Terrence Moore shares his memories of going to college alongside Nicholas De Genova, and offers some thoughts on what De Genova's career path can tell us about the present state of higher education in America. Along the way he shreds De Genova's work on Chicago's Hispanic communities, suggests that ideological indoctrination has replaced rigorous training in both undergraduate and graduate education, and points out that the De Genovas of the academy are the product of an intellectual culture that snickers at the notion that a scholar's purpose should be "the pursuit of truth" while at the same time glorifying the mass production of "scholarship." If you haven't yet had your fill of L'Affaire De Genova, this one is worth reading.

Thanks to reader Fred R. for the link.

Erin, I read it and am heartened to know there are academics out there who understand the problem and wish to do something about it. Are there any groups forming to deal with what you call "the political uniformity of so much of the nation's faculty."? I know David Horowitz is trying to get almuni to act, but he may be too much of a street fighter for the academic sensibility. Is it possible to take higher education back and at the same time maintain the concept of the free market of ideas that use to define our universities?

Terrence Moore has little of merit to say, I am afraid.

Let's start with his major factual inaccuracy on Nicholas De Genova's political affiliations. He NEVER was a member of the Communist Party, of any Communist Party. He was a member of a small Trotskyist group called Spark, which had an unbending hostility ot Stalinism. But what would this matter, except to an academic of spotless credentials like Mr. Moore?

Secondly, in terms of De Genova's research, he has not now or in the past fled from the politics and all their complications in the Latino communities, esp. the Mexican communities, in Chicago. His book, however, was not about Mexican or Chicano voting habits, but about nationalism and racial formation and the differences between Chicanos and Mexican migrants.

Thirdly, any one who believes that Latin America is mostly a collection of socialist countries should be laughed off the planet. Brazil? Argentina? Mexico? Colombia? Peru? How about the U of Chicago groomed and programmed fascist regime of Pinochet? In what sense could any of those regimes have been 'socialist'?

T. Moore is not only inaccurate factually, but apparently senile.

What a relief to know De Genova was a Trotskyist rather than a Stalinist! This changes everything. Many thanks for the correction.

Chris Wright (6:29am) has little of merit to say, I am afraid.

Toulouse (9:30pm) discussed the claim of a major factual inaccuracy byTerrence Moore on Nicholas De Genova's political affiliations.

Secondly, in terms of De Genova's research, Moore quoted De Genova in writing that ìhis work on Hispanic communities in Chicago purportedly ëinterrogate[s] U.S. nationalism, political economy, racialized citizenship, and immigration law.íî This leaves some readers puzzled by Wrightís riposte that De Genova ìhas not now or in the past fled from the politics and all their complications in the Latino communities, esp. the Mexican communities, in Chicago.î

Thirdly, Wright supposes that Moore ìbelieves that Latin America is mostly a collection of socialist countries,î and thus ìshould be laughed off the planet.î Alas, Mooreís only allusion to this subject reads as follows: ìThat most Hispanics who have immigrated to America were leaving failed socialist regimes to find opportunity in the U.S. and that a significant proportion of them actually vote Republican are facts that seem to have eluded De Genova.î

Chris Wright is thus inaccurate factually, though presumably, like Dr. Moore, hardly senile.

Erin,

Thanks for the link to Dr. Moore's article. It dovetailed nicely with something I wrote here.

AMAc, true believers always try to find some preceved quibble to discredit arguments that their beliefs.

BTW, Chris Wright was a fellow member of Spark and is Nick's closest political comrade. Like Terrence Moore, I attended the U of C with Nick where I, like Nick, recieved a B.A. in Anthropology. Let me say that Nick was and is a close friend of mine. In person he is kind and humane in the best sense of the word. He is also a devoted reader of fine literature, a trait that made him a perfect fit for the U of C. Nick is a force of nature who has positively touched the lives of many, including myself (by, for example, introducing me to jazz). Once he gave a lecture at a university that so inspired the young department secretary that she decided to continue her education. I doubt Terrence Moore has ever had that effect on anyone. Nick is a great guy, that is why this whole affair is so disheartening. Yesterday - when I first learned of his morally and intellectually outrageous statements- I sent him an email conveying my shock and dismay. While unequivically repudiating his politics is a moral imperative, I hope that people can understand Nick remains a better human being than most of critics. I would love to rebut T. Moore's one-sided account of the U of C, but my comments are already far too long.