At LAST ! another article into which I can sink my fangs.

The author wrote:

"I was asked by one of the panel on what I based my philosophy of history. I was given three options: Marxism, Foucault or feminism."

and there we have it ! an account of why many young people 'think' the way they do, about life, God, faith, values and morality. BECAUSE they have had Marx, Feminism or Foucalt rammed down their academic throats by a blinkered and narrow minded higher education system.

He goes on......

"Why then has the alternative view, what might be called the liberal humanist or Christian humanist vision, been written out of the possible explanations?"

Why INDEED ! ? Hmm.. perhaps because the thought of life having meaning, direction, a conclusion (the Christian aspect) is repugnant to those with their own (im?)moral agenda ?

But the problem raised here is 2fold. "Christian" and "Liberal/Humanist" There is really no need to add 'humanist' or liberal to the Christian aspect because in Christ it is already complete. There is hardly a need to dilute it.

Taking Humanism by itself, its probably rejected by academia because it does not pander to the deterministic (Marx) or power agenda (Feminism) or 'existential/meaningless' agenda of Foucaltism.

Without a Christian framework to give 'humanistic values' some credibility and foundation, its just pie in the sky sentimentalism and probably further explains why the Academics look for something more 'meaty' like Marxism which is more likely to change the world, albeit in a very sorrowful way in hindsight.

Sadly also, those who do not know Christ, are left with such abysmal chirpings and mutterings of these false prophets of gloom, who, in the absense of true hope and life, cling like frightened children to 'any' thing which otherwise explains existence.

Many of our posters here have suggested that 'universal human values' are inherrant in all humans. But the existence and scale of such things as Marxism and feminism suggest otherwise.

"If a blind man follows a blind man, will they not both fall into a pit" ? Jesus.

I fully support the views of Gregory Melleuish. I have recently seen three of my children through their HSC courses into college. These are intelligent young people -- perhaps not of genius level (sadly?) -- and all have been bashed by the amateur philosophising of the EngLit establishment. They are lucky to have survived.

My youngest son is confronted with questions like the following in preparing for the HSC in New South Wales:

"At the heart of representation are acts of deliberate selection and emphasis. Do the texts you have studied [the writings of Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes] demonstrate this in relation to 'telling the truth'? You will be assessed on how well you evaluate and show understanding of the relationship between representation and meaning... You will be assessed on how well you evaluate and show understanding of the relationship between representation and meaning."

We used to discuss propositions like that expressed in the opening sentence when I majored in philosophy some decades ago, and I recall that there are important schools of thought that find serious problems with them (not necessarily -- if at all -- based on Marxism, Foucault or Christ). The proposition is not without merits, in other words, but should NEVER be offered as unquestionable dogma.

However, I counselled my son that if he wanted to get the requisite marks counting toward his matriculation, he would need to put these opinions aside and take the words about "how well you evaluate and show understanding" as a clear warning not to debate the proposition.

Something needs to be done amounting to a shot across the bows of the LitCrit establishment who feel authorised to offer philosophical fast food to the young in this way.

That question you provided seems to me to be a double edged sword. I totally agree that selection and emphasis are part and parcel of all communication, and don't really see why a discussion of this in regard to the texts mentioned is not valid.

I gained the impression that the students are asked to examine the works of the authors mentioned to see whether what they 'presented' fits the factual foundation on which they built their case, and whether they had deliberately rejected certain pieces of information in order to re-inforce the view they are promoting ... did I miss something ?

What would bother me far more, is where a question is asked, which is based on a Marxist economic view in such a way that students had to demonstrate how what they are studying is 'bad' in that it does not comply with Marxist economic or feminist social theory... if u get my drift

1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. Paul (2 Corinthians 4)

Boaz, please, for once in your life address a question "on topic". In other words, try not to seize upon the single instance in Greg's article of the word "Christian" to launch into your tub-thumping evangelism. It detracts from any useful discussion of the points he makes, and hijacks the debate into areas of utter and complete irrelevance.

The issue is real, and vitally important if we are to avoid churning out of our schools and universities mindless idiots who can think only in terms of fad-of-the-moment pop philosophy. Which by its nature is transient.

It is already apparent that we are rapidly losing the ability to think for ourselves, and happy instead to be led by the nose by the lethal combination of a nanny-state government (Johnny knows best), an all-powerful press in the hands of a couple of money-grubbing opportunists, a compliant - nay collaborative - judiciary and a voracious kluge of exploitative monopolist businesspeople.

The vast majority of whom, as you take pains to remind me when the mood takes you, are Christians.

This is not a discussion on Christianity. It is a discussion on the politics of education.

>>Just at a time when there should be greater interaction between universities, the wider public and government, academics are creating forms of knowledge that are designed to increase the distance between universities and the rest of society. But, it should be added, always with the intention of demonstrating their superiority over mere lay people.<<

We can possibly gain some hope from the fact that these are words from inside the tent. Let's hope these seeds do not fall on stony ground.

Dammit, you've got me at it now.

The small mindedness of the academic elite rears it head again. I once heard one person say that the only place where marxism and humanisn is believed is in unversities and with journalist (so true). Having a daughter at the ANU not being allowed to have a practical world view without being denigrated again confirms how the academics live in a dream world. Thankfully these people are not running our country as much as they would like to think they know how. The miserable decline in the public education system is due to ordinary people seeing through the failure humanisn/marxism. The private schools don't have long waiting lists for religous purposes but largely due to rejecting a lot of the failed philosphocial views promoted firstly by our universities and then infecting the State school systems.

There are much deeper issues here. The discussion seems to be a competition between different acedemic traditions for dominance, not a search for truth. The battleground between humanism on one side and semiotics/marxism/feminism on the other is a stale old arguement that has largely been replaced by explorations of "post-modernism" - whatever that is. but it seems to critique everthing, not just it's opposition.

All these acedemic arguments are the nature of universities, to juggle notions from within a predefined cultural, intelectual and psychological framework. - winner takes all in the on- campus departmental battles. Post modernism, while giving a somewhat all-critical mushiness to it, exists within the same paradigms of all the other acedemic traditions including the flat earth theory and creationism which have had their place in acedemic history too..

Other cultures learn differently. They learn about different things (in great intelectual depth) and they learn though different methodologies. Perhaps the most obvious "difference" is between oral cultures and literary cultures, the acedemic tradition being the pinacle of literacism. Literacism is all about represented experience, either through text, electronic media or lectures. - a discussion of detatched ideas with no roots to reality. In all cases the student hears the teachers opinion and represented experience of reality, without any direct experience of the reality being studied. Oral traditions are based on direct experience of something then telling a story, or providing tools to describe and remember that experience. - a different pedagogy all together.

lets recognise that these acedemic debates exist within a single pedagogy and social paradigm. The real learning would be to explore paradigms, not themes within paradigms.