This morning's edition of my local paper, Foster's Daily Democrat, serves up the deep thoughts of Bruce Mallory, a professor in the Education Department at the University Near Here:
Oh dear.
-
It is false that "society claims to be civil." Society
is not an entity that can "claim" anything.
-
It is false that the shootings in Tucson were an "example"
(let alone "yet another example") of society "solving problems
through acts of violence." Murder by a deranged individual
is not an act of "society." And only strained logic can
"deem" this mass murder as "solving problems."
That explains why lunatics never shot at prominent public figures in America before January 8, 2011.
Professor Mallory (dubiously) claims to have discovered the "key to understanding" the killer's actions. In a similar vein, I'm guessing I've found the "key to understanding" Mallory's obsession with "constructive dialogue" and "informed discussion". As this three-year-old article from Inside Higher Ed shows, it's a hobbyhorse he's been riding for quite some time:
When you're that invested in a belief, everything gets viewed through that prism. And you wind up speaking blithering claptrap, shilling the magic elixir you just know would have prevented the violent acts of this dangerous nutball. Back to the Foster's article:
"The more this happens, the more our country feels like those undemocratic, uncivil societies where assassinations, tribal conflict, and oppression by the powerful few are the norm," said Mallory.
A stunning insight: Jared Lee Loughner might have had psychological problems. Gee, ya think?
Also note the weasel-wordings: "seemingly", "reason to believe", "feels like": kids, if you want to be a respected academic, this is how you try to sneak in assertions for which you have no real evidence whatsoever.
It gets worse:
"Children! Use your words!"
"I don't have to, I have a Glock!"
Sigh.
Gun grabbers have long tried, and failed miserably, to establish even a correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. Needless to say, Mallory has zero evidence for increased gun ownership causing a decrease in civility. But it fits his worldview, so who needs evidence?
Horror is not likely to encourage thoughtfulness. Sappy foolishness, forced alliteration, and evidence-free assertions will not help either.
The article finishes up with one more attempt to hawk Mallory's miraculous panacea of …
Mallory, a professor of education at the university, has taught courses that address leadership and being the change one wishes to see in the world. He has also performed research in deliberative dialogue and civic engagement. It is Mallory's lengthy list of experience with how a society operates that serves as a basis for his comments regarding the shooting.
There you go: just run your society like we do faculty meetings here at UNH. Problem solved.
Or, as Orwell noted: "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."
Simply by coincidence, I came a relevant blog post at Reason from Brian Doherty: "Big News Events Make Blatherers of Us All." It reads as if he had Mallory in mind, although he's responding to commentary from George Packer at the New Yorker:
The main difference between Packer and Mallory is that Mallory doesn't maintain "intellectual respectability of a minimal level"; instead he's more than eager to assert connections where none exists.
[I've responded to the Foster's article since that was what I encountered first. If you'd prefer, Professor Mallory's own words may be found here.]