Socialist Ecology at UC Irvine

What exactly is “social ecology?” Perform a quick internet search of the term and you might get the impression that it’s what you get when you mix socialism, anti-modern utopianism, and environmentalist fear-mongering. The “Institute for Social Ecology” offers this definition:

The same search will also uncover an essay republished on the “Anarchist Archives” website titled “What is Social Ecology?” The answer according to the essay’s author, Murray Bookchin, seems to be the study of society’s “growing environmental crisis,” a crisis that he believes results from - you guessed it - capitalism. According to Bookchin, “the present market economy, structured around the brutally competitive imperative of ‘grow or die’” is one of the “root causes” of environmental degradation and characteristic of a “grim social pathology.” In short, these descriptions present a picture of social ecology as a field overrun by leftist activism and based on scientific and economic theories of questionable validity.

It’s no surprise then that David Mintzer, a student at UC Irvine, detected an unmistakable bias in his university’s Social Ecology department. The Irvine Review, the school’s conservative student paper, reports that out of the twenty books Mintzer has been assigned in his various Social Ecology courses, not one has offered an alternative to the leftist, anti-market perspective. Angered by such a flagrant lack of balance, Mintzer, a student legislator, decided to sponsor a resolution condemning the extreme leftist slant of the department’s curriculum. On May 6th, Mintzer introduced his resolution in the legislative council of the Associated Students of the University of California, Irvine (ASUCI).

The resolution declared that “many professors, whether intentionally or unintentionally, deprive students of the knowledge to argue both sides of the issues by presenting one-sided academia.” The resolution also affirmed the ASUCI’s support of a “balanced and unbiased education in the classrooms” and their eagerness to work with the administration and other appropriate groups to “address this important issue.” Incredibly, the resolution passed 9 to 0 with 2 abstentions. Such a vote might not be unexpected from a campus conservative group, but coming from the school’s undergraduate student government, the nearly unanimous decision is remarkable.

Not surprisingly, the resolution prompted a less-than-enthusiastic response from the School of Social Ecology’s dean, Ron C. Huff. Huff sent an e-mail to the faculty and staff of the Social Ecology department informing them of the anti-bias legislation. The e-mail was highly critical of Mintzer for failing to first meet with department chairs or the faculty representative to discuss his concerns. Huff opined that Mintzer’s actions had “called into question the integrity” of the school’s faculty without their “having an adequate chance to respond.” Huff termed the situation “most unfortunate” and offered his belief that “it is always best (and most fair) to address concerns privately before airing them publicly.”

While David Mintzer declined to comment to Campus Report, Nathan Masters, a fellow UC Irvine student posted a message to www.campusnonsense.com defending Mintzer and decrying the dean’s heavy-handedness. “To me, this seems like an attempt to blacklist the student, as he has now been identified to all of his instructors as a conservative, a heretic.”

At the very least, Huff’s response is a dodge, an attempt to shift the discussion from the school’s perceived bias to the alleged impropriety of one student’s actions. By singling out Minzter for criticism, Huff conveniently ignores the fact that 9 students out of an 11-member body voted to censure the school for its overwhelming bias, and none of the students was willing to come to the school’s defense. That’s a pretty strong statement. Deaf Huff would be well advised to start listening.

Keep Free Republic Rockin' 'Round The Clock!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

This nothing more than a study lesson promoting fascism - state control of private property under the guise of "protecting" the land. Students should fire back at these Marxists with this:

“The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too ‘human-centered.’ In the name of ‘speaking for the trees and other species’ we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The ‘planetary police’ would ‘answer to no one but Mother Earth herself.’

“In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.” - Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, now a forestry consultant

As a (real) scientist myself, I can tell you that it is a well known secret that anything with the word "social" is as far from real science as you can get. The term "science" is simply used to give the department some clearly undeserved validity.

The sad part is that these charlatans were not even intelligent enough to disguise the course of "study" with ambiguous titles and course descriptions.

As for Huff, he only wanted the opportunity to meet privately with Mintzer to browbeat and undoubtedly threaten him in an attempt to quash this beacon of intellectual clarity that the students of UC Irvine are finally having. As Groucho Marx once said (paraphrasing from memory), "you can leave in a huff, or a minute and a huff, just leave!

Congratulations Mr. Mintzer!!

Indeed. And this is the reason most really serious historians regard history as a discipline in the humanities rather than as a "social science". I remember rows about this some 30+ years ago when I was a graduate student in history. The social science types simply didn't know how to respond when we reminded them that, unlike their pretensions to science, history was quite content to have a classical muse, Clio. They kept look for "laws" that would predict behavior. Stuff and nonsense!

Oh, well, those who think in the world can be divided among those who want all encompassing systems of thought (l'esprit d' system) and those who prefer to build knowledge systematically (l'espirt systematique). Modern science, what we know as the scientific method, of course, is the classic application of the systematic approach. English philosophy (Locke, Hume, Smith, Mill, etc.) is essentially a systematic approach, as is Kant. Leibnitz, Descartes and Spinoza, and the Thomist scholastic synthesis all are systems, as are Hegel and Marx. Classical liberalism and capitalism are expressions of the systematic spirit, socialim of the spirit of system. Somehow, liberal thought was transmogrified between 1900 and 1945 from systematic to a yearning for an all encompassing system in which all questions were answered.

The worst of the social "sciences" is probably sociology, followed closely by anthropology and political "science". I would guess "socio"biology is right in there.

“In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.” - Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, now a forestry consultant

In other words, we should embrace the Wahhabi version of Islam.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.