From: Tony Williams
English
SIUC
 This debate is extremely interesting and does deserve some further
continuation. However, the last comment seems to echo the arbitrary and
increasingly reactionary (in terms of Lynne Cheyney and political attacks
on academics) division between research and teaching. As far as a university
is concerned, there is an essential link between both fields. Naturally, there
is a complicity between the system and supposedly radical attitudes if faculty
see their work exclusively in terms of fitting into the establishment via
conference and arcane learned journal presentation which may have no radical
results. However, good teaching, developing one's thoughts testing them upon
students and respectfully lostening to feedback goes hand in hand with research
if we look upon the latter as advancing the horizons of knowledge and
developing new insights. Otherwise teaching becomes the worst type of
high school conveyer-belt system of pedagogy - something Cheney and the Right
would like to see, a return to the pre-tenure days of universities described
in Upton Sinclair's THE GOOSE STEP (essential reading for those thinking about
extending "term limits" into academia.
  Yes, much conference and article work does fit into the system. But others
do not. Let's look at the differences. Otherwise this line of argument will
reproduce the monolithic aspect of the diatribes recently delivered by Robin
Wood in his "Old Boys" critique of higher education seen in FILM CRITICISM
and cineACTION.
   Not all higher education work (either in conferences and journals) fits into
Curtis's description. There is a danger that this type of critique will aid
the developing new phase of anti-intellectualism always present in American
cultural life. Let's discriminate and not make too many arbitrary judgements,
please. Tony Williams.