Thank you for sharing your well written and thoughtful article Solveig. I found my own conversion to conservatism during the lockdown of Covid. Spending so much time in the house I started earnestly paying attention to the "news" and I found myself floored by the blatant partisan reporting. I started paying attention to what politician's were saying and doing and I couldn't help but be nauseated by the criminality of what they were (and still are) doing. Now, I am not saying that your article is, in any way, espousing any preference for a political party, which means, I should probably get to my point! I was so upset about the way people were being led like sheep to the slaughter and the way conservatives were hiding from the public instead of jumping into the debate and defending their beliefs. I began, for the first time in my life (I am 47 years old now) to openly discuss issues with people around me. I am grateful that my friends and colleagues, largely, are accepting of me even when their beliefs don't align with mine. I was prepared to lose many relationships (as many of my friends are quite progressive), but, up to this point, I have only had to disconnect with a small few. Point: I am impressed, inspired and proud of you and Joshua. You both, clearly, have a keen intellect and, more importantly, GUTS. Both of those characteristics are sorely lacking these days as more and more people are embroiled in group think and virtue signaling. God bless both of you and I wish you all the best as you begin your new future together (hopefully in a more tolerant and accepting environment).
This post brought tears to my eyes and heart. I once thought the Ivy League Schools were the "gold standard". It has become increasingly and abundantly clear that they are not. I admire Ms. Gold's courage and love for her husband and deplore those "friends" who would not stand by him or were part of "the mob" that came for him. Bravo!
As a fellow classicist it pained me too relatably to read this. People from a distance have a tendency to draw a parallel between the ancient languages and ancient working stiffs, oblivious to the fact that these departments have historically embraced not just man's liberty but hedonism. Now, like every other, they are being usurped by advocates of anti-passion, anti-instinct, anti-personality. I hope that Katz and Gold can persevere in their conveyance of ideals at risk of being antiquated and disperse their subjects' freedom-loving tenets to the younger generations in the dark.
It was beautiful to read of Katz's pedagogical panache and I am sure he'll find another home of literary love some day.
So glad you found a "worthy man." There are so few. Smart women, educated at Princeton, have such a hard life. Of course, they could always marry "down," the way men have been doing for millennia. But, I suppose not.
After reading this, I’m proud of the two of you. He for talking a principled and moral stand, and you for unapologetically supporting a good man and putting his case (and yours) into words so eloquently. I support you both.
Refreshing to hear the views of someone who knows the actual human being- rather than only knowing of them, as a Target to be destroyed on the basis of a handful of data points in their Personal Profile.
I'm sorry you have to go through this. It is difficult to comprehend that what were once our most trusted institutions have been taken over by such ignorant unyielding nonintellectual robots. Third world dictatorships exhibit more freedom than these sheep farms.
I am both sorry for this and grateful to have had this illumination. I’m not part of the East Coast Ivy League crowd and would probably make a snap judgment without the full context. But if you and your husband leave that tiny little bubble- you’ll do more to educate than you ever could teaching to privileged elites. Just like you did with this article.
You have been given a blessing. Carpe diem as the classicist would say. You can remake your lives.
You are not alone. Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn did under far more profound circumstances. Bret Weinstein and Heather Heyling have, in similar circumstances.
Join the millions of us who have remade our lives after being redundant, displaced, forced out, betrayed, dissed, whatever. The hoi polloi as it were. We saw it and used it for what it is, not a curse but a blessing.
Dartmouth Professor of English Jeffrey Hart opened my mind to the great tradition and more during the four years I was his student. A long-time senior editor at National Review, Professor Hart contributed “The secession of the intellectuals” to NR’s 15th anniversary issue in 1970. Thinking of our own 15th anniversary five years ago, I returned to that essay. Rich Lowry kindly had it placed it online to help us celebrate the occasion. The essay hit me with the force of revelation at the time. Some of the contemporary references date the piece. Making the necessary changes, however, it reads like it could have been written yesterday. Here is the opening:
At a patriotic rally in Seville during the Spanish Civil War the founder of the Foreign Legion, General Millan Astray, a colorful and frequently wounded figure, made a speech that has long been remembered. His climactic utterance has been variously reported, but he seems to have shouted “Abajo la intellegentsia!”—Down with the intelligentsia! Doubtless the general was caught up in the tumultuous enthusiasm of the rally; nevertheless, he gives you, as they say, something to think about, for his words point to the special, the peculiar moral problem of the intelligentsia, or, as we would be more likely to say, the intellectuals — i.e., their habitually antagonistic, and sometimes even treasonous, relationship to their social setting, to their surrounding society.
This settled antagonism, this spirit of inner defection, exists in its most concentrated form in the academy (the only American institution, let us note, that is entirely run by liberals, and, not coincidentally, the institution furthest along toward disintegration). But the attitude spreads out beyond the academic foci and affects those who participate in one way or another in what we can very broadly call intellectual culture: the media, the arts, publishing. Madison Avenue and so forth. The key assumption — it may be powerful and aggressive, or muted though still very much there — is that all insight, imagination, refinement, all spirituality even, spring from, or at least are inextricable from, an initial nay-saying to the surrounding society: to the Babbitts, the boobs, the “alumni,” the Legionnaires and TV watchers, the whole array of insensate philistinery. When the negation is felt with special force, distance can lend enchantment to the alien and to the actual enemy: to Che, the Vietcong, Ho. The negation can become treasonous. Abroad, our enemies are always somehow admirable, our allies (a shrinking group) always corrupt, despicable, laughable — for after all they are connected with America. At home, the Panther and the SDSer become sympathetic figures.
Professor Hart later remarks in the essay: “The dominance of this kind of sensibility in the educated classes of our society is surely cause for alarm, since it cannot but follow that those who lose their grip on the reality of the world will shortly lose the world itself: the world cannot be governed by sentimental illusions. Poor fools, one cannot but sigh, poor fools, the barbarians will make short work of you.”
Professor Hart died in 2019. I recalled him here, James Panero here.
Thanks. What’s interesting is that the spirit of resistance and “defection” is no longer solely or primarily on the left, or in the academy, but with the anti-woke (this site for instance), against the intellectuals and their students and useful idiots who have come to dominate the means of cultural production.
Thank you for this perspective and for your example.
Thank you for sharing your well written and thoughtful article Solveig. I found my own conversion to conservatism during the lockdown of Covid. Spending so much time in the house I started earnestly paying attention to the "news" and I found myself floored by the blatant partisan reporting. I started paying attention to what politician's were saying and doing and I couldn't help but be nauseated by the criminality of what they were (and still are) doing. Now, I am not saying that your article is, in any way, espousing any preference for a political party, which means, I should probably get to my point! I was so upset about the way people were being led like sheep to the slaughter and the way conservatives were hiding from the public instead of jumping into the debate and defending their beliefs. I began, for the first time in my life (I am 47 years old now) to openly discuss issues with people around me. I am grateful that my friends and colleagues, largely, are accepting of me even when their beliefs don't align with mine. I was prepared to lose many relationships (as many of my friends are quite progressive), but, up to this point, I have only had to disconnect with a small few. Point: I am impressed, inspired and proud of you and Joshua. You both, clearly, have a keen intellect and, more importantly, GUTS. Both of those characteristics are sorely lacking these days as more and more people are embroiled in group think and virtue signaling. God bless both of you and I wish you all the best as you begin your new future together (hopefully in a more tolerant and accepting environment).
This post brought tears to my eyes and heart. I once thought the Ivy League Schools were the "gold standard". It has become increasingly and abundantly clear that they are not. I admire Ms. Gold's courage and love for her husband and deplore those "friends" who would not stand by him or were part of "the mob" that came for him. Bravo!
For what it’s worth, a lot of people outside of Princeton are watching this story with horror. Your husband has integrity and courage, as do you.
What are school administrators scared of, exactly?
They’re cowards.
They aren’t the people to lead Princeton.
The stench of totalitarianism is overwhelming as the "holier than thou" crowd gets more influential every day.
As a fellow classicist it pained me too relatably to read this. People from a distance have a tendency to draw a parallel between the ancient languages and ancient working stiffs, oblivious to the fact that these departments have historically embraced not just man's liberty but hedonism. Now, like every other, they are being usurped by advocates of anti-passion, anti-instinct, anti-personality. I hope that Katz and Gold can persevere in their conveyance of ideals at risk of being antiquated and disperse their subjects' freedom-loving tenets to the younger generations in the dark.
It was beautiful to read of Katz's pedagogical panache and I am sure he'll find another home of literary love some day.
So glad you found a "worthy man." There are so few. Smart women, educated at Princeton, have such a hard life. Of course, they could always marry "down," the way men have been doing for millennia. But, I suppose not.
After reading this, I’m proud of the two of you. He for talking a principled and moral stand, and you for unapologetically supporting a good man and putting his case (and yours) into words so eloquently. I support you both.
Refreshing to hear the views of someone who knows the actual human being- rather than only knowing of them, as a Target to be destroyed on the basis of a handful of data points in their Personal Profile.
Whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.
I'm sorry you have to go through this. It is difficult to comprehend that what were once our most trusted institutions have been taken over by such ignorant unyielding nonintellectual robots. Third world dictatorships exhibit more freedom than these sheep farms.
I am both sorry for this and grateful to have had this illumination. I’m not part of the East Coast Ivy League crowd and would probably make a snap judgment without the full context. But if you and your husband leave that tiny little bubble- you’ll do more to educate than you ever could teaching to privileged elites. Just like you did with this article.
Solveig and Joshua:
You have been given a blessing. Carpe diem as the classicist would say. You can remake your lives.
You are not alone. Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn did under far more profound circumstances. Bret Weinstein and Heather Heyling have, in similar circumstances.
Join the millions of us who have remade our lives after being redundant, displaced, forced out, betrayed, dissed, whatever. The hoi polloi as it were. We saw it and used it for what it is, not a curse but a blessing.
Living well is the best revenge.
Dartmouth Professor of English Jeffrey Hart opened my mind to the great tradition and more during the four years I was his student. A long-time senior editor at National Review, Professor Hart contributed “The secession of the intellectuals” to NR’s 15th anniversary issue in 1970. Thinking of our own 15th anniversary five years ago, I returned to that essay. Rich Lowry kindly had it placed it online to help us celebrate the occasion. The essay hit me with the force of revelation at the time. Some of the contemporary references date the piece. Making the necessary changes, however, it reads like it could have been written yesterday. Here is the opening:
At a patriotic rally in Seville during the Spanish Civil War the founder of the Foreign Legion, General Millan Astray, a colorful and frequently wounded figure, made a speech that has long been remembered. His climactic utterance has been variously reported, but he seems to have shouted “Abajo la intellegentsia!”—Down with the intelligentsia! Doubtless the general was caught up in the tumultuous enthusiasm of the rally; nevertheless, he gives you, as they say, something to think about, for his words point to the special, the peculiar moral problem of the intelligentsia, or, as we would be more likely to say, the intellectuals — i.e., their habitually antagonistic, and sometimes even treasonous, relationship to their social setting, to their surrounding society.
This settled antagonism, this spirit of inner defection, exists in its most concentrated form in the academy (the only American institution, let us note, that is entirely run by liberals, and, not coincidentally, the institution furthest along toward disintegration). But the attitude spreads out beyond the academic foci and affects those who participate in one way or another in what we can very broadly call intellectual culture: the media, the arts, publishing. Madison Avenue and so forth. The key assumption — it may be powerful and aggressive, or muted though still very much there — is that all insight, imagination, refinement, all spirituality even, spring from, or at least are inextricable from, an initial nay-saying to the surrounding society: to the Babbitts, the boobs, the “alumni,” the Legionnaires and TV watchers, the whole array of insensate philistinery. When the negation is felt with special force, distance can lend enchantment to the alien and to the actual enemy: to Che, the Vietcong, Ho. The negation can become treasonous. Abroad, our enemies are always somehow admirable, our allies (a shrinking group) always corrupt, despicable, laughable — for after all they are connected with America. At home, the Panther and the SDSer become sympathetic figures.
Professor Hart later remarks in the essay: “The dominance of this kind of sensibility in the educated classes of our society is surely cause for alarm, since it cannot but follow that those who lose their grip on the reality of the world will shortly lose the world itself: the world cannot be governed by sentimental illusions. Poor fools, one cannot but sigh, poor fools, the barbarians will make short work of you.”
Professor Hart died in 2019. I recalled him here, James Panero here.
H/T Powerlineblog, part of this article:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/05/20-years-20-thoughts.php
Thanks. What’s interesting is that the spirit of resistance and “defection” is no longer solely or primarily on the left, or in the academy, but with the anti-woke (this site for instance), against the intellectuals and their students and useful idiots who have come to dominate the means of cultural production.
arrogance and lack of free speech are a defeating and unworthy combo