Academia's Wild Divorce From Reality: What in the world is happening to education?
Academia's Wild Divorce From Reality: What in the world is happening to education?
Once upon a time they warned us about "the uneducated." Now we should be warning them about the overly educated — and how they are indoctrinating millions of clueless, overly impressionistic students.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free and zero-advertising for all.
This is a guest essay written by Simon Lucas of Streetwise Ethics.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.
Share this essay using this link: https://www.futureofjewish.com/p/academias-wild-divorce-from-reality
Not long after the commencement of Israeli military operations following the October 7th atrocities, moral philosophers swiftly entered the public debate, asserting their voices with significant gravitas as scholars who have dedicated their lives “thinking about events such as these” — as one open letter published by academics claimed.1
Since then, numerous letters penned by academic philosophers have voiced their opinions on the conflict. Some of those are not even worth reading beyond the first paragraph and are a mishmash of uninformed gibberish or delusional fantasies of “decolonization” — underscored by influential academics unabashedly asserting that “the uprising of October 7th was an act of armed resistance.”2
Interwoven within this fabric of ignorance and moral failure is a troubling pattern of academic decadence. Matthew Noah Smith’s advocacy among U.S. philosophers, particularly aimed at the American Philosophical Association (APA), to condemn the Gaza war sheds light on a larger issue.
Acknowledging the tendency for academics to steer clear of involving professional associations like the APA in tackling “generic injustices,” he concocts a bewilderingly simplistic argument, fixating on Israel’s purported targeting of educational infrastructure in Gaza, painting it as a substantial hindrance to intellectual pursuits in the region.3
In his analysis, he conspicuously omits any mention of the military misuse of these institutions, while also disregarding the disturbing reality that many of them exploit their authority to disseminate perilous genocidal ideologies of Jew-hatred and martyrdom, thereby adding layers of complexity to the ongoing discourse.
While safeguarding educational institutions is undoubtedly vital, this elitist argument, though it may flatter the APA, overlooks the intricate complexities of the conflict, such as the very real threats posed by Hamas — including threats to genuine education in Gaza — and the dire humanitarian plight facing Gazans beyond the lecture halls.
Indeed, this narrow focus on academic concerns not only reveals a myopic worldview but also prompts scrutiny of the underlying priorities within scholarly contributions to the war in Gaza. When contemplating whether U.S. philosophers should equally denounce Hamas, Smith concluded:
“Perhaps. But Hamas has not blown up universities. Hamas has not engaged in a systematic, sustained effort to destroy other educational institutions. But, if Hamas’s wanton violence on October 7th warrants our professional association issuing a statement, then we do not need to seek the narrow grounds discussed above for the APA to condemn Israeli violence.”
Rarely does one encounter a more poignant illustration of academic decadence than this spectacle of short-sighted reasoning entangled with a complete abandonment of human decency.
However, other letters were much more carefully crafted by some of the most eminent contemporary philosophers, raising high expectations for profound insights. For those endeavoring to explore the moral complexities of warfare and examine its ethical dimensions by engaging with leading thinkers, encountering opinions of the latter category can be profoundly disheartening.
Regrettably, these viewpoints often feel disconnected from the harsh realities in Gaza and the Middle East, dwelling predominantly in hypothetical scenarios, and fail to unravel moral intricacies, instead perpetuating irresponsible oversimplifications that obscure complexity rather than illuminate it.
Despite moral philosophy’s aspiration to surpass mere armchair theorizing, the failure of most of these letters or other contributions to construct concise arguments rooted in the unforgiving realities of warfare casts doubt on the practical relevance of this discipline in ethical considerations of warfare.
‘Slaughtering Here, and Slaughtering There’ — The Fallacy of Moral Equivalence
The initial erroneous presumption, posited by many moral philosophers in this debate, is that the heinous attacks by Hamas and the military operations conducted by Israel carry an equal, or at the very least, nearly equal level of moral standing.
According to a group of Oxford scholars, Israel’s military strike is a “morally disastrous exercise,” equating to an “onslaught on the civilian population of Gaza,” and resembling “terrorism’s central practice: collective punishment.” It is apparent that any conclusion or argument, irrespective of its careful construction, founded upon this — patently false, notably in its oversimplified form — presumption, necessitates careful consideration and is poised to harbor fundamental flaws.
This is particularly salient given the presumption’s blindness to the profound moral asymmetries in the situation under scrutiny, juxtaposed with the incessant proclamations of academic philosophers regarding the supposed depth and nuance of their conclusion, which they assert “in the fullness of history, will be obvious to all.”
Certainly, an illuminating commentary emerged recently from one of the signatories of the Oxford letter, Jeff McMahan, rightfully regarded as one of the preeminent contemporary philosophers and an undisputed authority in the field of war ethics.
During a panel discussion as part of Ono Academic College’s Conversation Corner, McMahan conjectured on the potential ramifications of Israel’s military campaign, suggesting that “more Israeli children and innocent people are going to get slaughtered, more Palestinians are going to get slaughtered.”4
His co-panelist, bioethicist Gil Siegal, appeared visibly taken aback, his response almost breathless: “Slaughtered? Slaughtered? So… they were all slaughtered.” For numerous philosophers, the actions of Israel’s military seem morally parallel to the atrocities committed by Hamas — “slaughtering” here, and “slaughtering” there.
It is truly baffling how moral philosophers can so conveniently overlook such a glaring, almost textbook-like moral asymmetry in the conflict at hand. It is almost as if a surgeon were unable to distinguish between an appendix and an earlobe.
And if it is not ignorance or moral confusion but rather a calculated ploy to ingratiate themselves with the public or political leaders through simple arguments, then their utterances remain entirely devoid of merit nonetheless.
David Enoch, professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford and philosophy and law at Hebrew University, has very aptly pointed out that this type of gross oversimplification and disregard towards the complexities of issues — such as foreseen side-effects or collateral damage, liable targets, as well as the principle of proportionality — is irresponsibly disingenuous.5
It renders their contributions essentially useless, as Enoch elaborated:
“If there’s a point to intellectual interventions in public discourse, surely it is to help make people — perhaps including those who have spent at least some of their lives doing other things — appreciate the relevant complexities. The [Oxford] academics’ letter, however, plays a role in hiding complexities from plain view, in keeping public discourse (to which it hopes to contribute) simplistic.”
An Odyssey in Thought Experiments — The Great Divorce From the Fabric of Reality
Furthermore, while urging for a ceasefire or condemning Israel’s military operations, academic philosophers consistently affirm Israel’s right to take defensive measures, often conveniently overlooking Israel’s obligation to protect its citizens from grave threats.
However, they frequently fail to provide concrete solutions for Israel to fulfill this responsibility. When they proffer recommendations, their discourse frequently exhibits a tragicomic disposition, appearing conspicuously divorced from the fabric of reality.
Amidst all the valid criticisms of political decisions, leaders, and potential moral shortcomings in military activity and politics, it is perplexing how one can so easily overlook the ample evidence and perpetual display of moral superiority of Israel over Hamas. As the popular thought leader Sam Harris very aptly put it:
“Israel remains a lonely outpost of civilized ethics in the absolute moral wasteland that is the Middle East. To deny that the government of Israel (with all of its flaws) is better than Hamas, to deny that Israeli culture (with all of its flaws) is better than Palestinian culture — in its attitude toward violence — is to deny that moral progress itself is possible.”6
If one seeks only one poignant and unmistakable testament to Israel’s moral superiority, consider its provision of medical treatment to Hamas leaders and their families, exemplifying a commitment to treating even its most formidable adversaries with dignity and humanity, as juxtaposed by the unimaginable cruelty of those who greatly benefited from this grand gesture of civilized ethics.
The proposal also overlooks the crucial role of deterrence in shaping Israel’s exercise of its right to self-defense. It is astonishing how frequently this aspect eludes the attention of Western moral philosophers.
Even someone as accomplished as Jeff McMahan can assert, from the armchair, that in the conflict Israel holds the position of power; it is almost as if he has never examined a map of the Middle East.
To disregard the profound fragility Israel faces, not only contending with Hamas but also confronting the looming threat of Iran and its Party of God allies, is to overlook one of the most critical aspects of the situation — that many of Israel’s neighbors would show little or no remorse if it were to vanish, with some explicitly advocating for its annihilation as a cornerstone of their political doctrine.
Of maybe even greater significance is the disregard for Israel’s vulnerability in the face of Iran’s unprecedented and overt aggression, particularly amidst increasing calls to curtail military support and arms exports to Israel. Such neglect is not only morally obtuse but also egregiously improvident.
Philosophers struggle to grasp the perils of religious indoctrination and extremism.
Perhaps most crucially, philosophers seem unable to grasp that Hamas not only tolerates civilian suffering but actively promotes it as martyrdom, sacrificing innocent lives to advance their nefarious agenda and religious fanaticism.
There is a glaring ignorance regarding Hamas’ abhorrent religious motivations and the perils of religious indoctrination and extremism. Indeed, not much attention within the realm of applied ethics is dedicated to the profound allure of religious fervor and its consequential dangers, particularly the perilous fusion of extremism and religious zealotry.
In scholarly discourse, a prevalent secular confusion emerges regarding the plausibility of a peaceful coexistence with Islamists, the effectiveness of non-violent responses to jihadism, and the deliberate engineering of humanitarian crises such as the current situation in Gaza by Hamas, whose religious doctrines exhibit a disregard for human life akin to nihilistic death cults.
There are few voices as adept as Sam Harris in elucidating this crucial disparity — and philosophers (and wannabe philosophers) would do well to heed his words:
“We can’t lose sight of the fact that all this tragedy and horror has been consciously engineered by Hamas for reasons that make perfect sense to jihadists, but which no normal army has ever contemplated or would ever contemplate. Yes, this conflict has many of the features of ordinary guerrilla warfare. But guerrilla warfare plus certainty of Paradise is much worse.”
The extent to which the support or complicity of many Gazan civilians with Hamas justifies current military interventions, or if not, what kind of harm as a foreseeable side effect is justified, is a subject for moral philosophers to shed light on.
However, in the current debate, there is a missed opportunity for engaging in this crucial discussion. Moral philosophers have largely only voiced objections rooted in overly simplistic reasoning without delving into the substantive discourse needed to address these pressing issues.
And yet again, these considerations extend beyond the realm of theory and thought experiments, demanding nuanced deliberations in the face of gritty wartime decisions, wherein assessments of acceptable collateral damage and lesser evil justifications must be made on a daily basis.
Embrace the armchair, or recommit to scholarly integrity and rigor!
At this critical juncture, it must be emphasized that the simplistic reasoning pervading many — gratifyingly, not all — “philosophers’ letters” or analogous contributions from morally conscientious and otherwise rigorous thinkers is not only misguided but also fraught with peril and grave irresponsibility.
If the bottom line of moral philosophy’s contribution amounts solely to simplistic calls for ceasefire, it offers little meaningful assistance. Such rhetoric fails to aid the morally vulnerable and confused protesters who fill the streets from London to Sydney, echoing these very same demands — often intertwined with disturbingly anti-Israel or antisemitic chants and slogans.
It fails to aid the inhabitants of Israel, including its leaders, in navigating the ethical complexities of certain public sentiments or political decisions. Additionally, it offers no solace to Jews worldwide who confront an alarming surge in overt and frequently violent manifestations of antisemitism in many locales.
Furthermore, it does not alleviate the plight of civilians in Gaza, ensnared in the grip of a nihilistic religious terror regime. Witnessing the suffering of Gazans and their harrowing task of pulling children out of the rubble is truly heart-wrenching. If there is one profession entrusted with upholding moral clarity amidst profoundly human sentiments of compassion and pity, it is that of moral philosophers.
However, until they rediscover their commitment to philosophical rigor and professionalism, while thinking their entire lives about events such as these, occasionally bothering to consider historical and geopolitical contexts in their musings and suggestions, they might find their true calling in armchair contemplation — pondering over “silly” examples instead of grappling with the gritty truths of warfare.
“On the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” www.academicsongaza.wixsite.com/gazaopenletter.
“Judith Butler: ‘October 7 was an act of armed resistance.’” Middle East Eye. YouTube.
“American Philosophers Should Condemn the War in Gaza (guest post).” Daily Nous.
“Is Israel upholding the ethics of war in Gaza?” The Jerusalem Post.
“How Not To Intervene In Public Discourse (guest post) (several updates).” Daily Nous.
“THE SIN OF MORAL EQUIVALENCE.” Sam Harris.
 | A guest post by
|
Academic decadence. A superb description.
It terrifies me how many ways the so-called intellectuals among us can justify anti-Semitism.