To find oneself in agreement with obviously very intellectual and entertaining Stanley Fish, as tempting as may be at times, is to succumb to a kind of cranky, old guard cynicism--one that says no, far more often than ever says yes. Aside from being stubbornly black and white, is jaded, if not downright reactionary, to say that any attempts to an informed citizenry, advance cause of justice, or to advance at all, are unjustified higher education goals (Fish, 2008, p.51). For Fish, an advocate of academicizing in classroom, that is to say avoiding any issues of politics whenever possible, the only proper ends of university are those that involve mastery of intellectual and scholarly skills and nothing more (Fish, 2008, p.14). In Fish's orthodox world, a professor should only engage in recondite classroom discussions regarding rational merits of an argument, not make any effort to affirm or dismiss any idea as better or worse than next. In other words, most vile sentiments could be placed on equal footing with most noble ones, as long as both are well reasoned. The professor's job should only be to solicit purely neutral academic views rather than veer towards anything moral or personal in nature. Doing more would be to take on tasks that belong properly to other agents--to preachers, political leaders, therapists, and gurus (Fish, 2008, p.169). For these reasons, in Save The World On Your Own Time, Stanley Fish (2008) makes case that university can not and should not work towards fashioning students' moral character, nor should attempt in any way to fashion good citizens. Any attempts to save world should be done on a faculty member's own time. If that is case, then many people's response might well be, What's point of all then? Is there no reason for learning anything other than for learning's sake? Academia does not exist in a fishbowl. Admittedly, professors' main responsibility should perhaps be to delve into specialized complexities of their chosen fields of study rather than abandon them in some attempt to proselytize, indoctrinate, or otherwise brainwash students into adopting a particular point of view. But are those only choices? Is all or nothing? Does have to be as black and white as Fish attempts to paint it? Should there not also be a role for academics who want to engage with hot topics of day, or who would dare to stray away from focusing merely on arcane issues of their particular field? Many other prominent academicians, regardless of their liberal or conservative leanings, think answer to that is yes. Provocative Princeton scholar Cornell West (2004) does not believe that life of all professors should be narrowly contained within university walls or made to serve only narrow technocratic goals. This technocratic view of academy fences professors off from larger democratic culture and has made university life too remote from that of larger society that supports it (West, 2004, p.189). Indeed, in an age when many in society increasingly see university as its own elite and very expensive universe--somewhat detached from concerns of real world--it would seem wise to promote more engagement with larger culture and society, not less. Fish's views have also drawn ire of absolute-minded conservative academicians as well, who often perceive him to be a kind of sophistic, postmodern proponent of nothing in particular. R.V. Young (2003) writes: Because his general understanding of human nature and of human condition is false, Fish fails in specific task of a university scholar, which requires that learning be placed in service of truth. And this, finally, is critical issue in contemporary university of which Stanley Fish is a typical representative: sophistry renders truth itself equivocal and deprives scholarly learning ofits reason for being. …
Read full abstract
Sep 23, 2023
E Jane Doering 
Open Access
