Sometimes my daily Google News search for "York University" turns up some real gems (whereas the old Laurier search generally turned up football scores and biographical notes from WLU-alum captains of industry).
Case in point: why is a
business administration professor from Israel so interested in
trashing York's David Noble? Because he's a leftist secular Jew, generally, and specifically for his opposition to closing the University on religious holidays (which I've posted about previously).
Instead of confronting the school-closure issue at the outset, we take a meandering and delightfully
ad hominem-heavy detour through Noble's career and political views so that the author can try to discredit him. The few potentially valid points made in the piece are rendered meaningless by the author's obvious delight in his own ignorance:
Back in 1983, Noble co-founded the National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest, together with Ralph Nader (and Al Meyerhoff), to try "to bring extra-academic pressure to bear upon university administrations who were selling out their colleagues and the public in the pursuit of corporate partnerships." Noble claims his aim has been to “have chronicled and fought against the commercialization and corporatization of higher education.” He also claims he is fighting “commodification” of higher education. We have no idea what “corporatization” and “commodification” are supposed to mean. Like most leftists, the principal methodology of analysis used by Noble is the manufacture of senseless polysyllables [emphasis added].
Commodification is not a difficult concept. Briefly, a
commodity is a good produced not for consumption by the producer, but rather to be sold on the market in order to acquire other goods. I think the applicability of this concept to trends in modern higher education, while of debatable validity, is pretty straightforward. In fact, I would have thought that 'commodity' is the sort of word that one encounters, at least from time to time, as a scholar of business administration, but he proudly claims to have "no idea" what commodification is "supposed to mean."
The common English suffix 'ification' shouldn't throw us for a loop, should it? On the face of it, commodification would trivially refer to the process of transforming something from a non-commodity into a commodity. What's so difficult about that? Presumably Plaut does comprehend the
business meaning of 'commodity' (which means a good that's homogeneous to the point of total interchangeability), but rejects the Marxian meaning. Fair enough, but you don't have to agree with the theoretical conclusions that might be drawn from the application of a concept to allow that it might actually carry some reasonably deducible meaning. So what's the problem? Oh, right -- one, two, three, four, five, six --
too many syllables. Sorry, my bad. That explains it.
Anyhow, if you've got your gag reflex firmly under control,
Frontpagemag is full of other articles
denouncing assorted leftists,
blaming Marxists for Soviet atrocities and painting all
criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, pro-Islamist, pro-terrorist bigotry. Even
Google is anti-Semitic.