Tuesday, April 3, 2007
...I hear Noam Chomsky has been invited to speak at Newton South High School here in the Boston area. I'm not sure what possible use a speech by serial liar, terrorist supporting Chomsky could serve. You don't think he's going to be speaking about linguistics do you? No, his topic is, "Solutions to the Iraq War." One waits with baited breath for the Chomskyite solutions to all our troubles Middle Eastern come this April 11.
Parents concerned over the invitation by the school's "Social Awareness Club" of a man who believes the United States of America is the world's successor to Nazi Germany (whatever happened to basic lessons in civics, where one learned to appreciate one's country rather than being indoctrinated in cynicism early) have already begun contacting school principle Brian L. Salzer and Newton Mayor David Cohen.
Principle Salzer told one concerned parent that "he didn't know much about Chomsky, but would like to learn more." I'm incredulous that a High School principle should not be familiar with Noam Chomsky, but stranger things have happened I suppose.
One former student's letter that's been forwarded to me makes an interesting point:
After hearing that Noam Chomsky has been invited to speak, I wonder whether there is a bias at Newton South, at the administrative level, against Israel. It would be different if Chomsky, friend of the ruthless Iranian dictator, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had to debate the issues. Unfortunately, just like Carter’s anti-Israel speech at Brandeis, he will be able to rant about Israel without opposition. I find it very disingenuous that Newton South, the pride of liberal Newton, favors every cause, minority, women’s issue, endangered specie and sexual preference, allows a controversial, self-hating Jew to speak. The Jewish Student Union was not even permitted to have a representative of the Israeli government lecture during school hours without a counterpoint, let alone, someone like Noam Chomsky, who is vilified for his views...
Newton South's reputation has continued to plummet as it focuses on political rather than classical education. As this starts to hurt real estate prices, the town will react (possible too late).
I’m another former student, and I in fact dropped out of Newton North during 2004. I share your sentiment of frustration concerning the fact that the “top man†at South would be unfamiliar with a luminary like Chomsky, but that’s where our similarity ends. If Chomsky is a “serial liar,†then all scholarly work must stop. While Chomsky does assert that “The idea of neutral objectivity is largely fraudulent,†he clearly establishes his viewpoint before posing his argument and supporting it with extraordinarily strict pedagogical methodology. If you would take the time to read some of his work and perhaps delve into your own research you might realize that Chomsky is neither indoctrinated with unquestioning nationalism nor blind cynicism: he draws his conclusions from decades of research. If Chomsky makes an assertion which you perceive to be unfounded or under supported you are free to refute it. Apart from his unpopular criticism of American (and Israeli) foreign policy Chomsky speaks and writes at length about issues of enormous importance to aspiring intellectuals: like the hedonism endemic in American youth pop culture. If the sparse ideologues in Newton conspire to deprive their children the opportunity to hear Chomsky speak they are tearing down the corner stone of the American moral infrastructure: freedom of thought and expression.
I'm sorry to say that your note puts the lie to the idea that Newton students are smart enough to figure Chomsky out (on the other hand, perhaps you should have stayed in school!). Chomsky's political work is *not* scholarly. It is not peer reviewed and appears in no scholarly journals. His only area of academic competence is Linguistics, and he is not used as a reference by any serious historian.
His work has the veneer of the scholarly because he uses copious footnotes and seems to display a level of detailed knowledge that most people can't possibly approach. The truth is that his footnotes regularly fail to support his assertions, and he seems to have a great deal of knowledge because he doesn't seem to care if he gets his facts straight. His fans will never hold him to account. He relies upon the reader's unfamiliarity with the events, quotes and contexts he twists.
Sensible people on the left and right reject him. See Brad DeLong's video journal here for a typical example of Chomsky's mendacity (DeLong is a "liberal"). His archives are full of this, including one examination of Chomsky's footnotes that I can't put my finger on at the moment.
There are some excellent deconstructions of Chomsky in Oliver Kamm's archives, as well as at Benjamin Kerstein's blog.
Chomsky hasn't had an original idea in over 40 years. He is utterly predictable -- from defending Pol Pot to Slobodan Milosevic, if it's a foe of the US, Chomsky is a friend.
Rather than fuel what might become a personal conflict I'll just ask you a few questions. #1 have you read Hegemony or Survival (the last thing Chomsky does is "defend" Milosevic. #2 I openly criticize several of Chomsky's assertions, however his research is very thorough. #3 I am not (not anyone I know) concerned with Kamm's pseudo-scholarly work nor Kersetein's online blog. #4 please give me an example of Chomsky's abuse of citation. It is easy to sit back and make broad generalizations without presenting evidence. No one is perfect (by any means), but I think its childish of you to say "Chomsky has produced no original work in 40 years," MIT wouldn't keep him around. In any event, leaving highschool was the best thing that happened to me (high school is not a pre-requesite for a college education by any means).
#1 I have read several of Chomsky's works, interviews, heard him speak...they start to blend after a time.
#2 His footnoting is copious, but his use of sources is mendacious. He is the definition of the unreliable narrator.
#3, #4) I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. Why don't you go through every footnote and show me how he doesn't abuse his sources? See you next year. If you were serious about reading work critical of Chomsky, his abuse of citation would be a frequent theme you would have encountered by now. You can start with the video I posted. Here's the DeLong entry I was thinking of earlier. You can start here with Oliver Kamm. There's plenty more there and elsewhere. If you're not interested in the "psuedo-scholarly" work I've linked to, I'm certainly not going to spend my time creating more of it, nor in writing what would become a book of Chomsky critique when it's already been done by some very able minds.
"MIT wouldn't keep him around" MIT couldn't get rid of him if they wanted to. He's not employed by MIT for his political work, and even in his field he has produced nothing original in decades (as I'm given to understand). He's tenured and popular in certain circles. He'll be there for life.