Guerrilla Schooling tool bar

“The Graves of Academe” is back in print

Despite what you might gather by watching those bible-thumping shows on television, civilizations don’t fall into decay when they become enamored of vice. That’s a secondary consequence, a side-effect. Cultures collapse when they cease to be enamored of virtue. And while I hear a lot from diviners of dark portents for our own culture, I don’t listen to them much. As bad as things might be, they have been worse. And even as the skies darken here they seem to clear over yonder. I tell children, when they are distraught, that the world can only fall to pieces so many times in a given day, and it seems good advice to give to myself, too.

On the other hand, I have for quite a while taken it as a very dark portent that the works of Richard Mitchell were out of print. His absence from the bookstores was a mechanical sort of marketing decision, I’m sure, not the kind of conspiracy of lies that has been visited upon H. L. Mencken. Mitchell’s books were and are available at better public libraries, and his corpus is accessible for free on line. But his not being in the bookstores was more than just sad for me; it seemed to say that Americans were indifferent to the causes of the steady decline of our culture.

Perhaps that was so, and perhaps it still is. But there is this, at least, a ray of hope amidst the clouds: Richard Mitchell’s books are being reissued by The Akadine Press. His “Less Than Words Can Say” has been available for a couple of months, and Akadine is now taking orders for “The Graves of Academe”.

The book is Mitchell’s detailed inventory of how and why American education has gone to hell—in a hand-basket badly-weaved by students of educationism pursuing self-esteem. As a work of literature it is written with a breathtaking beauty, a stunning erudition and an acerbic wit. And as a polemic it is unmatched by anyone since Demosthenes.

And that’s an ominous comparison. I fervently hope that Richard Mitchell is not America’s Demosthenes, doomed to be right. Even if he is, there’s not a lot we can do. But what we can do we must do. And Athens was not great because no Athenians loved vice. Athens was great because the best people loved and celebrated and honored and lived their virtues. The clouds of portent may come and go, but clarity begins at home. Perhaps by our strivings and his we can consign Dr. Mitchell to a different role, not our Demosthenes but our William Lloyd Garrison...

—GSS

Richard Mitchell
Light one candle...
If you know of some person or movement or organization whose human grace should grace this space, write with the particulars.

Nobody Here But Us Professionals

from “The Graves of Academe” by Richard Mitchell

The works of Weischadle, associate professor of education at Montclair State College in New Jersey, can be studied at length in the New Jersey section of The New York Times for July 16, 1978. His piece is called, naturally, “Educating the Parents.”

Mass illiteracy he easily dismisses as a matter of “problem youngsters,” but those uppity parents who are beginning to complain about illiteracy — they need to be taught a lesson. They can vote! If we don’t straighten those malcontents out right away, they might end up listening to demagogues and voting against some of our favorite monies. Worse yet, and it’s with this fear that Weischadle begins his finger-wagging, some of them might win those malpractice suits that they’re discussing with their lawyers.

Weischadle protests that even if illiteracy were the fault of the schools, that wouldn’t mean that the schools were to blame. Here’s the delicate way he puts it:

Have the critics been fair to the schools? To the extent that schools are responsible for a youngster’s educational growth, the critics have dealt with the right party. However, it does not necessarily mean that professionals in the schools are inept. It does mean that educational leadership has failed to articulate the problem effectively and carry out the necessary programs.

It’s hard to know exactly what Weischadle means by that “articulate.” First we thought that the “professionals” had been unable to utter intelligible sounds, for that reading does reflect experience. However, in this kind of writing, no “professional” would ever waste a nifty word like “articulate” on such a simple thought. Next we guessed that the man might be saying that the “professionals” had been unable to define the problem thoroughly and accurately. That, too, we had to reject. Such inability would be remarkably similar to ineptitude in “professionals,” surely, but Weischadle says they’re not inept. Only one possibility remains: “To articulate the problem effectively” must mean to find some description that will keep irate parents from thinking that the “professionals” are inept. Of course! That’s just what Weischadle’s is up to in this piece — educating the parents.

He does some pretty fancy articulating as well. Where do they learn that language? In the ordinary graduate school, candidates are expected to be competent in a couple of foreign languages, but in those education places they know that skill in language will cripple the budding “professional” by enabling him to say things plainly. You get no monies that way. Straight talk would mean the end of effective articulation as we know it.

Here are some examples of bent talk from Weischadle’s little piece. He won’t say that people are talking about something; he says that “much recent discussion has focused on” it. He can’t say, “Hurry”; he says that “delay should not be allowed to take place.” He can’t say that people should use wisely what they have; he says that “an enlightened utilization . . . must be present.” He can’t say that the people who deal out discipline should be consistent; he says that “the haphazard application of disciplinary action . . . must be eliminated.” He can’t say, “Don’t worry.” He says that “uneasiness should be settled.”

Still, we worry. For one thing, there is no clear meaning in the settling of uneasiness. In fact, it sounds ominous. If the settling of uneasiness has the same effect as the settling of terms or plans, we don’t want any part of it. For another, how can we take any comfort from a teacher of teachers who condescends, in broken English, to explain why we should have “complete confidence” in him and other “professionals,” so that they may get on, unhampered by our ill-informed and amateurish complaints, with the “acquisition . . . of monies to enact better programs” that will, this time around, solve the illiteracy problem?

In these examples of Weischadle’s tortured English, the grammatical subjects are things, not persons, and abstract things at that. All things that must be done by people, but we see no people. This language suggests a world where responsible agents, the doers of deeds, have been magically occulted by the deeds themselves. A weird structure of that sort, “utilization must be present,” for example, has the merit (?) of excusing somebody from an obligation to use something. If things go wrong, therefore, it’s not any person’s fault; it’s just that utilization wasn’t present.

Such structures, furthermore, often generate certain morally flavored auxiliary verbs: “delay should not” — “application must,” etc. This is another grammatically symbolized cop-out which implies that moral obligation falls upon deeds rather than doers. It is up to those negligent deeds to get themselves done. This is convenient for those “professionals” who won’t be able to do them.

Normal English, in its typical structure, a simple sentence in the active voice, implies a world where agents perform acts. There are times when we would wish it otherwise, and in our minds we can devise subterfuges that will make it seem otherwise. We do the business of the mind in language, and we make our subterfuges of the same stuff. Weischadle, in his grammatical gyrations, is not just writing bad English; he is positing a certain kind of world. In that world, one can parler sans parler like Castorp and reject in advance all responsibility for what one says. Here’s how Weischadle does it — indeed, how almost anyone of those “professionals” would do it: “The pre-school years have been recognized as being important formulative years.”

He probably means “formative,” although he may be thinking that the pre-school years are the years spent sucking a formula from bottles — but no matter. The important thing is the grotesque contortion by which he escapes having to say that the pre-school years are formative, or, if you like, formulative. It matters not at all to the “professional” that what he has to say is obvious and banal and widely enough known that it needs no saying; he still finds a way to evade responsibility for having said it. In this timid language of misdirection and abdication, no one would dare stand forth and proclaim that a turkey is a turkey. He might mutter, tentatively, that a turkey has been recognized as being a turkey — although not necessarily by him.

Into such prose, human beings vanish. No wonder we couldn’t discover Weischadle’s salary. He has withdrawn into the precincts of the passive voice. He has given over all doing of deeds and drawn up about him the mists of circumlocution. Far from our ken, he has sojourned in the land of the self-eliminating application and followed the spoor of the place-taking delay. He is, by now, by gloomy night and periphrastics compassed round. He is, in short, or sort of short, no longer recognized as being Weischadle. Now we see the truth. There is no Weischadle.


CONTENTS | HOPE | DESPAIR | NOTES | CRYPT | ENLIST | LINKS | CURRENT ISSUE