This is not about education..

Well, I know that my blog claims to be about education and policy, and this post is clearly not about that. However, I felt it necessary to begin with a post about public intellectuals and how they are revered. Stephan Mack makes some interesting points in his article, “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectuals?”

So, is there any way of conceptualizing something called the public intellectual that is consistent with democratic values? Of course there is, but it needs to begin with a shift from “categories and class” to “function.” That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.

Now, I am in no way claiming to be any kind of expert on the things I am going to be writing about, and I would like to emphasize that in no way am I trying to present myself as a public intellectual. Most people coined as public intellectuals are surrounded by controversy. They are the kind of people we love to hate, and I think to an extent, their work is driven by that. If the Fox news network was to give me a late night talk show, I think that I would be just as big of a jackass as some of their current hosts ,*cough* Bill O’ Reilly *cough*- it’s good for the ratings. Now, whether or not you agree with O’ Reilly’s work and opinions, there is no doubt that he is an authoritative public intellectual.

His schooling credentials alone give him credit enough to pretty much say whatever he wants, however he wants. He has a Bachelor’s degree in History from Marist College, a Master's in Broadcast Journalism from Boston University and another Master's Degree in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. In addition to just his schooling, he has vast experience in journalism, print and broadcast, publishing weekly columns, and of course his late night cable TV talk show (on Fox), “The O’ Reilly Factor.” It is these qualifications that show us how he was able to get the title, and I think that maybe it his attitude and his work that allow him to keep his title.

Two recent books exploring Lenin’s deportation of intellectuals from Bolshevik Russia raise an ironic question about the supposed impotence of public intellectuals in America, that special class of academics and philosophically oriented writers who go outside their own disciplines to comment on social and political issues.

Do I even need to say why O’ Reilly fits into this category? I think not. He seems to fall a little out of this definition though, because he is more of a full time public intellectual. His show, “The O’ Reilly Factor,” is pretty much his commentary on politics and current news. His weekly columns also fall into this same category. However, he earned this status as almost a permanent public intellectual, because he spent many years as a news caster and journalism. O’ Reilly is a very controversial figure on the air today. There are even websites dedicated to how he sucks, (oreilly-sucks.com), but even if you think he is a complete idiot, you can’t really argue the fact that he has earned his title of “public intellectual”.