Anthem Foundation Grant Rejected at Texas State

[Robert Campbell]

David Glenn of the Chronicle of Higher Education has followed up his article on the denial of tenure to John Lewis with a new article on the Leonard Peikoff Institute's efforts to place orthodox Objectivists in academic jobs.

Till it turns into a pumpkin, the link is

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i45/45a00701.htm

The Philosophy Department at Texas State (formerly Southwest Texas State, in San Marcos) was offered a multi-year grant by the Anthem Foundation to fund a visiting professor who would specialize in Objectivism.

They turned down the money.

Here are the key passages, to my way of thinking.

Mr. Fulmer [Gilbert Fulmer, a Full Professor of Philosophy] and some of his colleagues also had specific worries about the world of Rand scholarship, which has occasionally been marred by schisms and accusations of scholarly foul play. In particular, the Ayn Rand Institute, a nonprofit organization with which the Anthem Foundation is closely associated, has sometimes been accused of enforcing rigid ideological conformity — and even of failing to acknowledge the work of scholars associated with rival organizations.

Debates surrounding Rand's work often "resemble a religious dogma surrounding a sacred text, and not the free give-and-take of ordinary scholarship," says Rebecca Raphael, a senior lecturer in philosophy at Texas State.

Rebecca Raphael was specifically worried about Leonard Peikoff Institute's institutional culture and its promotion of unscholarly behavior by its affiliates.

Much of the opposition was organized by Ms. Raphael, the lecturer in the department, who was disturbed by the notion that money might shape the department's offerings. "Debate about Rand's quality and significance should be pursued — but not by these means," she says.

While researching the objectivist world online, Ms. Raphael began to fear that Anthem's grants were given only to a narrow range of scholars associated with the Ayn Rand Institute. No Anthem grants appear to go to scholars associated with David Kelley, a former Vassar College philosophy professor who broke with the institute in 1990 amid a personal and ideological dispute that concerned, among other things, whether it is appropriate for objectivists to speak at events organized by libertarians. Mr. Kelley, who now directs the Atlas Society, an objectivist group in Washington, says he can understand that the institute might not want anything to do with him personally. But he believes it is absurd for the institute to demand that its associates "repudiate" any and all scholars who "tolerate" him — a formulation that often appears in objectivist blog posts.

Mr. McCaskey, the Anthem president, says that Ms. Raphael's concern about narrowness is unfair and unfounded. Many of the Anthem Foundation's grants, he points out, go to institutions like the University of North Carolina, where there are no objectivists on the faculty. And Mr. Gotthelf noted that he himself has historically had an arm's-length relationship with the institute. In 2000, four of its leaders declared that they felt "morally obliged" to criticize Mr. Gotthelf's book On Ayn Rand (Wadsworth) for being written in inaccessible academic language. Ms. Raphael is correct, however, to note that the foundation has never supported any scholars associated with Mr. Kelley, some of whom have published extensively in objectivist philosophy.

The Chronicle could have said more about the different ways that ARIans treat academics with no prior connection to Objectivism and those they consider heretics or apostates. But there is an explicit reference to the way David Kelley and his associates are shunned.

Wouldn't you know that one of the academics that Anthem was thinking of placing at Texas State was Andrew Bernstein?

Another red flag for Ms. Raphael was an abject apology distributed online in 2002 by Andrew Bernstein, a visiting professor of philosophy at Marist College. Mr. Bernstein lectured on Rand at Texas State this past March, and Mr. McCaskey mentioned his name as someone who might fill the position that Anthem offered to finance.

In his 2002 statement, Mr. Bernstein apologized for having contributed a one-paragraph letter to The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, a journal that publishes a variety of approaches to Rand's philosophy, many of which the institute's leaders find false and offensive. (Mr. Bernstein's short contribution was a reply to a negative review of his CliffsNotes of Rand's novels.)

"The so-called Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is filled with writings by people with whom I refuse to knowingly associate under any circumstances," wrote Mr. Bernstein in his apology. "I deeply regret my thoughtless decision to contribute to this journal, and hereby irrevocably repudiate any and all association with it. In this regard, the fault is entirely my own. This journal does not hide what it is. Its contents are available on the Internet for all to see. In failing to do the requisite research and gather the necessary data, I failed to properly use my mind. I must now suffer the consequences of that. To all who are sincerely concerned with objectivism, I apologize, and recommend a complete repudiation and boycott of this journal. ..."

When asked by The Chronicle about his 2002 comments, Mr. Bernstein replied that rejecting The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies was a moral and intellectual obligation. "We are literally in a struggle to save human civilization from the destruction wrought by irrational philosophy," he wrote in an e-mail message. The editors of the journal have been hostile to the Ayn Rand Institute, he said, but "anyone who sincerely supports Ayn Rand's philosophy, and appreciates its indispensable role in promoting cultural renaissance, must, as a logical consequence ... respect ARI's dauntless, indefatigable, gallant struggle on behalf of a rational philosophy."

The Leonard Peikoff Institute is now getting the publicity that it deserves.

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

That's beautiful.

[Barbara Branden]

Robert, I want to thank you for your post on Texas State's refusal to accept an ARI grant. It is tremendously important that the attitude of ARI toward scholars whom its principals personally dislike should be publicly revealed. That attitude is doing great harm to the future of Objectivism.

It is well and good to sponsor essay contests and to give away books, but the Institute's policy of denying anyone not in its good graces access to information about Rand and Objectivism -- plus its refusal to recognize major contributions to Objectivist thought by such people as David Kelley and George Reisman and Nathaniel Branden and Tibor Machan -- plus its periodic moralistic frenzies -- plus the religious fervor of its deification of Rand -- plus its foreign policy of 'nuke 'em all" -- make the Institute a major detriment to the academic and public acceptance of Objectivism. Anyone concerned with Objectivism's future should repudiate these policies.

Barbara

[Reidy]

The Anthem Foundation won't support heretics or buy them jobs, but they've invited some to speak at their conferences at Austin and Pittsburgh within the last year, as well as people who weren't Objectivists (or pseudo-Objectivist snarling wimps or what have you) at all. Machan, Huemer, Rasmussen and Lennox were on the program at one event or the other.

[Robert Campbell]

Peter,

I've seen two programs for events in Pittsburgh, none for the Austin event (or events). If you can provide these I'm happy to stand corrected.

I can say that I spotted no heretics or apostates on the Pittsburgh programs that I've seen. (Michael Huemer, of the University of Colorado, once considered himself a Randian but now defends a position diametrically opposed to hers on ethics, so he is an apostate, while Tibor Machan and Doug Rasmussen are heretics.)

Jim Lennox doesn't count. For a few years he proclaimed his independence of any Objectivist organization, but these days he toes the ARI line just about as assiduously as his Anthem-funded departmental colleague, Allan Gotthelf.

I did think the Chronicle article was a little careless in lumping together the policies of the Anthem Foundation and Branch Banking and Trust. Although I recently got an ARI fund-raising letter that tried to create the impression that BB&T's program is virtually an extension of the Leonard Peikoff Institute, BB&T money is currently going to at least two academics who have never been in the ARI orbit: Stephen Hicks of Rockford College and Ed Younkins at Wheeling Jesuit.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

Thanks for this excellent post. While Prof. Gotthelf may currently consider himself at "arms-length" from the ARI, there is nothing in his 2000 book On Ayn Rand to indicate that he had any misgivings about Peikoff or the ARI. Nor has he, to the best of my knowledge, attempted to stake out a middle ground in the various disputes.

Gotthelf and Bernstein are free to disagree with some of the articles in JARS, but it is indeed ridiculous to ignore the numerous solid pieces that have been published. If these folks want to take the position that only those associated with ARI have anything good or interesting to say about Rand, they should come out and say it.

[Robert Campbell]

Neil,

In fact, in On Ayn Rand, Allan Gotthelf alluded (negatively) to Chris Sciabarra's book The Russian Radical without citing it.

I can't see anyone at ARI faulting him for that.

Robert Campbell

[Reidy]

To answer #5: The only conference information I can find currently is at RofR: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDi...ions/1817.shtml, # 7 and 8. I don't have a schedule for the Austin conference, but my recollection is that they invited Objectivists not approved by ARI.

[Robert Campbell]

Peter,

If you're talking about the conference in November 2006 titled Objectivism, Subjectivism, and Relativism in Ethics, Stephen Boydstun said that it took place at Bowling Green State University.

The Ayn Rand Institute has allowed its scholars to participate in events at BGSU that are run by the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, even though heretics and apostates also participate.

SPPC events and sessions of the Ayn Rand Society are both considered "neutral ground" by ARI and have been been for years. (They are also the only neutral ground that ARI recognizes.)

So the BGSU conference--which featured Tibor Machan and Doug Rasmussen from among the heretics, Michael Huemer from among the apostates, and Tara Smith and Darryl Wright from among the faithful--does not indicate a change of policy by the Leonard Peikoff Institute. I also doubt that any Anthem Foundation money went into it. Has the Anthem Foundation ever funded any SPPC activities?

The event in Pittsburgh that Glenn Fletcher mentioned did have ARI (and probably also Anthem Foundation) support. Titled Concepts and Objectivity, it was much crowed about by the junior ARIans, who alternate between praising their organization's exclusionary practices and denying that it has any. The lineup consisted of the faithful (Ghate, Gotthelf, Lennox, Wright, Smith, Binswanger) plus a sprinkling of well-known academic philosphers with no past in Rand-land (Martinich is an expert on Hobbes, and a colleague of Smith's at Texas; Rescher is a famous philosopher of science at Pitt, known for his defense of Kant's epistemology among other things).

ARI will accept occasional events with big-name philosophers who have little or no prior knowledge of Rand. Heretics and apostates it will put up with only at the designated neutral sites. (It is unclear whether the Ayn Rand Society will continue to be neutral, as the nonARIans are gradually losing influence over it.)

Robert Campbell

PS. Was the Austin event sponsored by Anthem or BB&T? BB&T does give money to Randians not affiliated with ARI. In fact, Stephen Hicks has spoken at many TAS events and no ARI events.

[Brant Gaede]

Didn't LBJ go to this school--then known as a teacher's college?

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

Yes, LBJ attended Southwest Texas State Teachers College, as it was then known.

According to Robert Caro's biography, he also stole his first election there (for Student Government president).

Robert Campbell

PS. Texas State really ought to have a monument to LBJ's early electoral exploits. I didn't notice one when I visited the campus, though, and I doubt one has been installed since the last time I was there.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, the Dems stole the '60 Presidential election too.

There is a Ward in New Orleans that the Dems had habitually used to steal elections--I believe it is the 9th--that was wiped out by Katrina. They can't do that there anymore.

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

It is well and good to sponsor essay contests and to give away books, but the Institute's policy of denying anyone not in its good graces access to information about Rand and Objectivism -- plus its refusal to recognize major contributions to Objectivist thought by such people as David Kelley and George Reisman and Nathaniel Branden and Tibor Machan -- plus its periodic moralistic frenzies -- plus the religious fervor of its deification of Rand -- plus its foreign policy of 'nuke 'em all" -- make the Institute a major detriment to the academic and public acceptance of Objectivism. Anyone concerned with Objectivism's future should repudiate these policies.

A wonderfully eloquent statement of the threat that Objectivism faces from its alleged defenders at the "Ayn Rand" Institute.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Robert Campbell]

In contrast to the hullabaloo over John Lewis being denied tenure, the Leonard Peikoff Institute and its adepts have made nary a public comment over the Texas State turndown.

Today, I was amused to see a one-sentence item in Ms. Hsieh's blog, pointing to a supposedly ironclad proof of the proposition that no Objectivist should ever publish in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

It turns out to be the response of one Gus van Horn to... the Texas State turndown.

Here's a sample:

[...]Objectivism holds that philosophical ideas can be discovered by means of logic applied to the facts of reality -- and are not based on supernatural or subjective whim. This means that sloppiness in philosophy is not just a matter of personal taste, but that it is inexcusably wrong.

Rather than prattling about what he calls a "so-called scholarly dispute", he [brian Doherty, in an online comment about ARIans referring to the "so-called" Journal of Ayn Rand Studies] would do well to consider how professionals in other academic fields that are a little more easily recognized as having an objective basis would act in a similar situation to the professional philosophers he impugns.

Suppose an astronomer were considering where to publish a new finding. One of his options calls itself The Journal of Astronomical Studies, but it is in fact an astrology magazine. Who will profit more from our (real) astronomer's hard work and disciplined approach should he publish there? Real astronomers, who would then find themselves, at least in the public eye, placed on the same precarious, pseudoscientific footing as astrologers? Or astrologers, who could then suddenly point to the "real science" going on in their "journal"?

That question pretty much answers itself. Furthermore, while the JAS might be able to boast of more scientific content, our careless author will rightly be regarded with suspicion by his more fastidious colleagues. His standards as a scientist will be suspect, and this obvious and legitimate question will arise: "If Dr. X is careless about where he publishes, what else is he careless about?" Not having infinite time to go over, with a fine-toothed comb, every scientist who publishes in a quack journal, many scientists will justifiably tend to ignore Dr. X in the future should he go with the astrology outfit.

To so carelessly make light of an Objectivist intellectual's refusal to have any truck with a journal that falsely proclaims itself to be within his field is to completely miss one of the most distinctive and profound characteristics of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Hint: It's the one for which the philosophy is named. The astrology magazine not only "disagrees with" our astronomer "about something or other" -- it also repudiates the science of astronomy at its most fundamental level.

It is no more petty quibbling to be concerned about whether a journal purportedly about Objectivism really is about Objectivism than it is for a publishing scientist to be concerned about the quality of a journal to which he submits an article for publication. It is professionalism -- a quality too many intellectuals exempt themselves from because they think that philosophical ideas are a matter of whim (divine or subjective) and that as such, they do not really matter that much.

I have one little request of Mr. Van Horn. I hope that whenever the Anthem Foundation approaches a philosophy department in the future, he will do his bit for the cause by sending every faculty member in the department a link to his blog entry.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

This guy's analogy with astrology is pretty good, but he misses the point. All one has to do is look at the credentials of the contributors of JARS, then look at the credentials of the contributors of ARI publications.

There is nothing to equate either with astrology (although the ARI side will be greatly limited "in-house"-wise).

The temptation is to strike back in the same currency and say the ARI side is closer to astrology, but that would be making the same mistake of precision our dear Mr. Horn has been tooting, and one does not effectively combat one lie with another. Only the truth can do that.

I will admit that I find orthodox Objectivist cosmology to be particularly irrational, and certain other positions like their lopsided view of human nature (and a few other items). Their isolationist policy—while loudly and constantly announcing it to those they are isolating from—smacks of cultism, and their handling of the Ayn Rand archives has been peppered with gross primary errors in relation to the principles of Objectivism (but not in relation to Rand worship). And I can think of some other complaints. Still, I would not call the entire orthodox approach something equivalent to the astrology of philosophy. That's simply not true.

Horn and Hsieh are intelligent enough to know this isn't true about JARS, also. They are just engaging in childish insults. Nothing more. Being Objectivists, they are supposed to be better than that. (A is A and all that.) Nobody will even remember this crap in a few weeks.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

There are more than a few disanalgoies [sic] here. JARS is about Objectivism, Rand and issues that are related to these. Astrology and astronomy are different subjects, notwithstanding certain similarities.

Mr. van Horn says: "This means that sloppiness in philosophy is not just a matter of personal taste, but that it is inexcusably wrong." By this standard, all non-ARI journals are "quack philosophy." Why would and ARIan want to publish in The Journal of Metaphysics or some such journal, since they are all dominated by pseudo-philosophers. But of course, even ARI types love to have their articles published in big-name journals.

And it would be nice for Ms. Hsieh and Mr. van Horn to pick out a couple of articles in JARS that they consider good and a couple they don't (with explanation) so that the rest of us would have some idea what their complaint is. For some reason I doubt they will.

[Dragonfly]

Horn and Hsieh are intelligent enough to know this isn't true about JARS, also.

I don't know about Horn, but I think Hsieh is pathological enough to believe her own lies and fantasies. She seems to increasingly lose touch with reality, becoming a real nutcase.

[Robert Campbell]

Neil is of course correct that Leonard Peikoff Institute affiliated academics are desperately eager to publish in top-tier academic journals such as Ethics and The Monist and Philosophy of Science.

Somehow their insuperable disgust at "quack philosophy" (i.e., at any ideas at variance with any aspect of Peikovian Objectivism) doesn't hold them back from getting their articles published cheek-by-jowl with contributions from post-Kantians and worldview philosophers of science (even, shudder, postmodernists, if those should manage to gain admittance). Nor does it hold them back from promoting conferences with guest speakers like Nicholas Rescher.

But there's little point in trying to analyze a screed like Mr. van Horn's. The important thing is for every academic philosopher whose department is being approached by the Anthem Foundation to see it--and Ms. Hsieh's--and all of the others of that ilk. Because if this stuff does gain further circulation outside of Rand-land, it will make life very difficult indeed for the principals and clients of the Anthem Foundation.

After her conversion, Ms. Hsieh ventured the claim that Marsha Enright was still an OK Objectivist, despite her lack of fealty to Leonard Peikoff. But Marsha Enright's article on emotions in JARS (strongly recommended, by the way), is expressly critical of Rand's view that emotions are never, under any circumstance, tools of cognition.

I doubt that, at this point in her career at the Leonard Peikoff Institute, Ms. Hsieh could afford to say anything positive about any article in JARS. Any more than she could afford not to lavish effusive praise on any declaration by Leonard Peikoff.

As for Mr. Van Horn, I suspect he has kept himself pure by never turning the front cover of a single issue.

Ms. Hsieh (and, presumably, Mr. van Horn) are too smart to really believe what they're saying here. They've been taught to say it, they're expected to say it, and, at least in Ms. Hsieh's case, any prospect of further advancement within the Leonard Peikoff Institute depends on their saying it.

It's hard to know whether personal nuttiness is at work when apparently pathological utterances are in 100% compliance with institutional imperatives.

Robert Campbell