Bureau of Public Secrets <knabb@bopsecrets.org>:

> Shimer College, the "Great Books College of Chicago," has just
> thwarted a hostile right-wing takeover attempt and fired its
> president. Some observations on the conflict are now online at
> http://www.bopsecrets.org/recent/shimer.htm

Lots of blah-blah-blah there, but what stands out to me is
the contrast between objections to "an increasingly
dictatorial administration" and blithe acceptance of the regime
in which "three out of the four years are taken up with an
intricately interrelated course sequence that everyone is
required to take." Evidently "increasingly dictatorial" is the
key term, since aside from a passing reference to the
Situationists, Mr. BOPS makes no objections to the dictatorship
as it is.

-- Catawumpus

On May 31, 7:38 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Bureau of Public Secrets <kn...@bopsecrets.org>:
>
> > Shimer College, the "Great Books College of Chicago," has just
> > thwarted a hostile right-wing takeover attempt and fired its
> > president. Some observations on the conflict are now online at
> >http://www.bopsecrets.org/recent/shimer.htm
>
>      Lots of blah-blah-blah there, but what stands out to me is
> the contrast between objections to "an increasingly
> dictatorial administration" and blithe acceptance of the regime
> in which "three out of the four years are taken up with an
> intricately interrelated course sequence that everyone is
> required to take."  Evidently "increasingly dictatorial" is the
> key term, since aside from a passing reference to the
> Situationists, Mr. BOPS makes no objections to the dictatorship
> as it is.
>
> -- Catawumpus

Catawumpus,

Students at Shimer, through their membership in the Assembly and
election to Assembly committees, are involved in a real and tangible
way not just in the design of that core curriculum, but also the
choice of electives, the hiring (and firing!) of faculty and staff,
the setting of the school's budget, the awarding of financial aid, the
distribution of funds available for activities, and so on. Three
students are even elected yearly to serve as full fledged members of
the college's Board of Trustees. I could go on, but while there is
some semblance of non-anarchical organization of power at Shimer
(faculty grade student progress, and staffers have bosses), it doesn't
go very much beyond the kind of investment of power in individuals of
merit that organization in general requires (I know this is
debatable...) and is constantly subject to the very real check on that
power that an outraged Shimer populace can and does exert. There are,
moreover, at least three kinds of student-faculty-staff composed court
of appeals (a committee for this purpose, the Assembly at large, and
then the Board), available as recourse in the case of an out of
control `executive'.

In short, Shimer is a genuine outlier in terms of power organization
in the academy today, and one of the most democratic (if not properly
situationist) colleges in the history of higher education.

Zack Hamm, Shimer '07

On May 3, 9:00 pm, Bureau of Public Secrets <kn...@bopsecrets.org>
wrote:
> Shimer College, the "Great Books College of Chicago," has just
> thwarted a hostile right-wing takeover attempt and fired its
> president. Some observations on the conflict are now online athttp://www.bopsecrets.org/recent/shimer.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.bopsecrets.org/recent/shimer.htm
>
> * * *
>
> BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS
> P.O. Box 1044, Berkeley CA 94701, USAhttp://www.bopsecrets.org
>
> "Making petrified conditions dance by singing them their own tune."

On Jun 13, 2:43 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Zack <hamm.zach...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Authority, believe it or not, can be legitimate, particularly
> > when its derived from knowledge and skill (in Shimer geek fashion, I'd
> > suggest you Cf. Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 278ff).  
>
>      Out of curiosity I went and looked up the passage.  Here's
> what I found:
>
>        Admittedly, it is primarily persons that have
>        authority; but the authority of persons is ultimately
>        based not on the subjection and abdication of reason
>        but on an act of acknowledgment and knowledge the
>        knowledge, namely, that the other is superior to
>        oneself in judgment and insight and that for this
>        reason his judgment takes precedence i.e., it has
>        priority over one's own. This is connected with the
>        fact that authority cannot actually be bestowed but is
>        earned, and must be earned if someone is to lay claim
>        to it. It rests on acknowledgment and hence on an act
>        of reason itself which, aware of its own limitations,
>        trusts to the better insight of others. Authority in
>        this sense, properly understood, has nothing to do with
>        blind obedience to commands. Indeed, authority has to
>        do not with obedience but rather with knowledge. It is
>        true that authority implies the capacity to command and
>        be obeyed. But this proceeds only from the authority
>        that a person has. Even the anonymous and impersonal
>        authority of a superior which derives from his office
>        is not ultimately based on this hierarchy, but is what
>        makes it possible. Here also its true basis is an act
>        of freedom and reason that grants the authority of a
>        superior fundamentally because he has a wider view of
>        things or is better informed i.e., once again, because
>        he knows more. Thus, acknowledging authority is
>        always connected with the idea that what the authority
>        says is not irrational and arbitrary but can, in
>        principle, be discovered to be true. This is the
>        essence of the authority claimed by the teacher, the
>        superior, the expert. The prejudices that they implant
>        are legitimized by the person who presents them. But in
>        this way they become prejudices not just in favor of a
>        person but a content, since they effect the same
>        disposition to believe something that can be brought
>        about in other ways e.g., by good reasons.
>
>      If authority is truly granted in freedom and based on good
> reason then it doesn't add much more:  instead of giving
> orders it's simply supplying advice that I'm free to take or to
> leave.  But if it "implies the capacity to command and be
> obeyed," it replaces that freedom with its own power, sometimes
> decorated with references to the true and the good.  The
> majority of schools require obedience (blind or otherwise, take
> your pick) to "the anonymous and impersonal authority of a
> superior which derives from his office."  One in which
> authority could be freely given, ignored, or withdrawn would be
> a very different kind of place.  _There_ you could validly
> state that it "rests on acknowledgment" instead of demanding to
> be acknowledged.  Rarely the case (claims about certain
> "outliers" notwithstanding), so Gadamer's argument merely hangs
> tinsel on the status quo.
>
> -- Catawumpus

do you ever shut up..?

Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>:

>>> (Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 278ff). �

....

>> � � �If authority is truly granted in freedom and based on good
>> reason then it doesn't add much more: �instead of giving
>> orders it's simply supplying advice that I'm free to take or to
>> leave. �But if it "implies the capacity to command and be
>> obeyed," it replaces that freedom with its own power, sometimes
>> decorated with references to the true and the good. �The
>> majority of schools require obedience (blind or otherwise, take
>> your pick) to "the anonymous and impersonal authority of a
>> superior which derives from his office." �One in which
>> authority could be freely given, ignored, or withdrawn would be
>> a very different kind of place. �_There_ you could validly
>> state that it "rests on acknowledgment" instead of demanding to
>> be acknowledged. �Rarely the case (claims about certain
>> "outliers" notwithstanding), so Gadamer's argument merely hangs
>> tinsel on the status quo.

z <shull.fl@gmail.com>:

> do you ever shut up..?

Seems like I hit a nerve, but it's unclear you're the kind
of lifeform that has a nervous system.

-- Catawumpus

Shimer College, the "Great Books College of Chicago," has just
thwarted a hostile right-wing takeover attempt and fired its
president. Some observations on the conflict are now online at
http://www.bopsecrets.org/recent/shimer.htm

* * *

BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS
P.O. Box 1044, Berkeley CA 94701, USA
http://www.bopsecrets.org

"Making petrified conditions dance by singing them their own tune."

Zack <hamm.zachary@gmail.com>:

> Students at Shimer, through their membership in the Assembly and
> election to Assembly committees, are involved in a real and tangible
> way not just in the design of that core curriculum, but also the
> choice of electives, the hiring (and firing!) of faculty and staff,
> the setting of the school's budget, the awarding of financial aid, the
> distribution of funds available for activities, and so on. Three
> students are even elected yearly to serve as full fledged members of
> the college's Board of Trustees.'

Uh-huh. I got that idea -- though without all the details
you've added -- from the article on the BOPS website. The
term which leaps to mind is "co-optation." I'm not sure, maybe
also "roach motel."

> I could go on, but while there is
> some semblance of non-anarchical organization of power at Shimer
> (faculty grade student progress, and staffers have bosses), it doesn't
> go very much beyond the kind of investment of power in individuals of
> merit that organization in general requires (I know this is
> debatable...) and is constantly subject to the very real check on that
> power that an outraged Shimer populace can and does exert. There are,
> moreover, at least three kinds of student-faculty-staff composed court
> of appeals (a committee for this purpose, the Assembly at large, and
> then the Board), available as recourse in the case of an out of
> control `executive'.
> In short, Shimer is a genuine outlier in terms of power organization
> in the academy today, and one of the most democratic (if not properly
> situationist) colleges in the history of higher education.

By your own admission, what you label an "outlier in terms
of power organization in the academy today" largely retains
the same kind of "investment of power" most other organizations
are built on, right down to the claim it's wielded by
meritorious people. (What the cops say, too.) And what you're
calling "some semblance of non-anarchical organization" is a
description of business as usual: bosses over workers, faculty
over students.

Sure, there may be some checks and balances, but according
to the story Mr. BOPS tells the Shimer population became
outraged only faced by a Randian coup. Thus my point about the
contrast between objections to an "an increasingly
dictatorial administration" and unquestioning acceptance of the
already-existing dictatorship.

-- Catawumpus

On Jun 1, 3:44 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Zack <hamm.zach...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Students at Shimer, through their membership in the Assembly and
> > election to Assembly committees, are involved in a real and tangible
> > way not just in the design of that core curriculum, but also the
> > choice of electives, the hiring (and firing!) of faculty and staff,
> > the setting of the school's budget, the awarding of financial aid, the
> > distribution of funds available for activities, and so on. Three
> > students are even elected yearly to serve as full fledged members of
> > the college's Board of Trustees.'
>
>      Uh-huh.  I got that idea -- though without all the details
> you've added -- from the article on the BOPS website.  The
> term which leaps to mind is "co-optation."  I'm not sure, maybe
> also "roach motel."
>
> > I could go on, but while there is
> > some semblance of non-anarchical organization of power at Shimer
> > (faculty grade student progress, and staffers have bosses), it doesn't
> > go very much beyond the kind of investment of power in individuals of
> > merit that organization in general requires (I know this is
> > debatable...) and is constantly subject to the very real check on that
> > power that an outraged Shimer populace can and does exert. There are,
> > moreover, at least three kinds of student-faculty-staff composed court
> > of appeals (a committee for this purpose, the Assembly at large, and
> > then the Board), available as recourse in the case of an out of
> > control `executive'.
> > In short, Shimer is a genuine outlier in terms of power organization
> > in the academy today, and one of the most democratic (if not properly
> > situationist) colleges in the history of higher education.
>
>      By your own admission, what you label an "outlier in terms
> of power organization in the academy today" largely retains
> the same kind of "investment of power" most other organizations
> are built on, right down to the claim it's wielded by
> meritorious people.  (What the cops say, too.)  And what you're
> calling "some semblance of non-anarchical organization" is a
> description of business as usual:  bosses over workers, faculty
> over students.
>
>      Sure, there may be some checks and balances, but according
> to the story Mr. BOPS tells the Shimer population became
> outraged only faced by a Randian coup.  Thus my point about the
> contrast between objections to an "an increasingly
> dictatorial administration" and unquestioning acceptance of the
> already-existing dictatorship.
>
> -- Catawumpus

Well, you're clearly a reactionary who won't be satisified with
anything less than some dream of Catalonian Anarcho-Syndicalism, which
never really existed, so I wont try and convince you any further than
this: Authority, believe it or not, can be legitimate, particularly
when its derived from knowledge and skill (in Shimer geek fashion, I'd
suggest you Cf. Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 278ff). What's more,
life is messy, and you never get everything you want. In any case,
it's absurd to call something a dictatorship when it's clearly a
system of collective governance. This doesn't even warrant debate. As
to co-optation, well, a community is made up of certain defining
markers. If new members discarded them, we'd have a different
community entirely. So be it, perhaps, but sometimes people get
something right. Shimer gets a lot right (although every alumni,
myself included, has been caught red handed listing off all the things
s/he thinks it got wrong, with that kind of bile that only love can
produce). There are bigger fish to fry than one of the most convivial
institutions of higher learning in memory (indeed, actual dictators!).

Zack (Shimer '07).

Zack <hamm.zachary@gmail.com>:

> Well, you're clearly a reactionary who won't be satisified with
> anything less than some dream of Catalonian Anarcho-Syndicalism, which
> never really existed, so I wont try and convince you any further than
> this: Authority, believe it or not, can be legitimate, particularly
> when its derived from knowledge and skill (in Shimer geek fashion, I'd
> suggest you Cf. Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 278ff).

Thanks for the cite. Too bad that you forgot the quote to
go along: y'know, the part that might do the convincing.
Unless you expect me to accept authority on Gadamer's authority.
In which case a bootstrap problem looms. Anyway, you're
confirming my sense that Shimer is an authoritarian institution.
Not to say that sets it apart or makes it worse than the
common run of schools. Well, maybe a little worse with all the
required courses.

> What's more, life is messy, and you never get everything you want.

Thanks for sharing your philosophy. Did you get that from
Gadamer or Merleau-Ponty?

> In any case,
> it's absurd to call something a dictatorship when it's clearly a
> system of collective governance. This doesn't even warrant debate.

I don't want to haggle over semantics, but it's undeniable
that you and Mr. BOPS have described a place where bosses
dictate to workers and teachers dictate to students, so my term
seems to apply.

> As to co-optation, well, a community is made up of certain defining
> markers. If new members discarded them, we'd have a different
> community entirely. So be it, perhaps, but sometimes people get
> something right. Shimer gets a lot right (although every alumni,
> myself included, has been caught red handed listing off all the things
> s/he thinks it got wrong, with that kind of bile that only love can
> produce). There are bigger fish to fry than one of the most convivial
> institutions of higher learning in memory (indeed, actual dictators!).

I'm glad you liked your party school, Zack. Doubtless the
development office is too.
-- Catawumpus

Zack <hamm.zachary@gmail.com>:

> Authority, believe it or not, can be legitimate, particularly
> when its derived from knowledge and skill (in Shimer geek fashion, I'd
> suggest you Cf. Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 278ff).

Out of curiosity I went and looked up the passage. Here's
what I found:

Admittedly, it is primarily persons that have
authority; but the authority of persons is ultimately
based not on the subjection and abdication of reason
but on an act of acknowledgment and knowledge�the
knowledge, namely, that the other is superior to
oneself in judgment and insight and that for this
reason his judgment takes precedence�i.e., it has
priority over one's own. This is connected with the
fact that authority cannot actually be bestowed but is
earned, and must be earned if someone is to lay claim
to it. It rests on acknowledgment and hence on an act
of reason itself which, aware of its own limitations,
trusts to the better insight of others. Authority in
this sense, properly understood, has nothing to do with
blind obedience to commands. Indeed, authority has to
do not with obedience but rather with knowledge. It is
true that authority implies the capacity to command and
be obeyed. But this proceeds only from the authority
that a person has. Even the anonymous and impersonal
authority of a superior which derives from his office
is not ultimately based on this hierarchy, but is what
makes it possible. Here also its true basis is an act
of freedom and reason that grants the authority of a
superior fundamentally because he has a wider view of
things or is better informed�i.e., once again, because
he knows more. Thus, acknowledging authority is
always connected with the idea that what the authority
says is not irrational and arbitrary but can, in
principle, be discovered to be true. This is the
essence of the authority claimed by the teacher, the
superior, the expert. The prejudices that they implant
are legitimized by the person who presents them. But in
this way they become prejudices not just in favor of a
person but a content, since they effect the same
disposition to believe something that can be brought
about in other ways�e.g., by good reasons.

If authority is truly granted in freedom and based on good
reason then it doesn't add much more: instead of giving
orders it's simply supplying advice that I'm free to take or to
leave. But if it "implies the capacity to command and be
obeyed," it replaces that freedom with its own power, sometimes
decorated with references to the true and the good. The
majority of schools require obedience (blind or otherwise, take
your pick) to "the anonymous and impersonal authority of a
superior which derives from his office." One in which
authority could be freely given, ignored, or withdrawn would be
a very different kind of place. _There_ you could validly
state that it "rests on acknowledgment" instead of demanding to
be acknowledged. Rarely the case (claims about certain
"outliers" notwithstanding), so Gadamer's argument merely hangs
tinsel on the status quo.

-- Catawumpus

On Jun 13, 5:32 am, "=z=" <shull...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2:43 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Zack <hamm.zach...@gmail.com>:
>
> > > Authority, believe it or not, can be legitimate, particularly
> > > when its derived from knowledge and skill (in Shimer geek fashion, I'd
> > > suggest you Cf. Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 278ff).  
>
> >      Out of curiosity I went and looked up the passage.  Here's
> > what I found:
>
> >        Admittedly, it is primarily persons that have
> >        authority; but the authority of persons is ultimately
> >        based not on the subjection and abdication of reason
> >        but on an act of acknowledgment and knowledge the
> >        knowledge, namely, that the other is superior to
> >        oneself in judgment and insight and that for this
> >        reason his judgment takes precedence i.e., it has
> >        priority over one's own. This is connected with the
> >        fact that authority cannot actually be bestowed but is
> >        earned, and must be earned if someone is to lay claim
> >        to it. It rests on acknowledgment and hence on an act
> >        of reason itself which, aware of its own limitations,
> >        trusts to the better insight of others. Authority in
> >        this sense, properly understood, has nothing to do with
> >        blind obedience to commands. Indeed, authority has to
> >        do not with obedience but rather with knowledge. It is
> >        true that authority implies the capacity to command and
> >        be obeyed. But this proceeds only from the authority
> >        that a person has. Even the anonymous and impersonal
> >        authority of a superior which derives from his office
> >        is not ultimately based on this hierarchy, but is what
> >        makes it possible. Here also its true basis is an act
> >        of freedom and reason that grants the authority of a
> >        superior fundamentally because he has a wider view of
> >        things or is better informed i.e., once again, because
> >        he knows more. Thus, acknowledging authority is
> >        always connected with the idea that what the authority
> >        says is not irrational and arbitrary but can, in
> >        principle, be discovered to be true. This is the
> >        essence of the authority claimed by the teacher, the
> >        superior, the expert. The prejudices that they implant
> >        are legitimized by the person who presents them. But in
> >        this way they become prejudices not just in favor of a
> >        person but a content, since they effect the same
> >        disposition to believe something that can be brought
> >        about in other ways e.g., by good reasons.
>
> >      If authority is truly granted in freedom and based on good
> > reason then it doesn't add much more:  instead of giving
> > orders it's simply supplying advice that I'm free to take or to
> > leave.  But if it "implies the capacity to command and be
> > obeyed," it replaces that freedom with its own power, sometimes
> > decorated with references to the true and the good.  The
> > majority of schools require obedience (blind or otherwise, take
> > your pick) to "the anonymous and impersonal authority of a
> > superior which derives from his office."  One in which
> > authority could be freely given, ignored, or withdrawn would be
> > a very different kind of place.  _There_ you could validly
> > state that it "rests on acknowledgment" instead of demanding to
> > be acknowledged.  Rarely the case (claims about certain
> > "outliers" notwithstanding), so Gadamer's argument merely hangs
> > tinsel on the status quo.
>
> > -- Catawumpus
>
> do you ever shut up..?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

as you, the answer is no