Customer Reviews

Killing the Spirit

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I read this book because it was recommended in _Bear's Guide_. Having been a graduate student and a teaching assistant I knew that something was profoundly wrong with higher education. This book outlines just what that something is.

Briefly, Smith's criticism centers around 1) "academic fundamentalism" and the vitriolic politics that thrive in academia, 2) The emphasis on research (much of which is generated for it's own sake and is of absolutely no use to anyone), 3) the increasing dominance of government and big business on the campus- often in direct conflict with students', or the ordinary citizen's, interests, and 4) the application of scientific method and statistical analysis to fields in the humanities where they literally kill the spirit of the discipline. Overall, Smith emphasises the essential deadness and ossified sterility of a system that has not fundamentally changed for well over a century.

From my own personal experiences it all rings true. Indeed, I've come to the conclusion that the American public has been sold a bill of goods concerning higher education. Most of us have been brainwashed into thinking that a person who lacks the "relevent" academic credentials cannot possible know what they are doing- not only is this way of thinking dead wrong, but it is dangerous, destructive, and anti-American. If anything, the best and brightest minds are simply refusing to sit through year after year of mind numbing lectures and busy work just to get a degree. No, just because the people hired to do the important work in this society must have the appropriate academic credentials does not mean that those credentials are the cause of their competence or success. All too often they are competent INSPITE of the handicap of their academic background.

If you like this book try reading _An Alternative History of American Education_ by John Taylor Gatto.

Review of Page Smith, _Killing the Spirit_

This is probably the best of the many books on the state of higher education in America, being a critical history and case study of our colleges and universities from the beginnings up to ca. 1990. It describes in detail the development of the flight from teaching, the vacuity of most academic "research," the specious notion "social science," the disintegration of the academic disciplines, alliances of universities with the non-academic Powers, the corruptions of big-money inter-collegiate sports. Smith's target is the elite universities. He emphasizes the value of the lowly community colleges, which for the most part have escaped the undesirable trends he speaks of, and where "thousands of able and intelligent men and women take their teaching opportunities with the greatest seriousness and give more than value received." (p 19) The history itself makes up the greater part of the book.

What does Smith mean by his title? No systematic argument is offered; Smith speaks rather vaguely of "higher things... a realm beyond the immediate existence, beyond the material world." The spirit is killed by what Smith calls "academic fundamentalism" which is defined as "the stubborn refusal of the academy to acknowledge any truth that does not conform to professorial dogmas." (p 5) "You cannot indefinitely omit one-half or more of human experience without paying a heavy price." (p 294) What is being omitted is religion, a term which Smith intends in a broad sense -- perhaps "the spiritual dimension."

_Killing the Spirit_ is, perhaps predictably, short on specific remedies. Smith speaks of a sort of Hegelian synthesis of "Classical Christian Consciousness" (p 29: "The founding fathers were all more or less orthodox Christians, the majority of them Episcopalians...") and "Secular Democratic Consciousness" (the results of the Enlightenment peculiar to America) both of which would need to be revived before they could be synthesized. Smith rejects Hutchins and the Great Books, because he says he does not know what a "trained intellect" is; he also rejects the concept of the "well-rounded person." But Smith himself offers us the likes of the "true person" and the ideal of "being at home in the world" (pp 202-3). One has the strong impression that Smith means quite a lot more than he says. Alfred North Whitehead is quoted: (p 297): "The essence of education is that it be religious... A religious education is an education which inculcates duty and reverence. Duty arises from our potential control over the course of events... And the foundation of reverence is the perception that the present holds within itself the complete sum of existence, backwards and forwards, that whole amplitude of time, which is eternity." He eloquently advocates the imparting of "courage" and attention to the physical body. He invites us (p 209) to imagine a campus where members of the "academic community - faculty, students, and even administrators - gather together to dance and sing and dine! Is that so bizarre, so unacademic, so `emotional' that it cannot even be imagined?" This is followed immediately by what is to me at least a rather astonishing line: "How are we to learn to celebrate life and lift our spirits in festivals if we are not taught? How are we to get `in tune with the world'?"

This last question is not untypical of the intellectual eclipsing stance one finds in many books of this sort. We are told (p 144) that "without some knowledge of [the past of the human race] a man or woman cannot be fully human; he or she cannot be truly a person or at home in the world." It seems to me that such writers cannot have thoughtfully interacted with very much of humankind to make such assertions, even with the best of intentions.

For its abundant factual information alone, this is a fine book; I have been through most of it twice and recommend it very highly.

Ken Miner

Killing the Spirit, by Page Smith

Page Smith taught at UCLA and wrote an eight-volume "People's History" of America. This book analyzes the sources of the current crisis in higher education by giving its history. The 'Introduction' tells of Smith's experiences in education, and his following of the writings of Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy. In Chapter 1 Smith lists his theme: the impoverishment of the spirit, the flight from teaching, meretricious research, the alliance with the Defense Dept., and the corruption from "big-time" collegiate sports. This book focuses on the "so-called elite universities". "Academic fundamentalism" describes the closed minds of academia. What kind of university is one where teachers hate teaching (p.6)? The "vast majority of the so-called research ... is essentially worthless" (p.7). It is busywork that robs students of a very costly education. Federal research funds corrupt the universities (p.10). Who pays the piper calls the tune. The real scandal about intercollegiate athletics is their function to support the multi-million dollar illegal gambling rackets (p.14). Was Brooks Adams right (p.13). Smith praises the community colleges where teachers do their job (p.19).

Chapter 2 has the history of colleges in America from the 17th to 18th centuries. The founding fathers desired a practical education (p.33). Costly colleges were an attack on democracy (p.34). New states began state colleges (p.36). The modern university is based on three conditions. The desire for post-graduate work as in Germany; the vast fortunes created by the "robber barons"; and the notion of education as an end in itself and a way to "get ahead" in life (pp.49-50). Johns Hopkins University was the first devoted exclusively to graduate studies (p.50). There was a belief that scholarship would lead to social reform (p.56). The tycoons who created universities also wanted football teams (p.59). The Ph.D. degree was created to keep workers in line (p.60)! The Morrill Act gave states hundreds of square miles to fund state colleges (p.61). State colleges were designed to benefit "the whole people of the State" (p.63). The goal was to improve society (p.69)/ But the Ruling Elite soon put an end to this (p.69). Pages 74-75 describe undergraduate life in the 20th century.

Chapter 6 begins by telling of the political oppression practiced at the Universities (p.77). It explains the meaning of "unscientific" or "objectivity". These were attacks on democracy or "state or federal intervention" (p.79). Smith draws the contrast between small denominational colleges and universities (p.85). The best students come from small towns: individualistic, pragmatic, democratic, rationalist (p.87). Chapter 7 tells about the new colleges to educate women after the Civil War. Missionary woman were college graduates (p.93). Chapter 8 discusses the war between Science and Religion, the rivalry between the universities of tycoons and small colleges. Chapter 9 has William James' criticisms of the Ph.D. invention. It shifts responsibility from the institution doing the hiring to the institutions doing the certifying (p.109). Wasn't that the plan to let tycoons control teaching? Smith has his own criticisms (pp.110-113). He compares the tenure ritual to human sacrifice (p.122). "The Revolt of the Youth" is explained by their exploitation (p.156), and a protest against the university as a tool (p.157). Their charges are on page 163. The greatest judgment against schooling is the number who joined cults (pp.168-171). [What about drugs?] "There is no direct relationship between research and teaching" (p.178). Research is mostly decadent, leading to poor teaching and higher costs (p.179). A researcher is a poor teacher, generally. University publishing is often "madness" (p.181). [The Internet allows lower costs (p.182).] Time wasted in research could be better used in teaching (p.191). The plague of research has spread to other universities (p.194). Bad research (unimportant or irrelevant) buries the good research in a pile of mediocrity (p.197). Courage is very important for a scholar (p.205). Smith tells of the need for physical activities for students (pp.206-207).

Chapter 15 discusses social sciences. Sociology was designed as a secular religion to explain the social experiences. Some sociologists were missionaries for social Darwinism (p.227). Was America ever "a classless society" (p.229)? Or is it self-hypnosis? Is sociology a scheme to control the masses (p.231)? Anthropology has been identified with colonialism (p.234) Psychology is the study of a "soul" or human behavior. Introspection is endemic to America, as is "stress". Its is a secular religion (p.239). Psychologists as expert witnesses seem to be government employees whose judgments have little scientific validity (pp.240-241). The "social sciences" cling to that name in the hope that their opinions will be taken as objective truth (p.252). Chapter 16 tells of the attack on history in the late 19th century (p.260). The hidden agenda of history by monograph is to deny the historical reality gained from looking at the "big picture" of understanding the past. Pages 272-273 explain the false assumption of academic history: new events result in a reappraisal of old events. Chapter 17 offers his thoughts on "Women's Studies", which bring back passion and enthusiasm to the university. Chapter 18 sums up this book. You should read it if you won't read the whole book.

I read this book because it was recommended in _Bear's Guide_. Having been a graduate student and a teaching assistant I knew that something was profoundly wrong with higher education. This book outlines just what that something is.

Briefly, Smith's criticism centers around 1) "academic fundamentalism" and the vitriolic politics that thrive in academia, 2) The emphasis on research (much of which is generated for it's own sake and is of absolutely no use to anyone), 3) the increasing dominance of government and big business on the campus- often in direct conflict with students', or the ordinary citizen's, interests, and 4) the application of scientific method and statistical analysis to fields in the humanities where they literally kill the spirit of the discipline. Overall, Smith emphasises the essential deadness and ossified sterility of a system that has not fundamentally changed for well over a century.

From my own personal experiences it all rings true. Indeed, I've come to the conclusion that the American public has been sold a bill of goods concerning higher education. Most of us have been brainwashed into thinking that a person who lacks the "relevent" academic credentials cannot possible know what they are doing- not only is this way of thinking dead wrong, but it is dangerous, destructive, and anti-American. If anything, the best and brightest minds are simply refusing to sit through year after year of mind numbing lectures and busy work just to get a degree. No, just because the people hired to do the important work in this society must have the appropriate academic credentials does not mean that those credentials are the cause of their competence or success. All too often they are competent INSPITE of the handicap of their academic background.

If you like this book try reading _An Alternative History of American Education_ by John Taylor Gatto.

This book should be back in print! Having worked in higher education for over 17 years, I can attest with confidence that herein lies the truth, or at least a good summary of it. This work forms a foundation for a begining of the work of reform. If you are a thinking American, read this book. If you are interested in the future of our civilization read it! This work is well worth your time.
Enjoy, and reap the fruits of inquiry.

This book should be read by anyone considering a career in the academy. It should also be read by virtually all college students, who have a right to know that the academic world is cheating them.

A long-time professor of history at Stanford University, the author of a number of fine historical treatises, Page Smith writes as an academic "insider." He titles his book Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in AmerŽica (New York: Viking, c. 1990). Like Dinesh D'Souza, Smith focuses on the nation's elite universities, for he thinks they "set the tone and, in my view, poison the springs of academic life in the United States" (p. 2). They primary fail by substituting research for teaching: the professor has disappeared from the classroom! Though he values research and publication, having himself done a great deal of it, he believes "the vast majority of the so-called research turned out in the modern university is essentially worthless" (p. 7). That's because "It is busywork on a vast, almost incomprehensible scale. It is dispiriting; it depresses the whole scholarly enterprise; and, most important of all, it deprives the student of what he or she deserves--the thoughtful and conŽsiderate attention of a teacher deeply and unequiŽvocally committed to teaching; in short, it robs the student of an education for which [they] . . . pay a very large sum of money . . ." (p. 7).
Smith provides a context his concerns with the "desert" of today's university education by making an historical survey of higher education in America. This is an enlightening journey with the guidance of an informed scholar. When, a century ago, elite universities sought to transform themŽselves into research centers, they suffered two self-inflicted wounds: the Ph.D. fixation and tenure. At that time William James denounced "the Mandarin disease" (his appraisal of the Ph.D. degree) which was a "Teutonic," un-American import. Smith concurs. It's not that the Ph.D. is intrinŽsically noxious, but its research-orientation genŽerally discourages committed teaching. Good teaching certainly requires constant research--but not of the variety designed for by publication. Smith believes that "the best research and the only research that would be expected of university professors is wide and informed readŽing in their fields and in related fields. The best teachers are almost invariably the most widely informed, those with the greatest range of interŽests and the most cultivated minds. That is real research, and that, and that alone, enhances teachŽing" (p. 179).
Rather than cultivate and reward research and its publication in learned articles and books, universities should encourage teaching. "It can be said unequivocally that good teaching is far more complex, difficult, and demanding than mediocre research," Smith says (p. 199). Good teaching touches more than the head--the heart too needs awakening and involvement. Beyond the data cranked out by computers, students need persons who openly discuss how one rightly thinks and lives as a moral and spiritual person. When he evaluates the teaching taking place in American universities, however, Smith grows discouraged. Neither "the social non-sciences" nor "the inhuman humanities" nor the male-hating "woŽmen's studies" programs engender hope for students entering the academic world in the 1990's. EspeciŽally missing, Smith notes, is the truth inscribed by Alfred North Whitehead when he wrote: "The essence of education . . . is that it be religious. . . . A religious education is an educaŽtion which inculcates duty and reverence" (p. 295).
Along the way Smith often commends small liberal arts colleges for doing what universities so notably fail to do. He commends Christian colŽleges which maintain a commitment not only to spiritual principles but to the integrity of academic work as well. (Amazingly, he says, many universities' graduate programs have been sustained by graduates from small colleges-- not by graduates of the universities' own undergraduate programs). Killing the Spirit provides an academic counterpart toDinesh D'Souza's more journalistic appraisal of higher education. That the two books were published at virtually the same time by such disparate anthers validates some of their contenŽtions. Smith's study shines by placing the discussion in a meaningful historical context, composed by a veteran of the system he critiques.