this respect invites lies and the projectionrnof raw power. If truth is relative, then liesrnare to be encouraged, and if the deconstructionistrnadmits that a text has any authority,rnonly he can reveal the hiddenrnpower relationship that gives the text itsrnauthority. Of course, one might ask whorndeconstructs the deconstructionist, butrnthat is not a matter Marxists choose torndiscuss.rnFor the Marxist, the social constructionrnof truth is situational, and truth itselfrnis “infinitely malleable,” differing in accordancernwith various histories and cul-rn.9frniui haorniVioiH-ls or ivlaliwsrnwho might enjoyrnChronicles,rnplease send us theirrnnames andrnaddresses.rnWe would bernpleased to sendrnthem arncomplimentaryrnissuernwMrniirn’^Mrntures. When my universit)’ colleaguesrntell me that truth is relative, I usually tellrnthem to leave my ninth-floor office viarnthe window, not the door. Let us see ifrnthey really believe the law of gravit)’ canrnbe defied. Even if the scientific communityrnshould agree that the “paradigm” ofrngravit}’ can be challenged, that does notrnin any way affect the law of gravity.rnSince the Marxist and his ideologicalrncousins contend that truth cannot andrndoes not exist, it should follow for himrnthat there are no lessons to be learned,rnno research to be pursued. As one Americanrnphilosophy professor has observed,rnall research is inevitably political: “Yetrnwe cannot take the idea of unpoliticizedrnhumanities any more seriously than ourrnopposite numbers in the clergy can takernseriously the idea of a depoliticizedrnchurch.” Alas, his words reflect the academicrntrend to politicize everything, includingrnliterature and art. A highly regardedrnAustralian political scientist, forrninstance, has declared the pursuit ofrntruth to be less important than “winning.”rnIn the midst of academic institutionsrndevoted to intellectual freedom, a rigidrnorthodoxy has expressed itself in the formrnof strict ideological controls. So completernis its commitment to the axiomrn”truth is arbitrary” that any view whichrnchallenges the infinite malleability ofrnculture is deemed to be hopelessly retiograde.rnIf a professor maintains that genderrnis not merely a social construct but arnfunction of biology and histor}’, his viewrnis dismissed as misogynistic.rnEven that most feared enemy of Marxism,rnthe scientific method, has been “demythologized,”rnwith versions of socialrnconditioning now in the ascendancy.rnMuch of what passes for environmentalrnscience, for example, is a form of Lysenkoismrnin which the political conditioningrnof nature is emphasized to thernvirtual exclusion of universal scientificrnverities. History has been relativizedrnby an approach that emphasizes politicalrnapplications determined by time andrnplace over evidence and heuristicrntechnique. “Great Books” are merelyrnthe sneering assertion of bourgeois authority.rnMany humanities instructors seernit as their goal to unmask hegemonic intentions,rnnot to teach the universal moralrnor aesthetic principles that undergird thernstatus of these books.rnProfessor Fernandez-Morera has donerna splendid job of exploring the theoreticalrnMarxist positions that have penetratedrnconventional approaches to scholarship.rnYet his approach, while useful, ignoresrnother powerful ideas that often accountrnfor the intellectual degradationrndescribed in his treatise. To cite one example,rnradical egalitarianism, with itsrnobvious Marxist provenance, has arnprominent place in higher education. Itrnis true, however, that Freudians for yearsrnhave denormced stratification based onrnperformance. “Emotional scarring” forrnthose left behind their cohorts is not arnconcept originally embraced by Marxists.rnDialecticism, rendering the canons ofrnscholarship nugatory, has altered thernacademy. But it can also be argued thatrnscholarship has been adversely affectedrnby the imposition of puerilit}’, an infantilizationrnof learning that at its core isrnjejune, yet does not cater to any ideologicalrnpersuasion. Perhaps television viewing,rnwhat Neil Postman calls “amusingrnourselves to death,” is the real culprit inrnthe university’s decline; or perhaps it isrninfantilization that accounts for the susceptibilityrnof faculty members to Marxistrnand quasi-Marxist ideas in the first place.rnThe delegitimization of a moral codernwhich can identify guilt and innocence,rnevil and goodness, envy and generosityrnin unambiguous ways contributes as wellrnto the relativism Marxist professors promote.rnOrwellian logic and its non-Marxistrnequivalents are not merely a functionrnof Marxist relativism; they are related tornthe breakdown of religious ideals thatrnsustain a moral code. As a colleague ofrnmine once noted, “Never underestimaternthe importance of ignorance and pleasure-rnseeking in explaining humanrnbehavior.” One doesn’t need Marxistrnideology to invite pleasure and attemptrnto avoid the consequences.rnWhile Fernandez-Morera’s monochromaticrninterpretation of higher educationrnhas its limitations, his book raisesrnissues requiring extraordinary courage tornaddress. If Marxist apologists cannot admitrnto the murderous forms their ideasrnhave taken, then they are accomplices,rnwitting or imwitting, to communistrndespotism. Those who do acknowledgerntheir culpabilit)’ must still be asked how,rnin the face of mounting evidence, theyrnwere able to deny reason.rnHerbert London is the John M. OUnrnProfessor of Humanities at New YorkrnUniversity and the president of thernHudson Institute, a think tank inrnIndianapolis.rn32/CHRONICLESrnrnrn