Heroic Anti-Intellectualism:Stanley Fish in the New York Times

The latest Stanley Fish slam on the humanities reinforces the general impression that the New York Times likes the arts only if they are connected with business. http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/the-last-professor/
Heaven forbid that one should read, write, draw, sing or generally ponder and create for the sake of doing so. Intellectual endeavor that does not immediately involve generating income does not count in the paper of record. Universities exist primarily as stepping-stones in their readers’ careers, not as places where meaningful activity happens in its own right.
When the Times runs a skeptical Stanley Fish essay, administrators circulate the link among each other to reinforce their budget cuts. It was not even mid-morning before a colleague sent me the Fish piece as a justification for not organizing a theory conference. His argument is another version of the student who asks why study math, why take philosophy, its not going to get me a job. At its best Fish’s writing might be called Socratic, but his arguments easily transform themselves into a simple refusal to think critically and a recommendation that the young study only what will make them rich quickly.
What matters here is that the United States leads the world in turning universities into corporations, an agenda that further squelches thought and creativity for its own sake. It is certainly possible for a newspaper to be conservative, pro-business while maintaining a lively, even avant-garde, arts program. Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Switzerland’s Neue Züricher Zeitung have impressive book reviews that dig deep into the literary scene, while the rest of the paper represents the concerns of the banking industry in both countries.
Academic and literary writing constitute one of the few arenas in which the NY Times trades in the long American tradition of anti-intellectualism. The paper may scorn ignorant politicians, but it relishes a no-nothing attitude when it comes to new developments in academic or literary culture. One of the few moments when the Times feels obliged to acknowledge academia comes when a famous professor dies. One need only read the obituaries of Jacques Derrida or Edward Said see how eagerly the paper sneers at philosophy.
Many bemoan the lack of public intellectuals in the United States, the New York Times, a paper that could readily set a standard, instead reinforces, even enforces, the silencing of complex public thought.