Customer Reviews

The Opening of the American Mind

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

 

 

Levine sounds reasoned until the reader asks questions. He notes that at Berkeley the white student population declined from 68% in 1974 to 37% in 1994 while 75% of America was white at that time. Assuming all is equal, which of course it isn't, one would expect equal representation by demographic percentage. The obvious question is, if America were 75% white in 1994 why would only 37% be admitted to Berkeley? Could whites be disadvantaged, incapable of passing Berkeley's rigorous standards, or because Berkeley practices racist admission policies? Levine writes this "is more representative of the nation's population" but as it fails numerically the reader is left to wonder in what way it is more representative? He adds that Berkeley became the first major university with a majority of minority students, revealing early his emphasis on race, not education and his philosophy, as expanded on by Arthur M. Schlesinger's "Disuniting Of America".

Levine's book is a response to Alan Bloom's critique of modern American university education in "The Closing Of The American Mind" and that of a multitude of others throughout Western civilization in academia and out. Bloom is at times recklessly and conveniently misrepresented while at others accurate enough to cause wonder at what Levine could possibly disagree with? Levine paints Bloom as anti-multiculturalist. However, as Bloom notes, Herodotus was a multiculturalist too as we should be, but with a different intent than now practiced, rather to learn what was unknown about the human condition, not to return from his travels to dismantle his homeland by removing Greek (Western) thinking as a "bias" suppressive of others, which is Levine's position repeated throughout the book, generally between the lines.

Levine characterizes criticism of our university system and its politics as "conservative" because, in Foucaultian form, it focuses on who said it, not what they say or if it might be true. No debate. Yet Levine swears by open-mindedness - as long as it does not clash with his agenda and that of our university administrators. Using out-of-context sound bites Levine relishes remarks by his critics as crazy eyed, apocalyptic non-sense, lumping all into the same bucket - though many would vehemently clash on details of their opposition. Never is there a hearing on recorded events and practice on campus from which these criticisms are sourced. We can only assume their root as Levine focuses on change as a constant at the university through history, so we suppose change is the problem for conservatives. But course offerings in LP-record scratching as musical expression at Levine's very Berkeley causes one to wonder just what higher education has become? Where once the mundane banality of history was taught, but a history taught from the standpoint of events and civilizations not from the perspective of groups, which he prefers. If the current university anti-West, race-focused dogma is not apocalyptic for institutions once concerned more for education than diversity, what is?

Levine marginalizes opposition by the oft-used method of obfuscation. Issues are just too complicated, vast, impenetrable, given such mixture, morphing attitudes or flux of opinions in the marketplace of ideas to make a conclusion. That "conclusion" is happy news for Levine as it is self-serving keeping his dogma in place and in power. Practicing a Creationist favorite, Levine puts words in the mouth of his critic's then tells how wrong they are. "It surely was much simpler when the university community was a homogeneous one..." A statement critics would agree with but not condone nor dare make against the muscle of today's climate of political correctness.

Levine smacks of anti-West creed throughout, dismissing with a sneer those who could possibly claim "the West is good", as though only naive fools would utter such "myth" and "propaganda". Levine's book is readable, though not the penetrating, elevating work Bloom offered. Levine does reveal what his side of our politicized universities stand for and against and in that his text has value as a measure of how bad things are.

Why has no one provided a good rebuttle to Bloom? This is the best I've seen, and it's not very strong. Sure, it's slick and full of grand academic watchwords. But it smacks of the blind veneer of today's academia, full of a baseless hope in ideologies that are D.O.A.. I had to read Bloom's book about 3 years ago as part of a course, and I read it with many doubts. But having graduated, now reflecting on my own experience and the sad ineffectual responses to "Closing", I am starting to think that maybe Bloom was right: Our universities are in trouble, and Levine, by trying to say otherwise, only proves it to be the case.

It is amazing how Levine starts his book with an equivocating tirade. He is audacious and generous enough to offer a list of well written critiques of the intellectual establishment, but then he goes on citing the most conservative members of the political establishment. Why? The answer is obvious: He wants the innocent reader to believe that all the authors of the well-reasoned critiques he so loathes are nothing but narrow-minded political right-wingers--thus confounding Allen Bloom with Buchanan. This is simply outrageous. Levine does what is so typical of his ilk--he politicizes. Thus he does exactly that what he accuses the others of doing-but don't do.

This book is enlightening only in so far as it may serve as an example of the kind of thinking responsible for the plight of the humanities today. Levine simply fails-or, what would be worse-willingly fails to understand his opponents. He does not meet with their arguments. Levine, in the manner so typical of contemporary intellectuals, leaches onto the intellectually superior Allen Bloom as he inverts the title of Bloom's book. He thus reveals both the resentment and the very lack of insight among those who house academia today.

Like the longevity of most useless academic fads, it seems the bane of ideological multiculturalism will be with us for the foreseeable future. The question for its opponents (or those who would merely like to inject some common sense into it) is simply, "What can we do about it?" Or, more pessimistically, "Is there anything we can do about it?" If one believes Lawrence Levine in The Opening of the American Mind, there's nothing to get uptight about. To him, multiculturalism is just an extension of the university's (and thus, academia's in general) continuing evolution. This indeed may be true; however, Levine, while claiming the academy "has always been political," conveniently glosses over modern (ideological) multiculturalism's [more and more] overt leftist agenda. And, he appears to contradict himself: while praising the increasing "openness" of the university, he blatantly fails to see the "clamp down" on dissenting political views - that is, views deemed "insensitive" (in the university's overused jargon) to any group that campus leaders declare.

Levine chides critics of the modern university saying they foster fears of "an eroding hierarchy and the encroachment of democratic society into the academe..." How does Levine define "democratic?" Most folks equate democracy with freedom, which includes freedom of thought. Ideological multiculturalism, however, does not allow for this facet of democracy; in fact, it has more in common with the former East Bloc definition of "democracy," which was an oxymoron. Apparently as an example of this "new" democracy, Levine states that the university "is one of the more successfully integrated and heterogeneous institutions in the United States." He notes that Berkeley has gone from 68.6 percent white in 1974 to 32.4 percent now; but in addition, the number of Asians increased almost 25 percent over the same time frame, while Hispanics increased over 10 percent and blacks 1.1 percent. What Levine never touches is a prominent reason why these numbers changed so dramatically - and this is true for campuses nationwide: preferential admissions policies based on race. A better example of the "new" democracy would be the military or even professional sports where merit and hard work still are held in esteem. How boring would sports be if teams had to meet racial requirements like universities? And even now, at Berkeley and other institutions (especially in California), Asians are suffering the fate of being "over-represented."

Speaking of "requirements," Levine exhaustively details why it's no big deal that Western Civilization courses are no longer mandatory, yet there's no word as to why multicultural requirements now exist in place of "Western Civ." He demonstrates that Stanford's Western Civ-replacing C.I.V. program has readings such as Ariel by José Enrique Rodó and Account of the Conquest of Mexico by Bernal Díaz and claims that these are what critics like William Bennett and Dinesh D'Souza are upset about. Hardly. Levine, who says he despises anecdotal evidence, cleverly uses it here. Ariel and Account are far from left-wing ideological readings (I know - I've read them). He plainly refuses to discuss what Bennett and D'Souza actually criticize - material like I, Rigoberta Menchu.

Levine "catches" himself at one point during research on African-American writers, claiming, "I soon realized that I was falling into the same pattern of allowing leadership to speak for followers." Interesting. What do we see on campus today? "Leaders" within the university and student groups "deciding" what's best for their followers. Levine can easily lament his error; on the other hand, folks like Alan Gribben at the University of Texas suffer a lifetime ostracism merely for voicing a protest against the "prevailing sensitivity." Levine further says that "those who oppose current developments in higher education have been more successful outside than inside the universities." Why is this? Is it because those that advocate the "current developments" are of like mind and ideology and work tooth and nail to silence the opposition (like Mr. Gribben)? Wouldn't it make sense that opponents of the "current developments" would have to look elsewhere to voice their views other than in the academic "ivory tower?"

Levine also spends a lot of time claiming that the university mirrors the "real world" - it *is* the real world, he says. But is it really? Poll after poll shows that a majority of the American population considers themselves politically "moderate to conservative." On the other hand, a professor who overtly claims that political ideology will more often than not find it difficult to advance his career in the realm of the university. Most Americans believe in achievement through merit, not preferential treatment based on race; yet here, too, the university sets itself apart from the "real world." An interesting section in Levine's book is where he takes a jab at Lynn Cheyney for claiming "today's students can disagree with professors. But to do so is to take a risk." He asks, "When was it not risky for a socialist student to confront her economics professor....for an atheist to confront his religion professor...?" Indeed, this is true, and of course a student should have a right to feel comfortable in expressing his or her opinion. But look at the above again carefully - a socialist or an atheist was then, and is now, clearly part of a small minority of the American population. What we see on campus today, however, are students who share the views of the majority of the American public who are reluctant to express their views in the classroom. Doesn't this seem a bit strange?

I believe the fact that ideological multiculturalism is contrary to the views of most Americans is what will eventually lead to its demise. I've continually used "ideological" before "multiculturalism" with good reason. Most people would not deny, given the rapid demographic changes in our country, that multicultural studies are appropriate and a good idea. It's only when leftist ideology-masquerading-as-multiculturalism comes into play that the general public starts objecting. As a result, the primary solution to combating ideological multiculturalism is to expose it. Richard Bernstein's (Dictatorship of Virtue) stories of Alan Gribben and the Committee for Quality Education in Brookline, Massachusetts are perfect examples. But it isn't easy. Any "dissenters," as the above folks will testify, must be prepared to face attacks possibly more fierce than those directed against a presidential candidate! These attacks usually will not address the subject matter but will be quite personal. After all, as Richard Bernstein notes, the ideological multiculturalists are most "virtuous;" to object to them makes one evil incarnate.

mr. levine's book, though balanced and thoroughly researched, is by no means an adequate response to bloom's controversial CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND. mr. levine is a historian skilled at manipulating quotes and thereby giving us a convincing (but distorted) picture of the conservative critics in higher education, while, alas, avoiding the central question. he simply ignores the real issues troubling campuses all over the country today. he makes his best point by demonstrating that, historically, the canon has been fluid and changing; but that hardly justifies what is being taught in college courses today. it's not so much that the multiculturalist "canon" is wrong or that it would corrupt the old values--the real problem is that almost all of the new books are weak and boring and customer-friendly. THE ESSENTIAL PARADOX, FOR ANYONE WHO HAS PAID ATTENTION TO TODAY'S COLLEGE EDUCATION, IS THAT IN THE ATTEMPT TO OPEN THE MINDS OF STUDENTS, THE "ISTS" HAVE IN FACT CLOSED AND NARROWED MANY, ALL TOO MANY, WITH BOOKS THAT HARDLY EVER STUMULATE A BRAIN CELL. whatever bloom's faults and prejudices may be, his book is written with genuine passion and concern, and ten years after its publication it disturbs us still, because so much of what it says applies to what we see everyday on every american campus. mr. levine is the typical academic star of today, always correct and smooth, but he has to do better than this to meet bloom's challenge.

If this is the best answer they can provide to Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, the debate was over before it began.

The basic premise of Allan Bloom's book was that intellectual inquiry was being abandoned in favor of cultural relativism. If everybody's truth is equally entitled to be called truth, then nobody's truth is truth.

The rebuttal misses the point entirely.

Levine manages to keep his cool while all around him are losing their collective minds. Is it possible that he just doesn't GET IT? Richard Schwartz has done a better job of convincing readers that the whole postmodern "thing" is a tempest in a teapot. But neither of them seems to see that the issue is not what students read (when they choose not to read or are unable to do so), but why their instructors can no longer talk to one another. The problem is that the University founders for want of purpose and students wander in a fog. Postmodernism is simply a symptom of something that goes deep: cultural narcissism. As the world's problems become more accute, we find it more and more difficult to communicate with one another. Levine is sanguine. More power to him. He just doesn't get it.

From a liberal's point of view, the only thing wrong with this book is that it lacks the corrosive name-calling and histrionic forecasting that have made the writings of Levine's critics (and targets of criticism) such potent shelf commodities. This is not a call to arms in Pat Buchanan's "cultural war"; it is a level-headed reminder of the longevity and redundancy of a war which we have always fought--the much-politicized war over education. Everyone wants to know: are children these days being taught well? Are they reading enough Shakespeare? Have our schools turned to mush? In his answer to the last question, Levine would argue that no, they haven't. His opponents would say, Yes, and it's all because of the PC, resentful, tribalistic, Marxist lemmings (see Harold Bloom's "The Western Canon"; Bloom has a fascination with lemmings which borders on the unholy) who have infiltrated our schools and turned our children away from the great classics of literature which every young scholar must read. Levine's point is that, historically, no one has ever really been able to agree on which books are classics and which books are necessary. Politics have always been involved in this debate, just as reactionary thinking has always been the powerful enemy of "advocates" of inclusive reading. Levine explores the history of our reactions to changes in curriculum and course-reading as a way of exposing the snobbery at hand. He does not, alas, call attention to himself by labeling the more prominent snobs "fascists" or "regressive poopoo-heads." That is why his work does not measure up, in its appeal, to the writings of today's conservative critics: because there is no bloodshed in it, no goring of the enemy. Grace don't sell a million, which is why the Blooms in this world don't bother to be graceful. Sorry, Prof. Levine; next time, cuss

There are two main arguments in Levine: 1) U.S. universities were not very good before the second world war so if today they are being degradated by the new "concepts" in education is not the end of the world. I do not think one must take the argument very seriously. Yes, the reform in the curriculum at the end of the XIX century was necessary but that does not make present reform addecuate. 2) the new standard reflect a more diverse society. But the problem is no that people is reading, let say, writters in spanish so they can understand the tradition of an important share of americans. The problem is they are reading BAD writters in spanish because they say what the left want to hear. In my own university, the reading list in the Spanish Department is just SILLY: second-rate "correct" contemporary writters, no Vargas-LLosa (a wonderful, but, ups, pro-free market author).

I found Levine's discussion of the history of academic fashions in America to be most enlightening. He systematically provides us who agree with his views an antidote to the noxious stuff put forward by Bloom, Himmelfarb, D'Souza, Bennnett and others. I find it encouraging, in a period of what appears to be an increasingly fractious period of our history, that there is reason to hope that the modern histiorography he discusses may provide a more interesting and meaningful history for our college students to study. There is a huge amount of material available that gives dignity to "ordinary" lives, including, perhaps, our own