Today’s intellectuals: too obedient?

It has been said that once you give up your "NO" it is hard or impossible to get it back. Academics have given up control over admissions and other administrative functions in exchange for "academic freedom". They gave up "academic freedom" when they defaulted to the use of scholarly journals and third party evaluations via "publish/perish" as the defacto vehicle for promotion and tenure. Though the "work" is white collar" one wonders whether there is a difference between academics and slaves picking cotton or cutting sugar cane. One is reminded of the white mice in the laboratory where one says to the other "we have those folk in the white coats trained; we just jump on this wheel and they feed us. Unfortunately, like the Christmas goose on the day before the holiday, there is no feed coming as usual.

...hence, do we wish to be "academic" slaves or free thinkers? I would abolish slavery in the university to enable academic work to flourish. It is never too late to start saying "No" where it is due and to affirm what is worthy of acceptance...

The university is not a groundswell of ideas, a factory of ideas, an example of high minded thought, it is a business. Only references in allowed journals count towards its ratings. What utter nonsense is this. It is thought control on grand scale, and not one of the paid up pussy cats lapping at its milk would put one step out of place. Shame. Where then is the true arena for critical thinking? Certainly not a sanitised university of today.

The university is no longer the place where there is the hub of critical thought. It is all big buildings and lecturers who can hardly speak English let alone teach English or teach English Law. How about the vet from Africa unable to teach students how to treat cattle in this country. Its madness the real teaching then takes place outside the university, so what is the relevance of the university in its present form. If there was true critical thought in a University staff would have the expertise to deal with matters inside this country. Right now they don't. Critical analysis is the real understanding of an issue, there is no substitute for experience of that issue it cannot be synthetically replicated, and the inner fire to bring change as a result of that acquired knowledge comes only from home.

Although I doubt this is the sort of example Fred Inglis had in mind, it does indeed involve a censored attempt to speak truth to power—namely, the Shakespeare scholars who misuse their power to suppress evidence that they may have the wrong man. A U.S. Shakespeare scholar seems to have staged something of an academic coup, taking over the editorship of an Italian Shakespeare journal, and insisting that articles by me and others that were already accepted be removed from the forthcoming issue. His reason? My article presents several lines of evidence casting doubt on the traditional authorship theory. The article, and my correspondence with the new editor, may be found on my Georgetown faculty website. Richard M. Waugaman, M.D. Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Faculty Expert on Shakespeare for Media Contacts, Georgetown University