To the editors:
In re Allan Bloom (Reading: Feb. 2). Has anyone stopped to consider that Bloom’s rants are merely tautological? In blaming feminists, relativists, and post-modernists for the lack of passion in today’s college students, he is excluding the passionate feminists, relativists, and post-modernists among that group. Ergo, passion, in Bloom’s sense, is androcentric, ethnocentric, and modern.
Not being a scholar, I don’t know the terms for Bloom’s second fallacy in blaming the “60’s.” The shifts in the protocols of values in the 60’s (as distinguished from an actual shift in values, which there was not) were rooted in the milieus created by the Second World War. Just because the 60’s preceded the 80’s, does not mean the 60’s are to blame. Moreover, the period cried out for an equivalent of a Plato, Rousseau, or Marx–but none came forth. Therefore the 60’s have not failed the academic establishment; rather, the academics have failed the 60’s.
Finally, I would like to denote the real reason for the paucity of intellectual fervor in the Universities. When I attended college, I worked for a short time in the College of Education as a typist. I was shocked daily by what I saw and overheard–the lack of scientific method, the absolute eliding of truth, the manipulations of research that constituted the theories of education being forced upon education students. No wonder teachers of elementary & secondary education are so lacking: they have been coerced into believing theories which obviously do not work. Yet no one questions or blames the teachers of the teachers. In effect, then, the problem of the students matriculating in the schools today are the result of higher education, especially, Bloom’s own University of Chicago, which gave to the world the worst of culprits, John Dewey.
[Name Withheld by Request]
N. Lake Shore Dr.