informed.nThe work of the Institute for Educational Affairs in subventioningnand sponsoring pro-democratic and anti-Marxist campusnnewspapers is of crucial importance and should benencouraged and broadened. A dissident voice in the age ofncampus Marxist conformity is a sine qua non in beating backnthe Marxist tide.nWherever possible, the dissident campus newspaper shouldnbe sent to the families of students so that the situation would benknown to them. Wherever possible, a campus guide to facultynand courses should be published as an aid to incoming studentsnin selecting their programs.nStudies of grading, particularly in graduate school departments,nshould be undertaken, with outside help if necessary, tonsee whether non-Marxist students are being penalized fornopinions expressed in classroom work. Notes taken in class,nsyllabi, and reading lists should be analyzed and discussed bynstudents to see if the teacher is using the classroom as a “bullynpulpit.”nIf the university is a state institution, get in touch with statenlegislators and keep them informed. The dissident campusnnewspaper should be mailed to legislators.nKeep in touch with the local newspaper, television and radionstations and the reporters who normally cover campus affairs.nRun for campus offices.nAlso, organize (with faculty help where possible) seriousnacademic symposia on sociopolitical issues (e.g., homelessnessnin America, what to do about the Persian Gulf crisis, disinvestmentnin South Africa, supply-side economics, the 1988npresidential campaign). Try to get all sides and viewpointsnrepresented. Watch for attempts to break up such meetings.nHave a telecamera ready in case of trouble.nInevitably many faculty members and the university administrationsnwill be hostile to such campus reform movements.nThe cry of “invasion” of the classroom will be heard on thencampus. University administrators, cowed by a powerful faculty,nwill rush to the rescue against the students seeking academicnfreedom. But what else is new?nACADEMIC AFTERWORD: ON THEnOCCASION OF MY RETIREMENT FROMnTHE ACADEMY by Marion MontgomerynIn my institution I have been sharply critical of the publicnrelations attempts at self-justification and self-elevation innthe interest of the community’s largess, the larger grants ofnpublic money to support a larger and larger institution. I havenbeen particularly critical of my school’s official insistence thatnits primary concern is with “new knowledge,” a phrase I quotenfrom our “Red Book,” the official rules used to examinenfaculty for promotion. The effect of such a provincial understandingnof knowledge has been an emphasis upon publicationnby our faculty and pressure for “innovation” in its teaching.nThe fundamental necessity of knowing what men have saidnof this idea or this fact is either ignored or rejected by such anprescription for a university’s relation to community. In thenpressure that results, the faculty member struggles to survive bynbeing innovative and original. He contributes to the flood ofn”research” that even large libraries equipped with the latestntechnology can no longer keep up with. Little wonder that anfaculty member, whose own contribution is supposed to benmade in the light of what has already been done, cannot knownwhether he has made an original contribution to “new”nknowledge or not.nA colleague in philosophy tells me of a system designed innanswer to these pressures for new knowledge, most difficult tondiscover in philosophy of all sciences. One submits his paper tona board of referees. If the paper is accepted, he is notified, andnthe paper is filed away. He has an official tide of a “refereed”nMarion Montgomery, retired from the University of Georgia,nis author most recently of Possum, And Other Receits fornthe Recovery of Southern Being (University of GeorgianPress).npaper to add to his vita toward that fateful occasion whennpromotion is decided. But even under this system, he will havenhad a larger readership than many published pieces enjoy. Inhave seen a study that reports the number of readers of anpublished chemistry paper as 1.5. In chemistry, the number ofnresearch publications is so multitudinous that it has becomenimpossible to know the extent of duplication in the field. Thenexpected savior, the computer does what it can for thosengenuinely interested in the undetected duplications, but, fornthe most part, the illusion of a multiplication of new knowledgenby faculty is maintained without question.nMy criticism of the “publish or perish syndrome” baffles mynantagonists, since I myself have published rather extensivelynand sometimes see evidence that I have as high as 2.5, evennthree readers, now that my children are older. I do not, ofncourse, object to the publication of research papers or scholarlynexamination of the thought of Descartes or Heidegger. Inapplaud genuine “new knowledge,” even as I remain confidentnthat it is extremely rare in any academic field. My objection isnto the perversion of words, and through them of minds, bynforced publication. This mechanistic and statistical distortion ofnlegitimate ends when applied to the young scholars, wherebynthey survive at what is an economic more than an intellectualnlevel. Promotion committees depend largely upon the numbernof published pages, despite protests to the contrary, and upon anreceived opinion on the current prestige of the periodicals innwhich these pages appear. The validity of the words publishednreceives littie or no attention in the counsels of committee.nWhether the words bear false witness or not gets lost in thenprocedural mechanisms.nWhat is more disturbing, because of its influence onnnnJANUARY 19881 19n