Fast times at Business U.

Should the ivy-covered halls of learning focus more on the liberal arts -- and less on making a living?

According to Margaret Heffernan, a writer with the magazine “Fast Company” 22 percent – a majority – of American undergraduates will major in business studies. Heffernan bemoans this as a meaning that “a large swath of the population…believes(s) the most important thing for them to do is learn how to earn money.”

I’m of two minds about Heffernan’s depression. Yes, as a liberal arts major, I would like to see the liberal arts get more respect. I believe my skills and talents have been honed by my liberal arts education, and I can only wish for others’ lives to be similarly enriched. But I recognize that, however much the works of D.H. Lawrence or Beethoven mean to me, there is an inherent beauty and value in the writings and accomplishments of economists and business masterminds as well. And I find Heffernan’s assertion that people who major in business “tell me they want to consume, never what they want to contribute,” to be flawed. Is business not central to any society, even a non-capitalist one (which America most certainly isn’t)? Is creating a business, employing people, offering a service to the community, not a contribution just as worthy of those of Kant or Camus?

I also know, from my own experience working in academia, that there is a trend in America for kids that might not historically go to college to go these days. As the shift toward college attendance has become more all-inclusive, today’s college experience is less about learning how to think and more about job preparation. Is it a shame that philosophy is not the cornerstone of academia? Yes. But it’s hard to argue that it’s not a good thing for more students to have the opportunity to explore higher education where -- whatever their major -- they might just decide to dabble in the liberal arts. And who knows where that will take them?

Feeling Foxy

Crazy like a fox, indeed

Watching “Outfoxed” has made me wonder anew how Bill O’Reilly ever got a job in media, much less kept a job in media.

And then I remember, it’s Fox – and that’s not really media.

I’ve never been a fan of the network – through my in-laws watch it 24 hours a day – but watching a film about the ins and outs of the network’s inner-workings had me so angry I could hardly watch it. And every time a clip of O’Reilley came on, I found my jaw dropping and my blood pressure rising.

And when he told Jeremy Glick, the son of a World Trade Center victim, that Glick’s father would be disappointed in his son’s views that America should not have invaded Afghanistan, I almost cried.

How does this man verbally abuse his guests, sexually harass his employees, and still remain on the air? Who supports this? How on earth does this man have a podium?

According to “Outfoxed,” O’Reilley, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter etc. have a venue because of one man: Rupert Murdoch, a billionaire media mogul with a conservative agenda. As a member of the media, I’m savvy enough to recognize that this so-called documentary was not entirely objective. But I care enough about the future of the media and the country to recognize the inherent dangers of a propaganda machine that bills itself as a part of the free media.

I'm just reporting -- you can decide -- that I chose to put ol' Bill's photo on the righthand side of my blog. I hope it makes him all warm and fuzzy inside.