To the Editor,
Readers of TNH could not be blamed if they took Daniel Weimert's recent letter as a parody of postmodern academic performance. His critical-sexual politics, his historical reductionism, his oppressed subjectivity, his theoretical jargon, his unstructured reasoning shot through with non sequiturs all seem rather cleverly calculated to mock the presumptions upon which so much bad scholarship proceeds. Then, of course, we realize that Mr. Weimert is apparently serious.
I'd be hard pressed to answer all of Mr. Weimert's arguments, especially since there are so few of them that make any sense at all. So, I'll leave to others the task of deciphering his rather odd conclusions about history, politics, sociology, and religion.
I would like to offer one significant correction, however. Contrary to Mr. Weimert's confident assertion, the discipline of rhetoric has not been "banished completely" from university curricula. Indeed, I have been teaching courses in rhetoric at the University of New Hampshire for nineteen years, and have had, over the years, many colleagues who have done the same. And no, Mr. Weimert, we are not talking about mere "writing intensive options." Indeed, we offer a robust curriculum in civic rhetoric that includes courses in rhetorical theory and analysis, argumentation, rhetorical criticism, the history of public address, and even "Public Speaking as a Civic Art." In fact, literally hundreds of present UNH students will testify to the delight (or misery) they experienced in studying Aristotle's Rhetoric in the introductory course.
Indeed, had Mr. Weimert done just a little genuine scholarly research he would have learned that, in one form or another, the discipline of rhetoric has existed within the curriculum of the university since its days in Hanover as the New Hampshire College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. Moreover, rhetoric is still taught at the undergraduate, and even the graduate level, at major research universities across the country including Wisconsin, Penn State, Texas, Washington, Georgia, Northwestern, and many others.
I confess I cannot entirely fathom Mr. Weimert's peculiar understanding of the connections between a vital rhetoric curriculum and the imaginary landscape of sexual politics he envisions. Nevertheless, in the terrifying world of his post-modern delusion the suppression of rhetoric is somehow part of a bourgeoisie conspiracy to prevent personal oratorical expression by homosexual men, thereby preventing their political emancipation. In Mr. Weimert's parallel universe the absence of rhetoric is "the way the university is set up." This fantasy curriculum without rhetoric "discriminates against males" and especially "male homosexuals" and consequently sets the tone for "many other institutions as well." Especially curious is Mr. Weimert's belief that "the bourgeoisie knows this and that is why in many academic publications the political implications of reintroducing rhetoric courses has been central to the debate."
It is strange to think how I might have missed this rhetorical apocalypse. I've been reading the major academic journals in the field of rhetoric for a long time. I've never seen this debate. But, then again, why would such a debate need to take place? The absence of rhetoric in the curriculum is a problem that only exists in Mr. Weimert's post-modern homosexual nightmare. In the real world, however, UNH students can rest assured that their rhetoricians are still hard at work.
James M. Farrell Professor of Rhetoric Dept. of Communication
Be the first to comment on this article!