thought the preceding answer was correct.rnThere is a difference between the levehngrnsociaHsm of a Bill Clinton, whosernplan to guarantee that every Americanrnspends at least two years confined to anrninstitution of higher education presupposesrnthe open admissions model, andrnthe pre-open admissions CCNY, whosernsocialism was limited to being tuitionfree.rnCClNYs socialism was amelioratedrnby a radical meritocracy that severelyrnlimited access, provided no financial aid,rnhad no remedial and disability-ed specialists,rnand no affirmative action, studentrnsocial services, and feminist andrnracial spoils bureaucracies. CUNY’srnfour-year colleges now charge $3,200 tuitionrnper year, yet thousands of their studentsrnnet up to $5,000 in financial aid,rnunder criteria that penalize work.rnIn the 1970’s, the civil rights visionrnthat rationalized “open admissions” wasrnjoined with the New Left’s “race model”rnin the powerful hybrid of affirmativernaction. In making higher educationrnuniversally “accessible” and its functionrnall-embracing, these movements robbedrnit of cognitive content, underminingrnits foundational beliefs in objectivernknowledge and moralit)-. The rise of thernanalytic delusion of philosophy as a neutralrn”science” and the concomitant evictionrnof biblical and New Testamentbasedrnphilosophies from mainstreamrnacademia left philosophers impotentrnagainst two assaults. First came the NewrnLeft’s reduction of all knowledge to thernpower to oppress, followed by postmodernism’srnnihilistic “irony” (which, whilernalso worshipping power, explicitly deniedrnthe possibility of objective knowledgernor morality). The university was refoundedrnon the bases of privilege, breadrnand circuses, and naked violence.rnResponding to the campus takeover ofrnCCNY in the spring of 1968 by studentsrnand “community activists,” sociologistrnDaniel Bell, a CCNY alumnus, notedrnthe ineffectiveness of collegiate remedialismrnand prescientiy predicted the ascendancernof the university to the dominantrninstitution in American life. Bothrnstates of affairs must be rolled back, andrnthen some. For CUNY to return tornsomething resembling a tiue university,rnall remedial, English-as-a-second-language,rnand ethnic and gay academicrnghettoes must be demolished, non-academicrn”services” radically curtailed,rntenure eliminated, the status of adjunctsrnimproved, and enrollment reduced byrn50 to 75 percent.rnSocialist historian Russell Jacoby hasrncomplained, in Dogmatic Wisdom, ofrnthe increasing “vocationalism” of campusesrndominated by business majors.rnThe well-intentioned, articulate jacobyrnnotwithstanding, when “higher education”rnis not merely an OPU-graduaternjobs program, it is a provider of economicallyrninefficient job training. A love forrnthe liberal arts won’t be sparked throughrnthe “correct” sort of propaganda inrnmandatory multicultural or neoconservativerncore courses taught by OPUtrainedrnignoramuses, but rather throughrndiminishing the role of institutionalizedrnmass higher education, and its primaryrnand secondary-school counterparts. Tornparaphrase philosopher Erwin Edmonds’rn1940’s musings, we have a betterrnchance of inspiring a rebirth of interestrnin the humanities by banning theirrnteaching outright than by enforcing it.rnIn exhorting parents to educate theirrnchildren at home, as his father had educatedrnhim, R.G. Collingwood anticipatedrnthe homeschooling movement. Likernthe love of the liberal (i.e., fi-ee) life, thernlove of the liberal arts will never thrive atrnthe public trough. Such love is nourishedrnat one’s mother’s breast, or not atrnRobert Berman writes from New YorkrnCity.rnLetter FromrnInner Israelrnby Jacob NeusnerrnOld Testament, Yes;rnNew Testament, NornU.S. District Court Judge Elizabeth Kovachevichrnhere in Tampa ruled in Januaryrnthat it is all right to teach the OldrnTestament but not the New Testamentrnin public high schools. Concerned thatrnthe state not sponsor religion, Judge Kovachevichrnpermits “the history of thernBible” but not “the Bible as history.”rnSo far so good —the wall betweenrnchurch and state stands unscathed if wernread the history of the Bible, whateverrnthat is—but how does that permit her torndistinguish one Testament from the other?rnWell, she finds it difficult to conceivernhow accounts of miracles and resurrectionrncould be taught as history. So shernstrains at the gnat and swallows therncamel, for how are we to teach the OldrnTestament without such miracles as Godrntelling an old man to leave home and gornelsewhere, where, at 100, he will producerna son, whom he then is to kill; Godrnsplitting the sea for his people, thenrnsewing it back up over their enemies;rnwalls falling to trumpet noise; the sunrnstanding still, and on and on —not tornmention, after all, creation in sevenrndays? Why no to resurrection, but yes torncreation?rnIf you wonder why the New Testamentrncannot be taught because it is fullrnof miracles but the Old Testament canrnbecause it is not (even though it is), well,rnthen, try this: the New Testament is perceivedrnas Christianity’s part of the Scriptures,rnwhile the Old Testament is not, sornthe former is unclean and forbidden,rnwhile the latter is kosher.rnIf the only issue is truth or falsehood,rnright or wrong, then the judge has askedrnthe right question (even though her answerrnstrikes me as odd, since I can’t sayrnwhat difference her distinction makes).rnBut the study of religion sets forth anotherrnset of questions altogether, academicrnquestions of description, analysis, and interpretationrnof humanit)’ and its aspirations,rnviewed in the framework of thisrnworld and its culture. Then the questionrnto ask about resurrection is not whether itrnis so, but what it has meant and continuesrnto mean today in the religious worldrnof Christianity—and this is a questionrnwith an objective, descriptive answer.rnThis is what the academy does when itrnstudies religion.rnIn fact, the judge’s decision missesrnwhat is at stake in the study of religion inrnthe public schools, which the SupremernCourt (from the 1963 Regents case onward)rnhas explicitiy approved. The staternmay not sponsor pro- or anti-religious instruction.rnBut the state may and ought tornsponsor courses about religion, teachingrnabout religion as a component of humanrncivilization in much of the world, certainlyrnin the West and in the UnitedrnStates. The Court paved the way for thernreligious studies departments that laterrnappeared on campuses all over the country.rnAs recently as two years ago. PresidentrnClinton went over this ground andrndelivered the same message: publiclyrnsponsored study is all right, but religiousrn40/CHRONICLESrnrnrn