplace at Duke, and the Ayn Rand Institute. While it is true that the gift may not explicitly mandate _how_ _Atlas Shrugged_ is to be taught, rest assured that, given the source of the gift and the person teaching it at Marshall, that it will be taught very positively. And in a very uncritical way, I fear.

My worries stem from prior example—that is, the BB & T-bankrolled classes taught in the VEM program at Duke. The syllabi posted online made clear the profound biases of these courses, as did the fact that the faculty teaching the courses are both spokesmen for the Ayn Rand Institute, the most active and doctrinaire of the many Objectivist groups out there.

I would add that the faculty in History and Philosophy at Duke whom I contacted a few years back were appalled to find out that these courses had been cross-listed in their departments. Without the grant money furnished by BB & T, there would have been no interest in these departments in offering such courses that taught, for example, how U. S. Law had become “anti-objective.” Taught, I would add, by non tenure-track faculty with no appointments in the departments in question.

Now, I think academic freedom demands that there be space in the academy for unpopular ideas. And it certainly is true that in the vast majority of humanities departments, Rand is deeply unpopular. I tend to think this is the case because she is a fifth-rate philosopher and a sixth-rate novelist, though I am now going back and rereading her work as well as the scholarship written on it to make sure I haven’t missed something. But the larger question here is whether without the outside temptation of the grant money these courses would have been taught at all. And, more importantly, I doubt whether in the Duke case there was proper vetting by the duly-appointed authorities on curricula occurred in order to ensure no compromises were made in academic integrity. By “authorities,” I refer to the faculty of the department in question, in consultation with other faculty commitees and academic administrators. Actually, I have been led to believe in the Duke case that there was some mispresentation of the nature of these courses when the philosophy department was approached by the folks in Sociology, where the director of VEM teaches.

Now, if all that has happened or will happen in the case of Marshall—as I believe it did not at Duke—then I have no problem in principle. Many others would still strongly object to Objectivism as a philosophical system, just as many others would object to the teaching of Marxism, and we could have what I hope are productive arguments. That’s what should happen in the academy. Indeed, I hope to contact members of the Ayn Rand Institute and talk with them at greater length about their vision of the world and of humanistic education.

But that assumes a sense of good admnistrative procedure, a vigilance in respect to academic freedom, and a good-faith representation of what’s going on here. And those assumptions may be dangerous ones to make in this case.

researcher, at 12:15 pm EST on February 27, 2008

Eh...teach it as a non-credit course with the textbook limitations right up front.

kgotthardt, at 1:15 pm EST on February 27, 2008

Do I really have to tell you how flawed your methodology is and how meaningless your results are:

Okay-I will-first of all-let’s go to validity-you define “rand” “marx” “objectivism” and “communism” as the only points on the compass and you give no rationale for this. They must as well be as random as pastrami on rye and grilled cheese sandwich.

Also anybody can tack.edu onto their domain name. Both Harvard and University of Phoenix have.edu extensions-are you arguing that they they are equivalent institutions?Second, your “results” are entirely devoid of context-we have no idea what those sites say-either do you.

Please read a book on basic research methodology before you attempt another “study.”

utahprof, Dear Clayton’s Friend, at 1:30 pm EST on February 27, 2008

“’...you could see neo-Nazis giving money and saying that you have to teach Mein Kampf.’

“[George] Davis said that with a different donor, and different donor-approved book, it’s hard to imagine Marshall just going along. ‘I’m assuming we wouldn’t take money from the American Communist Party to require us to teach the Communist Manifesto. That would cause an uproar,’ he said.”

What is noteworthy about these two quotes from the article is that they highlight the underlying thinking that is at the heart of the matter: Academics do not have any standards for judging ideologies (except perhaps what other people think of them). They lack any ability (or desire?) to proclaim any philosophy as correct or incorrect. They freely equate the value of Nazi Facism with that of Communism with that of Objectivism. I wonder if we would be seeing the same “controversy” if BB&T wanted to fund a Calculus class? Obviously not, as Calculus is considered to be objective fact, whereas too many people consider philosophy to be an anything-goes, matter-of-opinion subject. As far as I’m concerned this only further underscores the need for Ms. Rand’s ideas to be taught on as wide a scale as possible.

“Added Goldsmith: ‘Donors should not typically expect to be able to tell the institution what courses they should teach, what the content of those courses should be, or who gets to teach them. Those are academic decisions.’

Then Colleges and Universities should not typically expect to get large donations for programs with which donors are in philosophical disagreement. The thinking of the schools on this one is amazing to me and essentially amounts to “Just give me money and I’ll do what I want with it. Don’t you value my very existence, no matter what form it takes?” It’s high time donors offered a clear and unambiguous “NO.” No one should ever offer a donation to his destroyer.

Robert Reynolds, at 2:00 pm EST on February 27, 2008

Sounds to me like the school has a problem trusting its own faculty’s judgment. The problem isn’t that this offer is being made, but that the school thinks its faculty are too undisciplined to make objective choices.

It would be interesting to hear whether they’re reconsidering activities that draw a lot of alumni contributions as well. These contributions shape what courses and extracurricular activities are offered as well.

Brian M, at 2:25 pm EST on February 27, 2008

More Academic Dishonesty

This issue has nothing to do with academic freedom.

There is no such thing as institutional academic freedom (unless of course it’s the freedom of a university not to be coerced by the government). Academic freedom only relates to individual faculty members. There could only be a violation of academic freedom if a faculty member were required to teach a course that they did not want teach for ideological reasons.

This is just another sad case of left-wing faculty who fear ideas and do not want intellectual diversity on campus. Shame on those faculty at Marshall University who oppose this program.

Peter, More Academic Dishonesty, at 2:50 pm EST on February 27, 2008

The donation is to create a BB&T Center for the Advancement of American Capitalism, not the Center for the Advancement of Straw Men Against Capitalism, which is exactly what it would become without some insurance against Marxist professors (and let’s not kid ourselves, the university has become the new home for Marxism).

If the professors are interested in ethics, as they claim, they should be interested in honesty. Honesty means not faking reality, it means accepting the facts as they are and not as you wish them to be. If Capitalism is so immoral, if you don’t want your students “poisoned” by it, then refute it! Present the case for Capitalism and refute it with facts and reasons. Attempting to intercept and keep from students a knowledge of what Capitalism is – and the philosophic nature of Capitalism is at the heart of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged – is nothing short of fraud. Don’t pretend to be crusaders for truth and then protest at being “forced” to teach it!

BB, at 3:50 pm EST on February 27, 2008

Gee, lot’s of breast-beating here, for what? Even if it there is some conflict with the basic idea of academic freedom, so what? if the faculty member that is teaching it is willing to do so, then where is the real problem?

More importantly, who says anyone will enroll? if it is an elective (and I see nothing to imply otherwise) is it any different than many of the pet courses taught be senior faculty that are little more than nonsense because they are so specific in tiny little fields that only a handful of other faculty in the world care?

It is still market place...let the market place decide. And if Marshall pays someone to teach a class that nobyd enrolls and this person believes in Ayn Rand...it is probably best to pay them to teach no one anyway.

System Office Staff, at 3:50 pm EST on February 27, 2008

academic freedom

I thought universities were supposed to promote intellectual discussion and debate.

Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged is a great book for promoting discussion and debate — indeed, many college professors use it for that purpose alone. They know that the subject and ideas presented will stimulate and provoke interest and excitement in their students.

What’s wrong with that? Are college courses supposed to be dull and unexciting? And how does a requirement that one book taught in one optional course out of the hundreds of courses offered each and every year by a university in exchange for $1 dollar or $ thousand or $10 million violate anyone’s academic freedom?

It’s not the academics teaching Atlas Shrugged who are claiming violations, it’s those who were NOT asked to teach this book that claim such violations. Wonder why that is?

Lin Zinser, at 3:50 pm EST on February 27, 2008

College is a place for the learning of many different ideas, and it is the students’ job to judge them and integrate them however they see fit. As a college student, I do not want my teachers’ biases to limit the kinds of ideas I am introduced to.

Students are not forced to take this class, and by the looks of it, teachers are not forced to teach this book in their class — a teacher has willingly stepped up to teach this book because he sees merit in it as a piece of literature and a source of ideas. I know that students would rather have an Atlas Shrugged elective course in their curriculum, which they are not even required to take (but is, instead, just another class to add to the possible variety of their education) instead of having to pay more tuition to cover whatever costs that 1 million is going towards.

I, for one, would jump at a chance to read Atlas Shrugged in an academic setting. I see the benefit of reading Hitler and Marx as well as Von Mises and Rand.

In the words of Pico della Mirandola: “It is certainly a mark of excess narrowness of mind to enclose oneself within one Porch of Academy; nor can anyone reasonably attach himself to one school or philosopher, unless he has previously become familiar with them all...It should be added that any school which attacks the more established truths and by clever slander ridicules the valid arguments of reason confirms, rather than weakens, the truth itself, which, like embers, is fanned to life, rather than extinguished by stirring.”

Remember, people, education is about the STUDENTS, not the teachers. The more choices, the better.

Athena, at 4:00 pm EST on February 27, 2008

BB&T

It’s not clear to me why this is nefarious. BB&T wants to support the study of certain ideas, and it is seeking universities open to teaching those ideas in exchange for funding. To me that sounds an awful lot like students who are interested in studying certain ideas seeking a university that teaches those ideas in exchange for tuition.

I would add one more point. If I were in BB&T’s position, where most colleges are full of professors who teach that capitalism is evil, and who advocate ideas that would put me out of business (or tax and regulate me to the death), I would use all the resources at my disposal to try to get colleges to teach better ideas—not in some vicious scheme to brainwash students, but in self-defense.

Students should be exposed to more than just the ideas of the radical left, and if it takes a million dollar donation to make that happen, that is an indictment of our colleges—not of BB&T.

PMB, at 4:10 pm EST on February 27, 2008

This sounds like a wonderful program and I applaud BB&T for having the courage of its convictions. BB&T received its money by creating value for customers and investing wisely, if BB&T chooses to use that money to improve the culture to the benefit of its shareholders it has every right to do so. Universities have every right to reject the money and the terms that come with it, although I cannot understand why any university would object to the teaching of a substantial work of philosophy.

Jim Manley, at 5:05 pm EST on February 27, 2008

I smell a rat!!

I smell a rat!!

Why is this a story? Why was it written? This is so clearly a non-story that it raises questions.

Is it true that the two people at Marshall quoted in this article who question the grant are a married couple?

I think some investigative journalism needs to be done on the author of this article, why he wrote it, and who contacted him from Marshall U. and why?

Now that’s a story!!

Peter, at 7:15 pm EST on February 27, 2008

Hollow Opposition

In a shallow breath, Dr. Warner likens Hitler’s treatise on tyranny to Ayn Rand’s magnum opus, a paean to freedom, capitalism, and those who are its exemplars. Unfortunately for Warner, slander of this sort rings hollow to those who have taken the time to seriously consider the ideas Ayn Rand presents in Atlas Shrugged. In attacking the straw man of the “fascist capitalist,” Warner reveals her hostility to capitalism and other ideas that oppose her leftist establishmentarian views without offering any meaningful response to Ayn Rand’s ideas.

Either Dr. Warner has not read Atlas Shrugged—or she realizes that her long-discredited views would not stand up to Ayn Rand’s timeless defense of freedom and individual rights. The latter reveals the real reason for opposition to BB&T’s grant.

Ryan Puzycki, at 9:35 pm EST on February 27, 2008

Reality Check

Some of you must have missed this paragraph.

“Calvin A. Kent is a vice president for business and economic research and distinguished professor of business at Marshall, and he will be teaching the course with Atlas Shrugged in the fall. Kent argued that the gift provides a great opportunity for the university, and that there are no academic freedom issues. Kent noted that there is no requirement that Marshall students take the course, and that he will include material beyond Rand.”

Calvin A. Kent, the prof who will teach the Atlas Shrugged including course, WANTS TO TEACH IT. No one is being pressured to do anything he doesn’t want to.

Mike, at 5:10 am EST on February 28, 2008

Those who can do, ...

Well said Edwin Locke.BB&T’s productive work makes available the money the articles’ author so apparently envies. Of course BB&T does not wish to sanction ideas that the unproductive would love to teach given so called “academic freedom". The arrangement is a contract freely entered into by two independent parties. BB&T has the right to request whatever they want while the institution has the right to accept or decline. Only a devout socialist (read moocher) would expect a producer to donate just because of a need and without consideration of the monies actual use. The only rights the author hopes to violate are the students. He is really questioning BB&T’s right to help expose more students to the thought provoking ideas of Rand’s beautifully integrated philosophy. At the same time, he hopes to continue to be supported without question to instill out of context material in students thus denying them the chance to ponder and integrate meaningful ideas into their own knowledge. Perhaps one man and his bank can help unravel the debt of sub-prime education with which institutions of “higher” learning have for so long saddled an unsuspecting student body.

Roger Parian, at 5:10 am EST on February 28, 2008

Faculty Governance

This is not an issue of academic freedom per se, but really a question of faculty governance of the curriculum. Yes, the faculty does control the curriculum. This course and its content would be fine (well, not really fine but appropriate) if it had come majority vote of the faculty in the department. If a majority of faculty in a department think that Ayn Rand should be part of the curriculum, then there’s not much to say. It’s not shared governance any more when it comes at the direction of a grant.

Prof in the West, at 5:15 am EST on February 28, 2008

Where’s the Beef?

I routinely teach Ayn Rand’s essay “The Objectivist Ethics” as part of my Intro Philosophy and Intro Ethics courses. If some generous donor wanted to give my cash-strapped university gobs of money to support that (or to develop a course teaching Atlas Shrugged), it wouldn’t be a violation of anyone’s academic freedom.

* The donation wouldn’t violate my academic freedom, since I’m happy to teach Ayn Rand as a part of my courses. The same is true of any professor willing to teach the course.

* The donation wouldn’t violate the academic freedom of other professors and instructors. All could continue to teach their courses however they please, fairly or not.

* The donation wouldn’t violate the academic freedom of the students enrolled in the class. No student would be required to enroll in the class. If the professor is fair, every student would be exposed to a broad array of opposing views and welcome to argue for whatever positions they deemed right in class and in their papers. (That’s always my policy.)

* The donation wouldn’t violate the academic freedom of the students not enrolled in my class. They can take whatever courses they like.

So where’s would the violation of academic freedom be in the donation? My sense is that the problem is Ayn Rand, not a donation with some strings attached. But if she’s really as incompetent and awful as some here have claimed, then why fuss? Students aren’t dunces; they’ll figure it out.

So here’s a suggestion: Expose college students to Ayn Rand’s pro-capitalist ideas — as well as to the usual array of Marxism, egalitarianism, welfare statism, feminism, and the like — and let them decide what’s right for themselves. BB&T seems to be helping make that possible. They deserve encouragement for their efforts, not nasty analogies to teaching Hitler.

Graduate Student Instructor, at 5:15 am EST on February 28, 2008

Adam, You miss the entire point here. We’re not interested in facts or debate. Please keep this information to yourself in the future and do not bother us.wtf

wtf, at 7:40 am EST on February 28, 2008

Buying a Spot on the Syllabus

As someone who has been self-employed over 30 years and who holds bachelors and masters degrees, this fuss over a voluntary exchange can only point to one thing: panic is setting in over the prospect that a business major might actually obtain moral guidance and sanction for his or her chosen career. I cannot imagine being successful and happy in my work for this long without having read Atlas Shrugged, and fortunately it has given me more each of the three times I have re-read it. Too bad for the people who claim to have read it and liked it “when they were young,” but now reject it as “tripe.” Others may find value, and for that reason, BB&Ts gift should be accepted gratefully by any institution wishing to offer its students a value and the opportunity for honest discussion of ideas.

Hannah K, at 10:50 am EST on February 28, 2008

Who likes being told they are incompetent?

“you could see neo-Nazis giving money and saying that you have to teach Mein Kampf.“

What a red-herring. Of course you could see them *trying* to give money for that — but wouldn’t the university, its customers (the students), the department, and the instructors have anything to say about taking it? Is this person saying that merely offering her money is enough to corrupt her soul and compel her to do any nasty deed, or might she have some part in that?

The fact is, the students don’t have to take the course, the instructors don’t have to teach it, the department doesn’t have to take the money, and the university doesn’t have to even entertain the idea if it isn’t worthy.

But in this case, it is eminently worthy, and maybe that is what really bugs people like this: they are being told that they have been ignoring a crucial subject and arguably the most significant voice in it.

Kudos to BB&T and anybody fortunate enough to participate in what they are trying to accomplish!

Greg P., at 12:20 pm EST on February 28, 2008

Isn’t it ironic that academic professors are seriously scared of exploring the ideas in one book?

CoreyO, at 1:25 pm EST on February 28, 2008

Money talks but it can’t sing.

Shoveling unconditional money into an educational institution is risky and can be counterproductive.

Bravo to ARI for promoting its interests in ways that get attention.

If Marshall feels compelled to accept any and all donations regardless of conditions or the character of the source, then that speaks to the ethical character of Marshall, not ARI or any one else.

Tim Peck, at 3:25 pm EST on February 28, 2008

And as I suspected, the professor teaching the course is in fact doing so willingly:

http://wvgazette.com/News/200802270753

Ben, adjunct professor, at 4:10 pm EST on February 28, 2008

This IS an example of academic freedom:

Professor Kent chooses to include Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged in a course. In doing so, the BB&T’s gift requirement is now met and Marshall University can now receive the BB&T’s gift since Atlas will be used in a course. Students attending the university have a choice of whether or not to enroll in that professors particular course.

Steve Sheppard, at 4:40 pm EST on February 28, 2008

The heroism of BB&T

Thank you BB&T for adding these programs, which give students the chance to read about authentic business heroes—so difficult to find elsewhere.

The days of censoring Rand’s ideas are past. This grant program is a necessary bridge, before her ideas break through the irrationalism enshrined by higher education.

A little reason will go a long way.

Robert Begley, President at NY Heroes Society, at 6:10 pm EST on February 28, 2008

If this is an example of the absence of “academic freedom,” then where is the “academic force?” Is someone threatening this school Vito Corleone-style lest they accept this generous offer? Is someone coercing this professor into teaching this book? Is someone physically herding students into the classroom here?

This whole situation is such a non-issue. The fact that it IS an issue speaks volumes for its opponents.

Jenn C., at 8:25 pm EST on February 28, 2008

It should be utterly uncontroversial that BB&T wants to give money to a private institution, at which a teacher will teach a book that BB&T requests be used, not exclusively, in the course it is funding. That teachers or administrators at this or other institutions object is just so much hot air. They can all write letters to the editor and/or get new jobs if they don’t like it. They have absolutely no moral standing whatsoever to stop the voluntary exchange of money and ideas between freely consenting adults. If they object so much to what BB&T proposes, they can model ideal behavior by steadfastly refusing all money from any donor who would have the temerity to demand that a particular book be used in a course paid for by that donor. In one way, though, I do understand the professors’ outrage at BB&T’s decision to expect value in return for the money it donates to a university. How un-self-sacrificing of BB&T! How unlike the quiet and trusting parents who hand over child and money without so much as a request for a syllabus of what is being taught to their children, let alone demand that a particular book be taught. BB&T’s requirement must have come as a rude surprise.

Roxanne A.

Roxanne A., at 9:05 pm EST on February 28, 2008

What’s the problem?

No one is forcing them to accept the donation. If they don’t like the terms of the donation, then they can simply turn it down. I don’t see what the big problem is.

Nathaniel, at 5:00 am EST on February 29, 2008

Buying a Spot on the Syllabus

Why are professors so antagonistic toward Ayn Rand? They know, deep down inside themselves, that the drivel they “teach” has been thoroughly disproved by her. They’ve cocooned themselves with tenure so they don’t face the consequences of their false ideas, which frankly died when the Berlin Wall fell. They know it, they just don’t want you to know it. Let’s stop letting them get away with it.

Secular Foxhole, at 10:00 am EST on February 29, 2008

BB&T and Atlas Shrugged

First, excepting the calm and collected comments here that support the BB&T requirement that Atlas Shrugged be used in the business, and also the comments that express genuine confusion on the issue, I was appalled by the level of illiteracy and general sneering, cynical tone of many of the comments, which nearly outnumber the others. Some of these were written by faculty, others by students.

Second, I have always thought that alumni and donors should be extremely selective in what they give especially universities and colleges, and to stop “giving” if the schools hire faculty who call for the negation of individual rights, and especially faculty who regularly attack business and reason and sneak it into their courses. The academics who cry “academic freedom” or “freedom of speech” are usually the first to whine when they are denied a platform that someone else has paid for but abruptly yanked from beneath them — because that donor or alumnus has decided to go on strike against his slanderers.

Edward Cline, Novelist, at 12:20 pm EST on February 29, 2008

Not exactly free will to teach this course

I’m on the faculty at Meredith College and want to correct part of this story. Our faculty voted down accepting the grant but did vote to allow the two professors (an economist and a philosphy professor co-teaching it) who had already spent time preparing the course to teach it but with no strings attached. These professors then chose to eliminate Rand from the readings. The BB&T grant, which was less than $1 million to us, was meant to fund our honors program. In our case, the professors recruited to teach the course did not really agree to do it with full free will. It was more of a case of being told that we have no one else who will teach this course and we need you to step up to teach it so our honors program can get this money. Fortunately the faculty at Meredith rallied around these two professors, one who did not yet have tenure and the other was an adjunct, to get them out of being obligated to teach this course as the grant required. I know of another large state university that also had to go fishing around for a professor willing to teach this course so that its business school could take the money. You’ll notice that in most cases, it is the dean or dept head who will agree to teach this capitalism course, not the “regular faculty".

Meredith College Professor, at 3:50 pm EST on February 29, 2008

Careful what you choose

This reminds me of how a university group chose a socialist’s book for a freshman “One Book” assignment.

Right afterwards, the janitors’ union used the book to demand the university administration improve its members’ compensation.

Karma. Don’t leave home without it.

B.J.S., at 6:30 pm EST on February 29, 2008

Threatening the Monopoly

The claim that “academic freedom” is being stifled by a business making a voluntary offer of money for the use of _Atlas Shrugged_ in a course reveals a leftist view of “academic freedom” and the saturation of left-wing views in the academy. This itself underscores the crucial *need* of the offer.

If it is true that the professor in question is free to reject the offer, that other professors are free *not* to use _Atlas Shrugged_, and that no student is *required* to take this course, how is anyone’s “freedom” being stifled? Only a Marxist at heart could believe that the incentive of money attached to a voluntary offer is somehow “force” or “coercion"—but that to forcebly prohibit it is “academic freedom.”

Let us have more such offers and more angered leftist academics—and let the customers of education—the students—decide for themselves who is in the right and who isn’t.

AH

D.L.S., at 7:30 pm EST on March 2, 2008

Frankly, I think a university should not accept a donation in which the donor decides which books are to be taught.I don’t care if it’s Ayn Rand or Karl Marx. Just as philosophers or academicians do not make corporate or government policy, or decide what businesses should put in their advertisements, corporate or government funds should not dictate what I should teach or what students should learn.

Professor RBirt, at 3:25 am EDT on March 15, 2008

Consider the plight of a beggar. The beggar’s existence is reliant upon the productivity and generousity of others. If others are not productive, they have nothing of value of which to show generousity. Now consider that certain conditions are expected of the beggar in return for the exchange. For example, that he get himself groomed, buy some decent clothes and (gasp!) try to find a job. The beggar accepts your donation, but then damns you for the conditions under which he recieves it.

Why not just refuse the donation to begin with. Oh, wait, universities are notorious for being in love with other people’s money.

Silly me.

Boo, at 1:20 pm EDT on March 26, 2008

Robin! They are!

“First, it’s the Business School! They should read Rand and Adam Smith! As well as Marx!”

Yo, Robin! That’s the point!

Most business school students are more broadly-read than in arts, letters & humanities. They’ve read Adam Smith — AND Marx.

That non-business students lack a wide scope of reading is either laughable, sad, distressing, or disgusting depending on your opinion.

Really!

L.L., at 4:40 pm EDT on March 30, 2008

Freedom means being free to teach what you want

http://aynrand.org

Oleksandr, at 1:55 pm EDT on April 1, 2008

Okay, let’s summarize:

1. The academy is overwhelmingly left-leaning and hostile to Ayn Rand’s case for individualism, egoism, laissez-faire capitalism. They have shut her out of the debate on virtually every campus so that students are never allowed to hear the most influential thinker who argues with what most academics believe in politics and ethics.

2. Someone wants to give a donation to have her arguments at least given, not a monopoly, but a simple hearing. One book, one course, and the professor can even be hostile to and argue against her ideas.

3. Universities constantly accept funded programs. For example, a chair in environmental studies in which it is understood that certain books and viewpoints will be taught. If the Saudis wanted to provide a university with tens of millions of dollars for a department of Islamic studies in which the Koran would be read, you can bet that *no one* would object for the same reason as they are objecting to the BB&T programs.

3. Conclusion: The people who are objecting don’t care about academic freedom. It’s just a smokescreen.

They simply don’t want arguments and positions they violently dislike to be aired in the hearing of the young.

They don’t want them to know such ideas even -exist-.

They don’t want them to know that Ayn Rand was very articulate and could make thoughtful logical — and moral — arguments for her views.

5. If there was -no- money being donated, they would argue that Rand should not be taught. They would say her ideas are not respectable, take time away from even further study of some leftist or postmodern or nihilist thinker.

The hypocrite always likes to posture as an idealist.

He wants to murder intellectual fairness and call it “academic freedom".

Philip Coates, at 5:30 am EDT on May 28, 2008