and of “intellectual harass- ment”’, Why, he might even

have the penultimate indict- ment of our day pronounced upon him, vis., being a “reactionary”, an intransi- gent “right-winger”. Bloom, however, is not so easy to dispose of in such a clichéd manner. The man knows whereof he speaks. Even his most trenchant critics acknowledge the acuteness of the intellectual crisis in which we now find ourselves. The point that I wish to make is that, whether or not one can accept Bloom’s decidedly dire analysis, the problematic that he expli- cates is a real think piece. And so, in my view, is Professor Rahman’s_ book. It is demonstrably one of.

the few books emanating

from UPEI which can claim to be thoroughgoing critical scholarship.

‘Whether Professor Rah- man would agree with me, I do not know; but it does seem to me that, if one can grasp what is at issue, in critical terms, for both Bloom and Rahman,

then one will not find it

so difficult to understand why Rahman would choose to challenge the findings in question. For there is surely more at issue for Rahman than simply his right (pro- cured long ago by Sir Karl Popper) to reject the prop- ping up of social science by a compromised science proper. What is at issue for Professor Rahman is the prototypical critical integrity of Socrates, the intellectual progenitor from whom Alan

Bloom also takes his bear- ings. Critical integrity for Rahman, as: for Bloom, is a matter of uncompromised intellectual principle.

To some, all of this will smack of an acute grandil- oquence and a_ pernicious | arbitrariness. After all, why should not thinking be brought to bear upon the resolving of problems in con- crete actuality? Why should it be held that critical think- ing is somehow immune to the ebb and flow of practical agency? The answer, as I see it, to these objec-: tions is that the inviolabil- ity of critical thinking does | indeed rest upon the arbi- trary enough presupposition concerning the relationship between human agency and the mind that presumable guides it, vis; that a genial

the warning,

self-determination does, in fact, hinge upon an intellec- tual self-accountability that refuses to compromise its critical integrity. Although some will vigorously reject it as’ outmoded, and _per- haps downright insensitive, the late-nineteenth century

philosopher, FH Bradley, in

his Critical Essays, - pro- vides a lucid and compelling

account of the _ traditional purview of criticism:

ee however humble

the sphere of her rule, yet at least, while within that sphere, criticism is subject to no intrusion and oppressed by no authority. She moves on her path unheedful of unheedful of the clamour, of that. which beyond her realm may be or may call itself religion and

philosophy; her philosophy

To the editor:

Benjamin Franklin once said: The sting of criticism is also the measure of its truth.

The personal/emotional . nature of all the reaction to my critique of the Sexual Harassment Sur- vey is so full of absurd misunderstandings and dis- tortions that it makes one wonder if some of my critics have read too much between the lines or have read only between the lines. Such gross misreading is all the

over-

Reading between

more _ shocking coming as it does from native speak- ers/teachers of the English language. One would have thought that such vehement denunciation of honest ra- tional. dissent was possible only in a fascist /totalitarian state. However, it would seem that in the Orwellian Newspeak, where words run helter-skelter, noise itself be- gins to sound like sense and substance. The “spirit of free debate” then only as a ghost.

survives

Even under these cir-

Critical Assessment

‘Dear Editor:

The anger directed to- ward Prof. Rahman is sur- prising and it certainly opens a window on the foibles and follies of academics.

Rahman’s article in the Gem, March 10, was de- signed to encourage critical assessment of the sexual ha- rassment study and to know how this could be done. The implications of what he said

are two — don’t take your- .

self or the preoccupations of the “knowledge class” too seriously and beware the possible dehumanizing effects of the social sci- ences, These suggestions are perfectly. reasonable in an academic context.

Yet why the rage against

him and the microscopic analysis of his logical er-. Tors and. demonic hidden

motives? Because he ques- tioned these dimensions of Prevailing academic ortho- doxy;:1. What we do in our classrooms, labs, and studies’ by applying rationality to all

uman and natural phenom- ; April 14 1988

a ete ee

nee ee a as ee es ee

ena is profoundly important; . 2. Our research is objective and neutral; and 3. Men are

_to be understood exclusively

as exploiters of women (an

assumption of doctrinaire

feminism which erroneously

believes in the immaculate

conception of the female - gender). Prof. Rahman failed

to recognize the present ac- ceptable limits of academic freedom and hence is_ be- ing severly castigated for his heresy, irreverence, and boldness.

The exchange here at UPEI among faculty over the sexual harassment sur- vey shows that the univer-

sity here, like all others,

“js a citadel of the diseased

ego. Intellectual and moral bullying is rampant. The professors, like the students, have intellectual and moral “clay feet”. There is a need and place for grace, even at that most intellectually ar- rogant of all modern secular institutions, the university.

—James D. Cameron...

the lines cumstances, a dispassionate rational/psychological analy- sis is the only respectable approach. For, it is precisely the responsible kind of crit- icism, which is carried out of a respect for the truth of the matter, that inevitable touches on many sore points. In all therefore, the critical thing

rational discussion,

is what is right, not who is

‘right — nor who is holier than’

the other. Name calling is as out of place as red: herrings.

Paradoxically -as it may sound, .in the academic world, genuine respect de- mands honesty and even un- sparing criticism from time to time. What we must really worry about is the indifference/silence which al- lows almost anything to gain credibility in the name of sci-

Wile E.

THREE V 1) STANDARD COYOTE

2) ACME JET SHOES

worth well over $6000.00 a pair. 3) ACME LEG VITAMINS

- Exactly how fast, can Wile E. run? We’ve seen Wile E. chase the Roadrunner countless times at breakneck speeds, and yet no one really

knows FREE OE fast the coyote can travel.

VELOCITY SITUATIONS

The coyote can outrun trains, and therefore he must be travelling at speeds in excess of 50 m.p.h. The Roadrunner travels at 50 m.p.h. to tease Wile E, and then instantly accelerates to 110 m.p.h. It’s just not fair when Wile E. gets left in the dust.

This fine ACME product greatly helped the coyote with acceleration and top-end velocities. These rocket- powered tennis shoes enabled the coyote to reach

' speeds nearing the 90 m.p.h. mark. You may recall that the shoes eventually ran out of propellent and Wile E,,. was back at square 1. Experts are not sure what Wile E. paid for these units, but many believe that the shoes are

I think we all remember the day that Wile E. overdosed on leg-muscle vitamins, and ended up looking like Lou Ferrigno. These vitamins were very expensive, yet very effective. Wile E. was able to attain maximum velocitios well over the 100 m.p.h. barrier. The roadrunner was almost dinner for the old Anti-

ence and fashion. The very thought of group scorn and verbal chastisement, which inevitably follow indepen- dent/critical thought, seems to reinforce the silence of

the majority. It is not

_ surprising then that many

do not speak up even when they have serious concerns and reservations about such a ‘controversial issue. Since a vocal minority gets itself heard with a passionate in- tensity, the illusion is created that such collectivist opinion is also collective wisdom. Nevertheless, all search dealing with sensitive moral issues and ending up in the media must be brought. under the sharpest indepen- dent public scrutiny — espe- cially because local/national granting agencies have a ten- dency to fund research which is in fashion or is supported

oyole

Te~

NEXT WEEK:

physics?

Christ unti! his ACME steel door trap malfunctioned. The door was moulded to Wile E.’s body at an impact speed of approximately 118 m.p.h.

One might conclude that Wile E. has a set of speeds ranging from 60-120 m.p.h. If I were Wile E., I give the leg muscle vitamins one more try.

Does the Anti-Christ obey the basic laws of

and her religion are the re- alization and the fruition of herself, and her faith is this,

that while true to herself, and her faith is this, that

while true to herself she can find no enemy in the truth.”

Lest. I be accussed’ of “obfuscating” the issue that precipitated this whole con-

- troversy, let me say that I

support the implementation of a sexual harassment policy for UPEI. I recall, as a grad- uate’ student, professor at an eminent uni-

an eminent

versity being charged. and

appropriately reprimanded for a sexual harassment offense. The problem is

real enough, and guidelines are needed. Nevertheless, my intellectual sympathies lie with Professor Rahman. Admittedly, his criticism. of the Mazer/Percival Find- ings bordered on the .ad hominem, but with respect to the issue at hand, Pro-

‘fessor Rahman not only has

the right, but is in the right, in attempting to critically distinguish between valid so- cial science and an ostensible moralism. Certain of his detractors, I might add, un- derscore the pervasiveness of this-same moralism.

—Gordon Worth

by an interest group. There- fore, there was really nothing “unprofessional” about rais- ing these concerns publicly about the present study — which was reported both in the student newspaper and on local television.

Specific objections to my critique may be discussed under five categories:

Cont. on paaqe

enius)

MESES HERE EEAO RE EER EREEE

ee eee

N=

a A ay

ae