Christopher Hitchens - We are in need of a renewed Enlightenment

Benjamin Frankling, a pillar of the American Englightenment, by Gerald Scarfe, here

Christopher Hitchens said:

"Above all, we are in need of a renewed Enlightenment, which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man and woman. This Enlightenment will not need to depend, like its predecessors, on the heroic breakthroughs of a few gifted and exceptionally courageous people. It is within the compass of the average person. The study of literature and poetry, both for its own sake and for the eternal ethical questions with which it deals, can now easily depose the scrutiny of sacred texts that have been found to be corrupt and confected. The pursuit of unfettered scientific inquiry, and the availability of new findings to masses of people by electronic means, will revolutionize our concepts of research and development. Very importantly, the divorce between the sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny, can now at last be attempted, on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse. And all this and more is, for the first time in our history, within the reach if not the grasp of everyone."

Jenni Russell (@jennirsl) wrote that there's nothing inevitable about the victory of enlightenment values. In an earlier post I wrote that Christopher Hitchens said that enlightenment principles need to be fought for and defended by every generation. Scottish historian Niall Ferguson (@nfergus) noted that "the greatest thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment were not nationalists but cosmopolitans".

In Northern Ireland, where tribal acrimony and antipathy govern all levels of public discourse these principles are exceptionally necessary. We need to move away from what David Hume called "the vulgar motive of national antipathy."

In a Letter to Lafayette Monticello in May 1817, Thomas Jefferson said:

"Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government."

I earlier wrote that we could say that sectarians are mentally and morally unwell. And so as Christopher Hitchens said, "condemnation of bigotry and superstition is not just a moral question but a matter of survival."

The cult of university, Ctd

James Delingpole reminds us of the growth of university. A growth that I might add, needs corrected. He said in an article in the Spectator, 'The gilded generation - Why the young have never had it so good':

"Education: Of course it’s harder for graduates to find jobs — but that’s partly because there are so many more graduates. In the 1960s just one in 20 people went to university; now around half of all young people get to know the joys of freshers’ week, essay crises, late-night kebabs on vomit-spattered pavements and other formative further education experiences."

Jenni Russell backed up the figures and shared some commentary in my post here.

Political correctness is the worst kind of censorship, Ctd

@connal99 @LADFLEG It’s a valid point but the problem is the abuse ordinary members of the public get for speaking out. It silences people.
— Lyra McKee (@LyraMcKee) February 9, 2014

Jenni Russell (@jennirsl) looked at Amu Chua's new book, 'The Triple Package', in The Sunday Times here. She explained how Amy Chua has received abuse for speaking out and mentioning topics that are normally left untouched, shielded by the politically correct orthodoxy. Jenni Russell said:

"Amy Chua (@AmyChua) ignited an international firestorm among the chattering classes with her bestselling book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Her new book [The Triple Package]... is already being denounced across the Atlantic because it challenges another liberal tenet: that exploring the cultural differences between groups amounts to racism."

Political correctness is the worst kind of censorship, Ctd

"Labeling a speaker as exclusionary or racist is a quick way to undermine the legitimacy of the whole conversation." http://t.co/BBV0p7XqSf
— Amy Chua (@amychua) February 2, 2014

Political correctness and fear of offending has become a horrendous societal tick. As Newton Emerson said: "Ever since the Good Friday Agreement, [snobbery] seems to be the only crime you can commit in Northern Ireland." Alex Massie spoke in equal terms here; that being offensive has become "the greatest sin imaginable." By these standards Jenni Russell (@jennirsl) has been waving her offence all around the place, breaking with the PC orthodoxy and causing a whole load of trouble. Why? For speaking facts. She has written here and here. And here in particular:

"Middle-class children are having important character traits instilled in them at home, while poorer children are not. A nursery-age child needs to have many qualities already in place when they get to school if they are to succeed. He or she needs confidence; the belief that if they try something it will work. That is the first gulf between the two groups. By the time they start school, research shows that a middle-class child will have heard six times as many words of encouragement as reprimands. A working-class child will have heard only twice as many, while a child on welfare will have been criticised twice for every word of praise."

Amy Chua, The Tiger Mother is like the America version of Jenni Russell. Harvard Professor Amy Chua and her husband have written a book 'The Triple Package'. It's got them called "racist" and "despicable". Any Chua would say she's only presenting facts, speaking plain English. Vivia Chen said in Time Magazine:

Jenni Russell - Young people spent 13 years listening to a Labour government telling them that university is the key to a better life. The exhortations have shaped reality.

In 2011 Jenni Russell (@jennirsl) wrote in The Guardian here:

"[Young people have] spent 13 of the past 14 years listening to a Labour government telling them that university is the key to a better life. The exhortations have shaped reality. With almost half the age group going on to higher education, anyone who doesn't do so risks being labelled as below average, however unjust that might be. A degree might not be worth what it used to be now that so many people have them. For anyone who is ambitious, though, not having one has become a handicap that needs to be explained away."

She finished by saying:

"We have spent the past 10 days agonising about how to give the most desperate young people hope in their futures and a stake in society. This week we are turning around to those who have worked diligently and telling them: sorry, we know it's tough out there, and the good jobs don't exist in any quantity, but we're not prepared to develop you any further – you're on your own. It's a foolish, short-sighted, rotten way to be running either the country or the education system."

On a side but related note, the skills minister Matthew Hancock recently said in an article, 'Parents must drop 'sniffy' attitude to apprenticeships, leading headmistress says':

"Concentrating only on academic training to the exclusion of technical training was a big mistake."

Jenni Russell in full here. In a blog post here I wrote that a Sunday Times poll found that in many universities are more interested in research than their students. My previous post on Jenni Russell here and here. Previous posts in The Cult of University series here, here university here, here, here, on the University Neurosis here, on The Legally Blonde complex here and also a piece here. Also on the Huffington Post here. My blog post on YouGov who found that employers have found graduates non-work-ready, here. My blog posthere where a Sunday Times poll found that students are critical of university teaching standard and that universities are more interested in research than teaching students.

Jenni Russell - 'Some universities teach and some do not'

Jenni Russell (@jennirsl) wrote in The Times:

"We must throw a spotlight on those institutions where students can get away with little work... [the] mass of words and numbers avoids the hidden truth about university courses; that a few offer a terrific, demanding education while many others are content to allow students to drift through — in a three-year haze. 

Occasionally that is obvious. Everyone expects medicine at Oxford to be more gruelling than event management at a new university. For a majority of courses, though, it is impossible to understand from descriptions just how much study is involved. Hundreds of thousands of students are miserably ill-served as a result. 

A tiny think-tank, the Higher Education Policy Institute, collaborated with Which? magazine last summer to research the student experience. In a survey that consulted almost 40,000 students over two years, it discovered that, on average, they work only three-quarters of the hours that ministers assumed they did. The number of hours per week that law students put in varied from 21 at some universities to 47 at others. Medicine, which one might assume was tough everywhere, varied from 32 to 50. Maths and computer courses required an average of 23 hours a week at the least demanding universities and 44 at the toughest."