What do you think?
Rate this book
God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of Academic Freedom. Reprint of the 1951 Ed With a New Introd by the Author
The conservative's early views on the quality of education and religion at Yale
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1951
232 people are currently reading
3679 people want to read
About the author
William F. Buckley Jr.
183 books336 followersWilliam Frank Buckley, Jr. was an American author and conservative commentator. He founded the political magazine National Review in 1955, hosted 1,429 episodes of the television show Firing Line from 1966 until 1999, and was a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist. His writing style was famed for its erudition, wit, and use of uncommon words.
Buckley was "arguably the most important public intellectual in the United States in the past half century," according to George H. Nash, a historian of the modern American conservative movement. "For an entire generation he was the preeminent voice of American conservatism and its first great ecumenical figure." Buckley's primary intellectual achievement was to fuse traditional American political conservatism with economic libertarianism and anti-communism, laying the groundwork for the modern American conservatism of US Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and US President Ronald Reagan.
Buckley came on the public scene with his critical book God and Man at Yale (1951); among over fifty further books on writing, speaking, history, politics and sailing, were a series of novels featuring CIA agent Blackford Oakes. Buckley referred to himself "on and off" as either libertarian or conservative. He resided in New York City and Stamford, Connecticut, and often signed his name as "WFB." He was a practicing Catholic, regularly attending the traditional Latin Mass in Connecticut.
Buckley was "arguably the most important public intellectual in the United States in the past half century," according to George H. Nash, a historian of the modern American conservative movement. "For an entire generation he was the preeminent voice of American conservatism and its first great ecumenical figure." Buckley's primary intellectual achievement was to fuse traditional American political conservatism with economic libertarianism and anti-communism, laying the groundwork for the modern American conservatism of US Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and US President Ronald Reagan.
Buckley came on the public scene with his critical book God and Man at Yale (1951); among over fifty further books on writing, speaking, history, politics and sailing, were a series of novels featuring CIA agent Blackford Oakes. Buckley referred to himself "on and off" as either libertarian or conservative. He resided in New York City and Stamford, Connecticut, and often signed his name as "WFB." He was a practicing Catholic, regularly attending the traditional Latin Mass in Connecticut.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 190 reviews
January 21, 2022
I've read most of Flannery O'Connor. I only learned recently that she had a particular disdain of James Baldwin. Why? She never explains. Was he too "uppity" for her tastes? Too smart, and thus too threatening? After Obama got elected, I was treated to a Thanksgiving where my late brother in law whined about him the entire time, referring to him as "boy." I think these folks are threatened by the explosion of the myth that any White person is better than any Black person.
"Poor whites were co-opted by the rich, who told them that they might not have much, but at least they were white. As Martin Luther King Jr. summarized, “The southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow,” so that when he had no money for food, “he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than a black man.”
=====================
Here in the famous debate between James Baldwin and William F. Buckley, you will see Baldwin at his best. I guess a Black man that smart is just too dangerous for some White people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9...
=============
What is often forgotten is that the National Review began as a racist publication. In an infamous editorial published in 1957, Buckley fiercely defended segregation....
"The central question that emerges… is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes— the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race......National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct…. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way; and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence."
Stevens, Stuart, It Was All a Lie, 2020
-----
"In 1951, Regnery Books agreed to publish William Buckley’s "God and Man at Yale," the book that secured the role of both Regnery’s publishing house and Bill Buckley in the coming conservative wars. God and Man at Yale became a New York Times best seller, and Buckley followed it up with a defense of Joseph McCarthy written with his brother-in-law Brent Bozell, "McCarthy and His Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning."
Like his defense of segregation in the National Review, the McCarthy book is a reminder for those who today, in the age of Trump, like to cast William Buckley as the lost soul of true conservatism: that for all his well-crafted sentences and love of language, Buckley was often a more articulate version of the same deep ugliness and bigotry that is the hallmark of Trumpism."
Stevens, Stuart, It Was All a Lie, 2020, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
===========
I read God and Man at Yale many years ago and something I was just reading reminded me of it. A critic described Buckley's outlook in this book as Manichean, meaning that all of reality is divided into good or evil, light or dark, black or white, involving no shades of gray. I agree this was true about Buckley. Also he never made much effort to defend his positions as he did in attacking those who did not share his strident worldview. And let us not forget he published a book defending Joe McCarthy and McCarthyism.
I grew up in a GOP household. My father was a WW II veteran and very hawkish supporter of the Vietnam War. (As was William F. Buckley). It wasn’t until I saw the eye-opening and highly informative Vietnam War documentary by Ken Burns that I realized the extent to which my father and the rest of the U.S. were consistently being lied to about the War, not only by Nixon, but also by LBJ.
WFB was a presence in our household in the form of National Review Magazine and the Firing Line TV show that my father and older brother liked to watch. Although my father, a general practice medical doctor, often commented on how out of touch Buckley was from real people.
My main point is that I know all about Buckley and what he stood for.
But it wasn’t until last year that I watched the famous 1965 Oxford debated between Baldwin and Buckley.
Buckley’s main argument was: if black people only worked harder they could succeed like European immigrants. He quoted a sociologist named Nathan Glaser (who later reneged on this position)
So he's telling Baldwin, and others from a slave heritage, that they need to work harder. WTF? Their labor is what made the Southern economy, as the Confederate states themselves argued after the Civil War. The slavery legacy is what most black people live with in America. They’re not immigrants from Europe, who have been able to escape oppression.
I think Buckley's delusion comes from the myth of individualism that is so sacred to white people. I'm a white Boomer male who is the most privileged species of person in the U.S. I am part of a white group that has inevitably shaped my outlook on American society, as it did for Buckley or any other white person. Until a white person understands this, they will never come close to seeing how the lives of non-whites in America have been radically different than theirs.
============
The McCarthy precedent....
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/18/104664...
"Poor whites were co-opted by the rich, who told them that they might not have much, but at least they were white. As Martin Luther King Jr. summarized, “The southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow,” so that when he had no money for food, “he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than a black man.”
=====================
Here in the famous debate between James Baldwin and William F. Buckley, you will see Baldwin at his best. I guess a Black man that smart is just too dangerous for some White people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9...
=============
What is often forgotten is that the National Review began as a racist publication. In an infamous editorial published in 1957, Buckley fiercely defended segregation....
"The central question that emerges… is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes— the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race......National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct…. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way; and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence."
Stevens, Stuart, It Was All a Lie, 2020
-----
"In 1951, Regnery Books agreed to publish William Buckley’s "God and Man at Yale," the book that secured the role of both Regnery’s publishing house and Bill Buckley in the coming conservative wars. God and Man at Yale became a New York Times best seller, and Buckley followed it up with a defense of Joseph McCarthy written with his brother-in-law Brent Bozell, "McCarthy and His Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning."
Like his defense of segregation in the National Review, the McCarthy book is a reminder for those who today, in the age of Trump, like to cast William Buckley as the lost soul of true conservatism: that for all his well-crafted sentences and love of language, Buckley was often a more articulate version of the same deep ugliness and bigotry that is the hallmark of Trumpism."
Stevens, Stuart, It Was All a Lie, 2020, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
===========
I read God and Man at Yale many years ago and something I was just reading reminded me of it. A critic described Buckley's outlook in this book as Manichean, meaning that all of reality is divided into good or evil, light or dark, black or white, involving no shades of gray. I agree this was true about Buckley. Also he never made much effort to defend his positions as he did in attacking those who did not share his strident worldview. And let us not forget he published a book defending Joe McCarthy and McCarthyism.
I grew up in a GOP household. My father was a WW II veteran and very hawkish supporter of the Vietnam War. (As was William F. Buckley). It wasn’t until I saw the eye-opening and highly informative Vietnam War documentary by Ken Burns that I realized the extent to which my father and the rest of the U.S. were consistently being lied to about the War, not only by Nixon, but also by LBJ.
WFB was a presence in our household in the form of National Review Magazine and the Firing Line TV show that my father and older brother liked to watch. Although my father, a general practice medical doctor, often commented on how out of touch Buckley was from real people.
My main point is that I know all about Buckley and what he stood for.
But it wasn’t until last year that I watched the famous 1965 Oxford debated between Baldwin and Buckley.
Buckley’s main argument was: if black people only worked harder they could succeed like European immigrants. He quoted a sociologist named Nathan Glaser (who later reneged on this position)
So he's telling Baldwin, and others from a slave heritage, that they need to work harder. WTF? Their labor is what made the Southern economy, as the Confederate states themselves argued after the Civil War. The slavery legacy is what most black people live with in America. They’re not immigrants from Europe, who have been able to escape oppression.
I think Buckley's delusion comes from the myth of individualism that is so sacred to white people. I'm a white Boomer male who is the most privileged species of person in the U.S. I am part of a white group that has inevitably shaped my outlook on American society, as it did for Buckley or any other white person. Until a white person understands this, they will never come close to seeing how the lives of non-whites in America have been radically different than theirs.
============
The McCarthy precedent....
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/18/104664...
February 13, 2013
This is a marvelous expose by Buckley and one I wish I had read before writing my own university-slammer, The Bubble Boys. Buckley's main concerns are that under the guise of "academic freedom" many faculty at Yale in the early 1950s were pushing ideas which were consistent with totalitarianism--against which the United States was at war then, against Korea, as it had been for half the preceding decade against Germany and Italy--and antithetical to the old American values of individualism and Judeo-Christianity. He cites specific courses and instructors across several departments whose lectures were inappropriate or simply pointed students in questionable directions, both as regards religion and economics. He also explored how the textbooks used in basic economics classes were universally Keynesian and pushed towards collectivism, and how social clubs which were ostensibly Christian in nature were beginning to have leaders who were atheist, pushing the fervent believer to the margins. He explored the fact that Yale's alumni--donations from whom made up a goodly portion of Yale's financial subsistence--were opposed to this kind of teaching, and, while encouraging them to withhold money from the institutions, explained that too many of them did not take these matters seriously enough. He points out that the administration at Yale, while claiming they were opposed to the doctrines preached in the classroom, refused to interfere on the grounds that they would thereby be violating academic freedom.
What would initially appear to be a simple extension of academic freedom, however, Buckley exposes to be a ludicrous tool used by academics when it suits them and to their own advantage. Buckley points out that an instructor who held views on the supremacy of the Arian race would not be accepted on a university campus--not be "academically free"--which implies that academic freedom lies within certain bounds. Buckley then argues that when a careful distinction is made between the profession of the scholar and the profession of the teacher, academic freedom should be restricted within much narrower bounds, not extended to wider application. He goes beyond this to even argue that if one's scholarly interests are in topics that are not conducive to teaching ideas which are consistent with what has been shown to be the best truths in practice, he may find a place elsewhere, but should not be teaching at Yale, since it is too likely that his interests will pervade his teaching. Buckley's reasoning is that democracy and the ideas beind Judeo-Christianity have proven to be the best possible institutional foundations, and that to teach Communism and collectivism, both of which had proven to be terrible in various manifestations through history, was not to pursue truth under academic freedom but to encourage error through carelessness.
Buckley's argument is extremely compelling and, bluntly, he is right. The loss of individual spirit in this country has done more damage and will continue to do more damage for the foreseeable future. The loss of religion as a binding factor in American culture is also proving to be dangerous. Since Yale alumni bear a disproportionate role in leading the world relative to their numbers, one has to consider that many of the social trends of the past half-century are due to exactly what Buckley describes here. This is easily one of the best books I've read in some time. It is concise and written with the hand of a maestro.
Oddly, I must admit, it has increased the likelihood that, should I get into Yale and the University of Chicago for graduate school, I consider Yale. THis is because the quality of education presented here--though it bears criticism and negative attention--is so far better than the quality of education at public schools in the state of California, which is at the forefront of the collectivist and anti-religious trend, that it is almost sickening.
What would initially appear to be a simple extension of academic freedom, however, Buckley exposes to be a ludicrous tool used by academics when it suits them and to their own advantage. Buckley points out that an instructor who held views on the supremacy of the Arian race would not be accepted on a university campus--not be "academically free"--which implies that academic freedom lies within certain bounds. Buckley then argues that when a careful distinction is made between the profession of the scholar and the profession of the teacher, academic freedom should be restricted within much narrower bounds, not extended to wider application. He goes beyond this to even argue that if one's scholarly interests are in topics that are not conducive to teaching ideas which are consistent with what has been shown to be the best truths in practice, he may find a place elsewhere, but should not be teaching at Yale, since it is too likely that his interests will pervade his teaching. Buckley's reasoning is that democracy and the ideas beind Judeo-Christianity have proven to be the best possible institutional foundations, and that to teach Communism and collectivism, both of which had proven to be terrible in various manifestations through history, was not to pursue truth under academic freedom but to encourage error through carelessness.
Buckley's argument is extremely compelling and, bluntly, he is right. The loss of individual spirit in this country has done more damage and will continue to do more damage for the foreseeable future. The loss of religion as a binding factor in American culture is also proving to be dangerous. Since Yale alumni bear a disproportionate role in leading the world relative to their numbers, one has to consider that many of the social trends of the past half-century are due to exactly what Buckley describes here. This is easily one of the best books I've read in some time. It is concise and written with the hand of a maestro.
Oddly, I must admit, it has increased the likelihood that, should I get into Yale and the University of Chicago for graduate school, I consider Yale. THis is because the quality of education presented here--though it bears criticism and negative attention--is so far better than the quality of education at public schools in the state of California, which is at the forefront of the collectivist and anti-religious trend, that it is almost sickening.
September 28, 2015
Speaking of bias: the hoity-toity Mr B was a white supremacist in the 50s and 60s. What a guy !
August 28, 2021
A book length attempt to cancel others and trample over free speech
January 24, 2008
Reading this book is primarily for historical value. It is William F. Buckley, Jr.'s first book that he wrote while a student at Yale (published after graduation). In it you will find all the major themes of modern American conservatism that have shaped American politics since Goldwater. Following graduation, Buckley would go on to found The National Review magazine, which would be the standard bearer for the American conservative movement until the late 80's, when Rush Limbaugh becomes the standard bearer. The themes that Buckley brings to Yale in this book include:
Highest goods:
1. Christianity as the surest ground for ethics.
2. Capitalism over socialism.
Criticisms of Yale:
1. Homogeneity in the ideology of the faculty (anti-Christian secularism or naturalism, socialism).
2. Faculty response to criticism with the shibboleth of "Academic Freedom".
It is sort of back to the future, because these are the same things that the left-wing-turned-right-wing activist David Horowitz and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) have been critical of since 2000. Buckley was writing in ca. 1950.
Highest goods:
1. Christianity as the surest ground for ethics.
2. Capitalism over socialism.
Criticisms of Yale:
1. Homogeneity in the ideology of the faculty (anti-Christian secularism or naturalism, socialism).
2. Faculty response to criticism with the shibboleth of "Academic Freedom".
It is sort of back to the future, because these are the same things that the left-wing-turned-right-wing activist David Horowitz and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) have been critical of since 2000. Buckley was writing in ca. 1950.
January 8, 2017
I read a lot of Buckley back in the day, but had never read this one, the book that put him on the map. Reading it now, I can certainly see why it put him on the map. Good stuff.
May 3, 2022
God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of 'Academic Freedom' is the first in what has become a genre of sorts: conservatives (and now many liberals) writing about the weaknesses of the monolithic, radical, and intolerant culture of the academy (and sometimes related institutions). Some book-length examples include The Closing of the American Mind, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages, Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth, and Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody. Despite the regularity and intensity of this work, the culture and curriculum of higher ed is overwhelmingly captured by a particular ideological mode, and there is little prospect this will change in the foreseeable future.
WFB's complaints differ somewhat from those of contemporary conservative critics of academia (even among his direct intellectual descendants). Part of this is owed to the changes in the political zeitgeist of academia between the 1950s and today. The in vogue left-wing intellectual currents have moved well beyond atheism and socialism. In fact, many on the Left who have clung to those ideas are now branded reactionaries. We are now in the era of postmodernism, critical theory, intersectionality, post-colonialism, and the Frankfurt school (especially the treatment of pop culture as a topic of serious intellectual study).
In God and Man at Yale, WFB catalogs the enormous political slant in the religion and economic wings of Yale in great detail, arguing that there is generally a complete capitulation to the forces of materialist collectivism. The details of the portrait is what makes this worth the read, including course reading lists and excerpts from these texts. The reader is given a deeper perspective of the curriculum and classroom dynamics of Yale in the 50s.
I'd really only recommend this work to those who are very interested in the intellectual history of the Right or of WFB in particular. WFB's writing style and personality will likely turn off many modern readers, giving the impression that he was pretentious and stilted. It is unfortunate that erudite public personas are not really a thing of the present. Considering all of this, there is much to enjoy in WFB's work.
WFB's complaints differ somewhat from those of contemporary conservative critics of academia (even among his direct intellectual descendants). Part of this is owed to the changes in the political zeitgeist of academia between the 1950s and today. The in vogue left-wing intellectual currents have moved well beyond atheism and socialism. In fact, many on the Left who have clung to those ideas are now branded reactionaries. We are now in the era of postmodernism, critical theory, intersectionality, post-colonialism, and the Frankfurt school (especially the treatment of pop culture as a topic of serious intellectual study).
In God and Man at Yale, WFB catalogs the enormous political slant in the religion and economic wings of Yale in great detail, arguing that there is generally a complete capitulation to the forces of materialist collectivism. The details of the portrait is what makes this worth the read, including course reading lists and excerpts from these texts. The reader is given a deeper perspective of the curriculum and classroom dynamics of Yale in the 50s.
I'd really only recommend this work to those who are very interested in the intellectual history of the Right or of WFB in particular. WFB's writing style and personality will likely turn off many modern readers, giving the impression that he was pretentious and stilted. It is unfortunate that erudite public personas are not really a thing of the present. Considering all of this, there is much to enjoy in WFB's work.
December 19, 2011
While dated this book is a good place to start in examining the premise it puts forward in comparison to the situation as it exists today.
The names in the book and the specific examples listed come (1951 but continuing through)1970s. The "changes" that are presaged by the situation Mr. Buckley goes into have continued through to the present. The examples of instructors (professors) in the religion classes who are irreligious or even outright hostile to religion compared to what the alumni and parents of the students might think is only one area of examination. How much influence should the alumni and/or parents of the students have over the tenor of what's being taught. Does academic freedom of research equal an implication that the "teachers" should also have absolute control over that tenor. Exactly how hostile to "religious thought" are modern "scholars"?
This book revolves around Yale in the 1950s and 70s (it has been revised since 1951) but the implications and evidence present are definitely applicable to the situation as it exists in most institutions of higher learning today. The attitude of superiority over anyone who actually believes in God. The ridicule that is applied when actual argument won't work, it's all still there and today even, "more so". In considering all this I'd say this is a good place to start.
In planing to send a son or daughter off to college this is also a volume one might want to read as it looks at the phenomenon of institutes of higher learning (Yale here) getting paid by parents to destroy the morals and values in their children that those parents have spent the perspective student's childhood building.
It deals with and looks at what has led to the "abuse of" or possibly "perversion of" what is termed "academic freedom". Look at the situation in our "institutions of higher learning" today when a class can be taught by an undergraduate while a tenured professor leads protests against conservative speakers and publishes books and papers declaring things like "9-11 was an inside job and there were no planes involved".
How did we get here? This book remember is from 1951, think about it.
Thinking is so unusual today anyway.
The names in the book and the specific examples listed come (1951 but continuing through)1970s. The "changes" that are presaged by the situation Mr. Buckley goes into have continued through to the present. The examples of instructors (professors) in the religion classes who are irreligious or even outright hostile to religion compared to what the alumni and parents of the students might think is only one area of examination. How much influence should the alumni and/or parents of the students have over the tenor of what's being taught. Does academic freedom of research equal an implication that the "teachers" should also have absolute control over that tenor. Exactly how hostile to "religious thought" are modern "scholars"?
This book revolves around Yale in the 1950s and 70s (it has been revised since 1951) but the implications and evidence present are definitely applicable to the situation as it exists in most institutions of higher learning today. The attitude of superiority over anyone who actually believes in God. The ridicule that is applied when actual argument won't work, it's all still there and today even, "more so". In considering all this I'd say this is a good place to start.
In planing to send a son or daughter off to college this is also a volume one might want to read as it looks at the phenomenon of institutes of higher learning (Yale here) getting paid by parents to destroy the morals and values in their children that those parents have spent the perspective student's childhood building.
It deals with and looks at what has led to the "abuse of" or possibly "perversion of" what is termed "academic freedom". Look at the situation in our "institutions of higher learning" today when a class can be taught by an undergraduate while a tenured professor leads protests against conservative speakers and publishes books and papers declaring things like "9-11 was an inside job and there were no planes involved".
How did we get here? This book remember is from 1951, think about it.
Thinking is so unusual today anyway.
April 10, 2020
It's rather sad to see just how much of an arrogant tosser Buckley was even as a young man, one more suited to the reactionary world of Metternich than the post-war 1940s. Reading Buckley's early work, it's easy to understand the anti-communist witch hunts of the 50s. The motto of the so-called New Right? Don't engage intellectually, simply ban, fire, and excoriate anything that doesn't conform to your tidy WASP world view. (and full disclosure: I tend towards conservative politics myself, but still found Buckley's writing distasteful)
March 19, 2016
You can sometimes judge the effectiveness of a writer or that writer's work by the visceral reactions they generate from those who hold an opposing view. This book is a shining example of that effectiveness.
Even as a young man, when he wrote this book, Buckley showed a superb command of the language and its intricacies, and his simple premise -- that academia, which is supposed to embrace free thought, speech and expression but in fact is skewed toward a particular world view -- is more true today than it was when Buckley wrote these words. To the true free-thinker, "God and Man at Yale" should serve as a warning.
However, as is so often the case in today's political discourse, many critics do not review the work on its merits but rather the perceived personal qualities of the author. Oppose Buckley with the facts, if you can. Show that academia, or more specifically the Eastern Ivy League establishment, is not in fact biased toward the American Left. Simply calling Buckley an idiot won't feed that bulldog.
In the meantime, open your mind and read one of the cornerstones of modern American conservatism. It's an excellent work, well-organized, plainly spoken and direct. In order to have a reasoned debate, don't you at least want to attempt to understand your opponent's position?
Even as a young man, when he wrote this book, Buckley showed a superb command of the language and its intricacies, and his simple premise -- that academia, which is supposed to embrace free thought, speech and expression but in fact is skewed toward a particular world view -- is more true today than it was when Buckley wrote these words. To the true free-thinker, "God and Man at Yale" should serve as a warning.
However, as is so often the case in today's political discourse, many critics do not review the work on its merits but rather the perceived personal qualities of the author. Oppose Buckley with the facts, if you can. Show that academia, or more specifically the Eastern Ivy League establishment, is not in fact biased toward the American Left. Simply calling Buckley an idiot won't feed that bulldog.
In the meantime, open your mind and read one of the cornerstones of modern American conservatism. It's an excellent work, well-organized, plainly spoken and direct. In order to have a reasoned debate, don't you at least want to attempt to understand your opponent's position?
April 22, 2020
In the second semester of my freshman year, I was slightly taken aback by the assignment of a book called Literature from the Bible. I had spent my life in church, and the idea that the Bible could be studied as something besides "the word of God" was a radical idea, indeed. But, as time went on, I became a textbook example of the student who is corrupted by those liberal professors.
William F. Buckley, Jr., as a recent graduate of Yale, still had not gotten over the liberalism of the professors there, and saw fit to write a book that he hoped would act as a corrective.
For Buckley, there were three things that made America the success that it is: Christianity, free enterprise, and individualism (as opposed to collectivism).
What he found instead were teachers mocking belief in God, and economists teaching from Samuelson's Economics, which was way too enamored of central planning.
In Buckley's view, a private university should inculcate (his word) the values that its administration and alumni profess to believe in. So-called Academic freedom was a hoax. (Having gleaned from things written about the book that Buckley thought that the alumni should dictate what was taught in college, rather than the experts in the various fields seemed, and still seems, ludicrous to me. But Buckley made his arguments, and I'll try to cover them as best I can.)
As an atheist myself, I agree that it's an important battle, but Buckley and I are on opposite sides. It's also interesting to me that Christianity, which is mostly expressed collectively, should be analogous to individualism. But Buckley wanted to grant individualism a religious imprimatur.
Buckley lamented that impressionable freshmen were being indoctrinated with ideas that he believed the alumni and the administration would find inimical to the good of society. He doesn't ask himself why many of these classes and teachers are so popular with students. (I'll come back to this later.)
He gives examples in two chapters of Yale's treatment of religion and individualism and finds them wanting. Buckley sought "intellectual and inspirational support for his faith," and didn't find it. He complained that students could substitute philosophy or history credits and bypass religion altogether if desired, thereby denying religion "equal status" with other subjects. (To me, this merely reflects that Yale and the world had left Buckley behind in some previous century.)
Buckley made an attempt to differentiate facts from values, but was unwilling to admit that values might be informed by facts, and that things change.
Buckley held the opinion that unfettered capitalism equalled freedom, and that help from the state was slavery. Now, this is the expected belief of a member of his social class. But he never asked the questions, "Freedom for whom? Prosperity for whom?" To Buckley, any degree of socialism just led to communism. But, to me, communism's two great flaws are its pseudoscientific trappings and its "kill the bosses" attitude. Socialism, to me, springs from a compassionate attitude of the well off toward the less well off, and the realization that lack of regulation leads to Gilded Age abuses of laborers. The ruling classes do not automatically appreciate the value of labor to their enterprises.
God and Man at Yale was Buckley's plea to alumni and administrators to care as much about these values as he did, and as they said they did. But he found them disappointing. The alumni seemed only interested in the collection of money for Yale, and not at all in the "inculcation of values" that Buckley considered the greatest goal of education. I found Buckley's dedication to these ideals touchingly childlike and naive, much like my surprise that the Bible could be something other than holy. They shored up the world of his parents, and, not incidentally, the status quo of the class system in America.
Buckley called "academic freedom," as most people know it, a dedication to what he called laissez-faire education (laissez-faire not being a good word in this case). He himself saw education as an economic transaction: the people who "buy" an education deserve for it to be what they want it to be. They pay for a product, and that product should please them. If a teacher will not teach the values they already believe in, he should find a job at another school. Education should be agreeable to the purchaser, and validate his beliefs. Buckley's own version of what academic freedom should be is "the freedom of men and women to supervise the educational activities and aims of the schools they support." Nothing about the consumer of education as coming into the transaction as the relatively ignorant seeker after as-yet-unknown truth was to Buckley's liking.
Buckley talked a lot about individual freedom, but, interestingly, he referred to alumni, parents, and administrators the overseers of education. Buckley normally chose his words carefully, but I wonder if he was even conscious of the charge that the word overseers carries?
Buckley looked forward to a time when there would be "no market" for socialist teachers.
But, in Buckley's time, as I mentioned earlier, the courses he reviled were some of the most popular on offer at Yale.
William F. Buckley, Jr., as a recent graduate of Yale, still had not gotten over the liberalism of the professors there, and saw fit to write a book that he hoped would act as a corrective.
For Buckley, there were three things that made America the success that it is: Christianity, free enterprise, and individualism (as opposed to collectivism).
"I therefore looked eagerly to Yale University for allies against secularism and collectivism."
What he found instead were teachers mocking belief in God, and economists teaching from Samuelson's Economics, which was way too enamored of central planning.
In Buckley's view, a private university should inculcate (his word) the values that its administration and alumni profess to believe in. So-called Academic freedom was a hoax. (Having gleaned from things written about the book that Buckley thought that the alumni should dictate what was taught in college, rather than the experts in the various fields seemed, and still seems, ludicrous to me. But Buckley made his arguments, and I'll try to cover them as best I can.)
"I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level."
As an atheist myself, I agree that it's an important battle, but Buckley and I are on opposite sides. It's also interesting to me that Christianity, which is mostly expressed collectively, should be analogous to individualism. But Buckley wanted to grant individualism a religious imprimatur.
Buckley lamented that impressionable freshmen were being indoctrinated with ideas that he believed the alumni and the administration would find inimical to the good of society. He doesn't ask himself why many of these classes and teachers are so popular with students. (I'll come back to this later.)
He gives examples in two chapters of Yale's treatment of religion and individualism and finds them wanting. Buckley sought "intellectual and inspirational support for his faith," and didn't find it. He complained that students could substitute philosophy or history credits and bypass religion altogether if desired, thereby denying religion "equal status" with other subjects. (To me, this merely reflects that Yale and the world had left Buckley behind in some previous century.)
"Almost all the books assigned dealt with religion wholly as a cultural phenomenon, of no greater or lesser interest than ecology or diet."
Buckley made an attempt to differentiate facts from values, but was unwilling to admit that values might be informed by facts, and that things change.
Buckley held the opinion that unfettered capitalism equalled freedom, and that help from the state was slavery. Now, this is the expected belief of a member of his social class. But he never asked the questions, "Freedom for whom? Prosperity for whom?" To Buckley, any degree of socialism just led to communism. But, to me, communism's two great flaws are its pseudoscientific trappings and its "kill the bosses" attitude. Socialism, to me, springs from a compassionate attitude of the well off toward the less well off, and the realization that lack of regulation leads to Gilded Age abuses of laborers. The ruling classes do not automatically appreciate the value of labor to their enterprises.
God and Man at Yale was Buckley's plea to alumni and administrators to care as much about these values as he did, and as they said they did. But he found them disappointing. The alumni seemed only interested in the collection of money for Yale, and not at all in the "inculcation of values" that Buckley considered the greatest goal of education. I found Buckley's dedication to these ideals touchingly childlike and naive, much like my surprise that the Bible could be something other than holy. They shored up the world of his parents, and, not incidentally, the status quo of the class system in America.
Buckley called "academic freedom," as most people know it, a dedication to what he called laissez-faire education (laissez-faire not being a good word in this case). He himself saw education as an economic transaction: the people who "buy" an education deserve for it to be what they want it to be. They pay for a product, and that product should please them. If a teacher will not teach the values they already believe in, he should find a job at another school. Education should be agreeable to the purchaser, and validate his beliefs. Buckley's own version of what academic freedom should be is "the freedom of men and women to supervise the educational activities and aims of the schools they support." Nothing about the consumer of education as coming into the transaction as the relatively ignorant seeker after as-yet-unknown truth was to Buckley's liking.
Buckley talked a lot about individual freedom, but, interestingly, he referred to alumni, parents, and administrators the overseers of education. Buckley normally chose his words carefully, but I wonder if he was even conscious of the charge that the word overseers carries?
Buckley looked forward to a time when there would be "no market" for socialist teachers.
"If the people are to retain their sovereignty, the cannot relinquish their right to impose unemployment upon the trader in commodities or ideas for which there is no market."
But, in Buckley's time, as I mentioned earlier, the courses he reviled were some of the most popular on offer at Yale.
April 7, 2016
Here WFB sets forth with the primary thesis that alumni, being both customers and donors to Yale University, should be able to dictate the values that are taught at that University. This is a reaction to the belief that Yale had, at the publishing of this book following WFB's tenure as a student there, had moved away from their core values of individualism and christianity, toward a collectivist and atheist agenda. There are lots of problems with Buckley's ideas here, the most obvious being that Yale and other schools like it are and always have been primarily interested in maintaining the class structure that allows them their elitism; Buckley's strident opposition to Marxism being presented in any way that isn't an outright condemnation speaks to his extremism and keeps him from seeing that Yale (and universities like it) are wholly engines of the status quo. As a wealthy white Christian, any worldview that doesn't neatly fit into his own is automatically an affront to decency.
But Buckley acquits himself because he argues well and his prose is beautiful. The first two chapters of this book run near irrelevance these days because they rely on naming professors he finds particularly offensive and quoting heavily from texts used in their classes - but he's honest about the subjectivity of his exprience and motions towards the idea that of course people have the privilege to disagree with him if they're doing so honestly and addressing his concerns, as he is doing for them.
Overall, I think Buckley's ideas are bad ones. Sort of real bad. That said, this book is verrry compelling as a historical document and a pleasure to read on not only a sentence by sentence basis, but as the first real important work by someone who became an influential thinker of the 20th century.
But Buckley acquits himself because he argues well and his prose is beautiful. The first two chapters of this book run near irrelevance these days because they rely on naming professors he finds particularly offensive and quoting heavily from texts used in their classes - but he's honest about the subjectivity of his exprience and motions towards the idea that of course people have the privilege to disagree with him if they're doing so honestly and addressing his concerns, as he is doing for them.
Overall, I think Buckley's ideas are bad ones. Sort of real bad. That said, this book is verrry compelling as a historical document and a pleasure to read on not only a sentence by sentence basis, but as the first real important work by someone who became an influential thinker of the 20th century.
October 19, 2017
So specific to Yale at a point in time just after WWII that it's hard to believe some revere this as a classic with wider implications, even to reader very interested in the cultural implications of higher education. If you want a professor by professor rundown of those whom a recent graduate deems properly committed to individualism,this is your book. Hut the wide-ranging and insightful Buckley of later years is shackled by the precision of author as young researcher.
SECOND READING: Definitely more engaging this time. Still limited by the extent to which he focuses on particular professors on campus, long dead and forgotten, but he does speak to the ages now and again.
SECOND READING: Definitely more engaging this time. Still limited by the extent to which he focuses on particular professors on campus, long dead and forgotten, but he does speak to the ages now and again.
September 21, 2022
If someone can make it thru Yale with their faith in God and moral value system still intact, and their love of country, capitalism, and the Constitution undiminished, they are all the more impressive. This is not only true of Yale, but of an ever-increasing number of public and private colleges and universities.
The problem with ignoring religious principles in education:
"They [our schools and colleges] simply ignore religion. They look on it as a minor amusement to be practiced by those who find it fun, to be neglected if one desires. Obviously this outlook is quickly communicated to the young. If a child is taught in school about a vast number of things—for 25 hours a week, eight or nine months of a year, for ten to sixteen years or more—and if for all this time matters of religion are never seriously treated, the child can only come to view religion as, at best, an innocuous pastime preferred by a few to golf or canasta." (p. 30, quoting Canon Bernard Iddings Bell, from the October 16, 1950, issue of Life magazine).
"We have become accustomed to writing nobly of American ideals without either the historical accuracy or the common candor of recognizing that these ideals grew largely out of a mind and conscience that believed in God and in some eternal standards. Almost our subtlest form of self-deception is our amiable habit of talking about our “cultural heritage” with the main inheritance left out." ~ (p. 37, quoting President Howard Lowry of Wooster College).
"Marx himself, in the course of his lifetime, envisaged two broad lines of action that could be adopted to destroy the bourgeoisie: one was violent revolution; the other, a slow increase of state power, through extended social services, taxation, and regulation, to a point where a smooth transition could be effected from an individualist to a collectivist society. . . . It is a revolution of the second type, one that advocates a slow but relentless transfer of power from the individual to the state, that has roots in the Department of Economics at Yale, and unquestionably in similar departments in many colleges throughout the country." (pp. 42-43).
My high school history teacher liked to teach this very point -- that the national debt, in the form of treasury bonds sold to US citizens, is not a problem because "we owe it to ourselves.":
"[T]he collectivist shrugs off as naïve any concern about financial burdens imposed on future generations. And it is not surprising that he should do so, for to the collectivist, individual ownership of bonds, which represent claims to future production on the part of other persons, poses no problem whatever. For to him the individual means nothing; he pauses only to consider society as a whole, and thus he can generalize that internal debt is no burden, for “we owe it to ourselves.” (p. 66).
2018 News Flash -- Nothing has been done:
"If the alumni wish secular and collectivist influences to prevail at Yale, that is their privilege. What is more, if that is what they want, they need bestir themselves very little. The task has been done for them. There remains only a mopping-up operation to eliminate the few outspoken and influential figures who stand in the way of real unity in Yale’s intellectual drive toward agnosticism and collectivism.
"Let me add something else: if the present generation of Yale graduates does not check the University’s ideological drive, the next generation most probably will not want to. I should be disrespectful of Yale if I did not credit her with molding the values and thinking processes of the majority of her students. Many of these, of course, withstand Yale’s influence even while living in her cloistered halls for four years; and many more, in the course of future experience, learn to be first skeptical and then antagonistic to the teachings of some of the college professors they once revered.
"But my contention that the values and biases of the University linger with the majority of graduates is surely not controversial. It is basic to education and to human experience that this be so, and I have no reason to doubt that it is so. If Yale alumni come to be dissatisfied with the international, national, and community influence of the forthcoming generation of Yale graduates, they can only do so with the irrationality of the Scotsman who complained that his new Dictaphone had the worst Aberdeen accent he had ever heard.
"And so I repeat: unless something is done now, or soon, by collective or individual alumni action, nothing in all probability will be done in the future about Yale’s predominant biases, because these will be in full accord with the wishes of the next generation of alumni." (pp. 103-104).
The problem with ignoring religious principles in education:
"They [our schools and colleges] simply ignore religion. They look on it as a minor amusement to be practiced by those who find it fun, to be neglected if one desires. Obviously this outlook is quickly communicated to the young. If a child is taught in school about a vast number of things—for 25 hours a week, eight or nine months of a year, for ten to sixteen years or more—and if for all this time matters of religion are never seriously treated, the child can only come to view religion as, at best, an innocuous pastime preferred by a few to golf or canasta." (p. 30, quoting Canon Bernard Iddings Bell, from the October 16, 1950, issue of Life magazine).
"We have become accustomed to writing nobly of American ideals without either the historical accuracy or the common candor of recognizing that these ideals grew largely out of a mind and conscience that believed in God and in some eternal standards. Almost our subtlest form of self-deception is our amiable habit of talking about our “cultural heritage” with the main inheritance left out." ~ (p. 37, quoting President Howard Lowry of Wooster College).
"Marx himself, in the course of his lifetime, envisaged two broad lines of action that could be adopted to destroy the bourgeoisie: one was violent revolution; the other, a slow increase of state power, through extended social services, taxation, and regulation, to a point where a smooth transition could be effected from an individualist to a collectivist society. . . . It is a revolution of the second type, one that advocates a slow but relentless transfer of power from the individual to the state, that has roots in the Department of Economics at Yale, and unquestionably in similar departments in many colleges throughout the country." (pp. 42-43).
My high school history teacher liked to teach this very point -- that the national debt, in the form of treasury bonds sold to US citizens, is not a problem because "we owe it to ourselves.":
"[T]he collectivist shrugs off as naïve any concern about financial burdens imposed on future generations. And it is not surprising that he should do so, for to the collectivist, individual ownership of bonds, which represent claims to future production on the part of other persons, poses no problem whatever. For to him the individual means nothing; he pauses only to consider society as a whole, and thus he can generalize that internal debt is no burden, for “we owe it to ourselves.” (p. 66).
2018 News Flash -- Nothing has been done:
"If the alumni wish secular and collectivist influences to prevail at Yale, that is their privilege. What is more, if that is what they want, they need bestir themselves very little. The task has been done for them. There remains only a mopping-up operation to eliminate the few outspoken and influential figures who stand in the way of real unity in Yale’s intellectual drive toward agnosticism and collectivism.
"Let me add something else: if the present generation of Yale graduates does not check the University’s ideological drive, the next generation most probably will not want to. I should be disrespectful of Yale if I did not credit her with molding the values and thinking processes of the majority of her students. Many of these, of course, withstand Yale’s influence even while living in her cloistered halls for four years; and many more, in the course of future experience, learn to be first skeptical and then antagonistic to the teachings of some of the college professors they once revered.
"But my contention that the values and biases of the University linger with the majority of graduates is surely not controversial. It is basic to education and to human experience that this be so, and I have no reason to doubt that it is so. If Yale alumni come to be dissatisfied with the international, national, and community influence of the forthcoming generation of Yale graduates, they can only do so with the irrationality of the Scotsman who complained that his new Dictaphone had the worst Aberdeen accent he had ever heard.
"And so I repeat: unless something is done now, or soon, by collective or individual alumni action, nothing in all probability will be done in the future about Yale’s predominant biases, because these will be in full accord with the wishes of the next generation of alumni." (pp. 103-104).
May 19, 2010
Do not be fooled by the title. Buckley's book has very little to do about Yale. It serves merely as a backdrop for his arguments against the concepts of academic freedom and for individualism (conservatism). William Buckley is a renowned political conservatist, and apparently this book kicked off his life's work. He wrote it two years after graduating Yale in 1951, and his immature, overly flatutent writing style is evidence of a young writer. Nevertheless his arguments are well thought out and persuasive regardless of your political leanings. I think it is important to read this book in the context of the times in which he wrote. Written not long after the Great Depression, I think it is safe to say that America was swept away with Roosevelt concepts of bigger government, etc. It was anathema to think otherwise. Buckley swims against the tide in this book, and presents a counterview that many have gone onto to say fomented the current liberal vs. conservative nature of American politics. You couple that with the fact that in 1953, the ineffectiveness of communism hadn't completely shown itself, and many academics were still espousing its merit even in America. Buckley weaves these huge topics almost accidently into his bigger point that professors should not be completely insulated under the umbrella of academic freedom. Rather they should be accountable to teaching students in accordance with certain principles (e.g. capitalism vs. socialism).
All interesting stuff regardless of your political views. I think it is about 160 pages. It seems a little longer because of Buckley's writing style, but nevertheless a very interesting read.
All interesting stuff regardless of your political views. I think it is about 160 pages. It seems a little longer because of Buckley's writing style, but nevertheless a very interesting read.
March 14, 2021
Having had my fair share of attempted indoctrination whilst in college in the 21st century I was curious how it compared to what Buckley went through in the latter 1940s.
I rate this book a 3.5 (rounded to 4).
I think most reasonable persons see college as a time for intellectual growth. Exposure to new ideas. I also think most would agree that its unethical and professional for a teacher to badger students into believing the teachers own personal viewpoint. Buckley lays the case and cites numerous examples of professors who belittle Christianity, and often during courses that have no strict ties to religious dogma.
I dont feel Buckleys points on religion have aged well in the 70 years that this book has been on the market, but his case about economics still rings true today.
If this book was meant to be a clarion call to Yale alumni to let them know what's really being taught to their children then its certainly well written and researched deeply enough to make that point.
I rate this book a 3.5 (rounded to 4).
I think most reasonable persons see college as a time for intellectual growth. Exposure to new ideas. I also think most would agree that its unethical and professional for a teacher to badger students into believing the teachers own personal viewpoint. Buckley lays the case and cites numerous examples of professors who belittle Christianity, and often during courses that have no strict ties to religious dogma.
I dont feel Buckleys points on religion have aged well in the 70 years that this book has been on the market, but his case about economics still rings true today.
If this book was meant to be a clarion call to Yale alumni to let them know what's really being taught to their children then its certainly well written and researched deeply enough to make that point.
December 1, 2023
Stopped reading after Chapter 2 (page 101 of 177). I get where Buckley's going with it, and I wasn't going to get anything more out of it by continuing.
God and Man at Yale, as George Will succinctly put it, is William F. Buckley's lovers’ quarrel with his alma mater. Buckley wanted Yale to produce strong, Christian, capitalist men, but he was desperately afraid that socialists and communists were taking over there so they could promote collectivism elsewhere.
It's a work firmly based in the cold war--by today's standards it would normally be considered a period piece. It's a McCarthyist diatribe warning that 'the enemy has planted their seeds among us.'
Perhaps most importantly, it lays out many of the tenets of mid-century conservative thought--deficit spending, free enterprise, Christianity, big business, tax aversion, and other topics. That's why the book remains relevant to the conservative movement, even today. The Republican Party is still following principles set forth in this book seventy years ago.
God and Man at Yale reveals a lot about Buckley's character and rhetorical techniques, which are deeply flawed. So pervasive are Buckley's weaknesses that my notes and commentary in the margins were repeatedly getting in the way of my reading. This is also the first time I have used 'scare quotes' in noting passages that I found false, sarcastic, trollish, or otherwise misleading. There are many of these rhetorical devices all over the book, and they're helpful in revealing Buckley's biases.
I'm disappointed enough to say that Buckley--to judge him simply by this book--is overrated. The prose is stilted and self-congratulatory, for a start. Buckley's argumentation is heavy-handed and frequently illogical; he summarizes and draws misleading conclusions, and he often creates his own imagined contexts for attacking people and their alleged ideologies. Regarding his erudite vocabulary and grammar, it's a style that hides his argumentative flaws and shapes his rhetoric by making him seem more important than he is, like a good icing on a two-dollar cake. Once you get past the decorous language and the mid-Atlantic voice he affected, his is just one man's opinion.
If one were so inclined, an annotated paragraph-by-paragraph critique of Buckley's writing can readily be made. Here are just a few examples.
Buckley tells us his biases right up front. He opens the book in the author's preface by saying he presumes Christianity and freedom are 'good'--implying that such assumptions are unassailable. Later, he admits he will not be fair to ideologies other than Christianity and capitalism because in his view they do not merit equal consideration.
He alleges that Yale's charter requires the college to teach what its students and alumni demand--therefore in his own mind, Buckley concludes that Yale must be a Christian-based school. But he's unhappy with Yale's lack of devotion to the church. He spends a lot of Chapter 1 whining about how Yale is not explicitly Christian, so therefore it must be anti-Christian. There's a lot of this kind of fallacy throughout the book--something is not one thing so it must be the direct opposite.
Later on, he alleges many of Yale's economists are either explicit collectivists, skeptics of capitalism, or otherwise unfriendly to capitalism. At one point, he comments that the 'wisdom' of economic thought is 'something that a professional economist is supposed to pass judgment upon.' Buckley did not major in economics, so perhaps he can be forgiven for his ignorance--it is not the duty of the free market economist to pass judgment on what is 'wise,' but to learn and practice what works.
Published in 1951, this came about as the McCarthy era was in full swing. At various points, Buckley is an explicit McCarthyist. He freely admits to supporting the McCarran Act and the Committee on Un-American Activities--two of the pillars of anti-communist doctrine. McCarthyism may have had a public death, but men such as Buckley continued to preach the same sermon.
The conservative movement in the United States needs to get over Buckley, or else they are doomed to repeat the history of this book.
God and Man at Yale, as George Will succinctly put it, is William F. Buckley's lovers’ quarrel with his alma mater. Buckley wanted Yale to produce strong, Christian, capitalist men, but he was desperately afraid that socialists and communists were taking over there so they could promote collectivism elsewhere.
It's a work firmly based in the cold war--by today's standards it would normally be considered a period piece. It's a McCarthyist diatribe warning that 'the enemy has planted their seeds among us.'
Perhaps most importantly, it lays out many of the tenets of mid-century conservative thought--deficit spending, free enterprise, Christianity, big business, tax aversion, and other topics. That's why the book remains relevant to the conservative movement, even today. The Republican Party is still following principles set forth in this book seventy years ago.
God and Man at Yale reveals a lot about Buckley's character and rhetorical techniques, which are deeply flawed. So pervasive are Buckley's weaknesses that my notes and commentary in the margins were repeatedly getting in the way of my reading. This is also the first time I have used 'scare quotes' in noting passages that I found false, sarcastic, trollish, or otherwise misleading. There are many of these rhetorical devices all over the book, and they're helpful in revealing Buckley's biases.
I'm disappointed enough to say that Buckley--to judge him simply by this book--is overrated. The prose is stilted and self-congratulatory, for a start. Buckley's argumentation is heavy-handed and frequently illogical; he summarizes and draws misleading conclusions, and he often creates his own imagined contexts for attacking people and their alleged ideologies. Regarding his erudite vocabulary and grammar, it's a style that hides his argumentative flaws and shapes his rhetoric by making him seem more important than he is, like a good icing on a two-dollar cake. Once you get past the decorous language and the mid-Atlantic voice he affected, his is just one man's opinion.
If one were so inclined, an annotated paragraph-by-paragraph critique of Buckley's writing can readily be made. Here are just a few examples.
Buckley tells us his biases right up front. He opens the book in the author's preface by saying he presumes Christianity and freedom are 'good'--implying that such assumptions are unassailable. Later, he admits he will not be fair to ideologies other than Christianity and capitalism because in his view they do not merit equal consideration.
He alleges that Yale's charter requires the college to teach what its students and alumni demand--therefore in his own mind, Buckley concludes that Yale must be a Christian-based school. But he's unhappy with Yale's lack of devotion to the church. He spends a lot of Chapter 1 whining about how Yale is not explicitly Christian, so therefore it must be anti-Christian. There's a lot of this kind of fallacy throughout the book--something is not one thing so it must be the direct opposite.
Later on, he alleges many of Yale's economists are either explicit collectivists, skeptics of capitalism, or otherwise unfriendly to capitalism. At one point, he comments that the 'wisdom' of economic thought is 'something that a professional economist is supposed to pass judgment upon.' Buckley did not major in economics, so perhaps he can be forgiven for his ignorance--it is not the duty of the free market economist to pass judgment on what is 'wise,' but to learn and practice what works.
Published in 1951, this came about as the McCarthy era was in full swing. At various points, Buckley is an explicit McCarthyist. He freely admits to supporting the McCarran Act and the Committee on Un-American Activities--two of the pillars of anti-communist doctrine. McCarthyism may have had a public death, but men such as Buckley continued to preach the same sermon.
The conservative movement in the United States needs to get over Buckley, or else they are doomed to repeat the history of this book.
August 3, 2023
It is astonishing how articulate William F. Buckley was. Right out of the gate. This book was written only a few years after he received his Yale BA. And although one can disagree with Buckley; one can suggest developments since 1950 suggest some of his arguments were misplaced— although that’s not my view—this work always will be relevant. Not necessarily because of its subject. But because of the display of genius that I thank God I was fortunate enough to overlap lifetimes; even once to talk with him for a few minutes.
February 1, 2008
The blueprint for the modern conservative movement. Brilliant, and quite simply one of my favorite all time books!
March 19, 2020
I wonder who is writing the updated version of this based on the issues of academic freedom under attack today.
May 19, 2018
Being persistent to the values and taking into consideration that freedom of choice is something unique, sooner or later you will realize that thinking is moving, not standing.
May 17, 2021
Fascinating to read this 70 years later. Too bad the alumni didn’t heed Buckley’s warnings.
June 29, 2024
At points this book was both elegant and piercingly perceptive about the issues of higher education in America. But more often it was easy to feel bogged down by Buckley’s profuse referencing to books and essays that have been forgotten (though not forgotten at the time of publication). This is fine I guess, but it makes one wonder if Buckley enjoyed flexing his intellectual muscles while writing this book.
The essay on individualism and collectivism was near impossible (for me) to track by listening to an audio version of this book. Therefore I recommend a physical copy if you plan on reading.
The essay on individualism and collectivism was near impossible (for me) to track by listening to an audio version of this book. Therefore I recommend a physical copy if you plan on reading.
October 28, 2024
I read this because I was interested in what Buckley had to say about "academic freedom", and although it is limited to the author's experience of one specific university, it still manages to point out things relevant to education in general. He made the point very well that many of the people who claim "academic freedom" are being hypocritical in their application of it, and that it isn't necessarily wrong for a university to have a set of moral values they wish to pass on to students. I got bogged down in the details of this book sometimes, but overall did enjoy it.
July 11, 2022
Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same! A logical look at the inculcation of values in the university.
September 22, 2024
The final chapter is worth the cost of admission. The rest is historically interesting, but less so for those uninvested in the academy.
March 14, 2023
The book is a bit dated (obviously) but it aged really well!
April 7, 2020
Even more frightening (and pertinent) that it is now more close to the 65th anniversary of this work, unsurprisingly Buckley's book is necessary, enlightening, and apropos. Buckley's introduction to the 25th anniversary reveals his growth as a critic, thinker, and writer (the writing is much better than the book itself, which should not be surprising, considering he doubled his life experience and honed his writing output in the meantime). It is more enjoyable to read than the book, but the book itself should be read, if for nothing more than the reminder, especially to collegians today, the only thing colleges want from their alumni is their money.
What will perhaps come as an "I should have seen that coming" notice to us all is the litany of colleges, especially akin to the league of ivy-covered universities, during the '50s that eschewed private enterprise and the free market in favor of government intervention and control (often called "socialism") in economics courses. Thus, all the decision makers in government who went to college since the 1950s have been weaned on Keynesian economics - no wonder we are in the state we are in today: all of them think they are doing the right thing.
Buckley's discussion on the inefficacy of religion on Yale's campus is thoroughly disheartening, especially considering the Decision Makers' decision to prevent Buckley from giving his cautionary speech to the alumni under the abused, hypocritical claim of "academic freedom." Buckley's trenchant discussion of both the passive destruction (and sometimes overt) of religion on campus, and the mythical trope "academic freedom" are likewise necessary reading, especially since the atmosphere at more colleges are even worse than they were when he first wrote this book. We certainly are in a bizarre academic world when ideas like Intelligent Design are blackballed from the very public schools that claim to espouse "academic freedom."
I especially enjoyed Buckley's refutation of the notion Yale (and thus all, especially private, educational enterprises) must present all ideas in an unbiased way to the students and thus allow the students to weigh and decide for themselves what is true (or worthwhile or pragmatic or whatever) - as if the classroom is suppose to be an intellectual buffet. Indeed, this is not the case: classrooms and teachers/professors, especially at private institutions, wholly have the obligation to stand for something - to proclaim what is true and encourage the students to believe what is true. Certainly this does not mean they should avoid the thinkers and ideas contrary to what they believe, not must they only discuss them superficially or derogatorily, but such inferior ideas should be refuted in the classroom. Anything less is not an education. That Buckley and his friends are not popular today should be enough reason for you to read this book.
What will perhaps come as an "I should have seen that coming" notice to us all is the litany of colleges, especially akin to the league of ivy-covered universities, during the '50s that eschewed private enterprise and the free market in favor of government intervention and control (often called "socialism") in economics courses. Thus, all the decision makers in government who went to college since the 1950s have been weaned on Keynesian economics - no wonder we are in the state we are in today: all of them think they are doing the right thing.
Buckley's discussion on the inefficacy of religion on Yale's campus is thoroughly disheartening, especially considering the Decision Makers' decision to prevent Buckley from giving his cautionary speech to the alumni under the abused, hypocritical claim of "academic freedom." Buckley's trenchant discussion of both the passive destruction (and sometimes overt) of religion on campus, and the mythical trope "academic freedom" are likewise necessary reading, especially since the atmosphere at more colleges are even worse than they were when he first wrote this book. We certainly are in a bizarre academic world when ideas like Intelligent Design are blackballed from the very public schools that claim to espouse "academic freedom."
I especially enjoyed Buckley's refutation of the notion Yale (and thus all, especially private, educational enterprises) must present all ideas in an unbiased way to the students and thus allow the students to weigh and decide for themselves what is true (or worthwhile or pragmatic or whatever) - as if the classroom is suppose to be an intellectual buffet. Indeed, this is not the case: classrooms and teachers/professors, especially at private institutions, wholly have the obligation to stand for something - to proclaim what is true and encourage the students to believe what is true. Certainly this does not mean they should avoid the thinkers and ideas contrary to what they believe, not must they only discuss them superficially or derogatorily, but such inferior ideas should be refuted in the classroom. Anything less is not an education. That Buckley and his friends are not popular today should be enough reason for you to read this book.
December 31, 2020
This book seemed fundamental to better understanding this writer: his first mega-hit book, written just out of college. This audio book (read beautifully by Michael Edwards) is the 60th-anniversary edition, with a long introduction by the author.
I've served enough time in academia to be interested in Buckley's long scold of his alma mater. He sees a battle for Yale's soul going on, between atheism and socialism vs. religion and capitalism.
To start, WFB puts the faculty on trial for their religious views, coldly classifying particular people as Christians or non-believers, practicing Catholics or that other kind. He reminded me of The Church Lady on Saturday Night Live, with a better vocabulary.
He moves on to economics, and here he's in a strong area. The economics faculty and the authors of the required books were espousing wealth inequality being addressed by capital gains taxation, income taxes, death and inheritance taxes, yet wealth equalization would ultimately weaken Yale’s financial structure by eliminating wealthy donors. His analysis of the four core economics textbooks was compelling, concrete and enjoyable.
The third topic was teaching, and its balance of teaching to research, the value of a consolidated mission of a school vs. "academic freedom," a term sees covering a multitude of sins. He thinks Yale should have, pretends to have, yet lacks an actual academic mission, and its goals are completely disconnected from administration, hiring and teaching.
He says that a strict values test for faculty "would make me restless and unhappy." A nice phrase, but then, what is the point of this book? He quotes Howard Lowry's book, The Mind's Adventure, which came out in 1950, the year WFB graduated and one year before GAMAY (that's Buckley jargon for this book): I am left with a suspicion that WFB set out to mimic Lowry from his own perspective, and that makes me restless and unhappy.
His final topic is Academic Freedom, and the role of alumni. He confronts the realization that commonly comes with graduation: we paid our money, took some courses, and now we are dismissed to make room for others. His news flash is that alumni don't make academic decisions (well, duh!). He thinks alumni participation is fundamental to Yale, maybe to private colleges everywhere. This was a stretch for me: I attended a private school for graduate work, and it never occurred to me I'd have any influence as an alumnus.
He thinks we can encourage people to think for themselves in a way that guides them to reach the conclusions we ourselves hold.
I think he was pretty well ruined for professorships by this book, and that's a good thing. I look forward to following his later works, and did enjoy this book even while considering that it contains a lot of hot air. A nice romp for the mind.
I've served enough time in academia to be interested in Buckley's long scold of his alma mater. He sees a battle for Yale's soul going on, between atheism and socialism vs. religion and capitalism.
To start, WFB puts the faculty on trial for their religious views, coldly classifying particular people as Christians or non-believers, practicing Catholics or that other kind. He reminded me of The Church Lady on Saturday Night Live, with a better vocabulary.
He moves on to economics, and here he's in a strong area. The economics faculty and the authors of the required books were espousing wealth inequality being addressed by capital gains taxation, income taxes, death and inheritance taxes, yet wealth equalization would ultimately weaken Yale’s financial structure by eliminating wealthy donors. His analysis of the four core economics textbooks was compelling, concrete and enjoyable.
The third topic was teaching, and its balance of teaching to research, the value of a consolidated mission of a school vs. "academic freedom," a term sees covering a multitude of sins. He thinks Yale should have, pretends to have, yet lacks an actual academic mission, and its goals are completely disconnected from administration, hiring and teaching.
He says that a strict values test for faculty "would make me restless and unhappy." A nice phrase, but then, what is the point of this book? He quotes Howard Lowry's book, The Mind's Adventure, which came out in 1950, the year WFB graduated and one year before GAMAY (that's Buckley jargon for this book): I am left with a suspicion that WFB set out to mimic Lowry from his own perspective, and that makes me restless and unhappy.
His final topic is Academic Freedom, and the role of alumni. He confronts the realization that commonly comes with graduation: we paid our money, took some courses, and now we are dismissed to make room for others. His news flash is that alumni don't make academic decisions (well, duh!). He thinks alumni participation is fundamental to Yale, maybe to private colleges everywhere. This was a stretch for me: I attended a private school for graduate work, and it never occurred to me I'd have any influence as an alumnus.
He thinks we can encourage people to think for themselves in a way that guides them to reach the conclusions we ourselves hold.
I think he was pretty well ruined for professorships by this book, and that's a good thing. I look forward to following his later works, and did enjoy this book even while considering that it contains a lot of hot air. A nice romp for the mind.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 190 reviews