He has a chapter on "Liberals" which is really a devastating look at the university system in the US circa 1969 and the many failings of the academy. Like so much else in the book, what was Wills was recording in 1969 has not changed much and his perceptions of trend/movements/ideologies is so spot-on that the book in entirely relevant today. Nothing more so than the chapter on academia. He takes the academy to the woodshed and gives it a sound thrashing. Hell, he takes everything I believe in and have been working on and shows that the liberal project of "freedom" in all its facets is not only hollow, but so self-contradictory that it cannot stand. While Wills may have over-estimated the tranformative nature of 1960s student opposition, he still identifies all the same issues about academia we are discussing today. He even takes a swipe at AFT.
I thought I'd share with you a single paragraph in pages of paragraphs just like it that I thought was particularly good:
Despite the aristocratic code of the university, in which professors address an elite, the academy must yield, in any showdown with the mass electorate, to what Schlesinger calls the discipline of consent. There are two reasons for this, one theoretical (majority rule in the political market) and one practical (the universities' economic support comes from the political community, national, state, and local). Two contradictory feelings grow, therefore, in the academy -- the sense of superior knowledge and the sense of ultimate powerlessness, a combination that makes for resentment. And resentment, according to Scheler and Camus, leads to intellectual asphyxiation, the constant breathing of one's own thoughts in a closed room.As I read this chapter, I couldn't help but agree with Wills. I couldn't but think he was right, that the academy is built upon a fiction and it must be attacked. At the same time, I also couldn't help but realize that these arguments were leading me dangerously close to agreeing with DHo and the like (I'm aware of the DHo-as-student-radical to DHo-as-right-wing-crazy connection, but don't have time to develop it). I kept waiting for the "but, this is the best system we got" or some such saving grace, but it never came. This being the 1960s, "alternatives" were still very much alive and not everyone had settled into comfortable middle-classness (I recognize my resemblance to that remark).
Without going into too much more detail, else I will stray into a book report and I need to re-read this chapter several times, I did want to pose a couple of questions to my friends, especially one in particular. Can we agree that there is something wrong with the academy as it functions today? If so, how do we use the tools at our disposal to make the academy better?
Our union should be such a tool, but it is not. If anything, our union works hard to protect the status quo against attacks from the outside. Maybe this is just another example of the "left" being on the defensive from the far right, so that we have to bunker. But I begin to wonder what we actually win by bunkering. I think we all recognize that there are significant problems with the tenure system in the US, just to pick one example. I don't have time to go into them all...I'm sure you can think of five off the top of your head. But instead of fighting to reform the flawed system, we respond to right-wing critiques of tenure by trying to strengthen and re-expand tenure on the college campus. Moreover, because we are at "war" with the right, we are all supposed to pretend like tenure (and its companion, academic freedom) are unassailable goods and that anyone who critiques them must be either misguided or evil. Worse, we are made to ignore all the inherent contradictions within the academy, which Wills does a great job spotlighting and I am unfairly playing on without explaining. We have stopped improving that which we hold dear, in order to "defend" it from "attack." The right-wing questions and critiques, so we stop questioning and critiquing. Instead of fighting for a future, we are constantly looking back to the past. And that doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.





