other hand, by any measure, Microsoft’s Bill Gates has made an even greater contribution
than Ford; after all, Gates is largely responsible for lifting American technology out of the
doldrums during the 1970s to restore America to the status of economic powerhouse and
technological leader of the world. And this contribution is readily recognizable now--as it is
happening. Of course, the DOS and Windows operating systems, and even Gates’ monopoly,
might eventually become historical relics. Yet his greatness is already secured.
In sum, the speaker overlooks many great individuals, particularly in the arts and in business,
whose achievements were broadly recognized as great even during their own time.
Nevertheless, other great achievements, especially scientific ones, cannot be confirmed as
such without the benefit of historical perspective.
Issue 22
"In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as
much by watching television as they can by reading books."
The speaker contends that people learn just as much from watching television as by reading
books, and therefore that reading books is not as important for learning as it once was. I
strongly disagree. I concede that in a few respects television, including video, can be a more
efficient and effective means of learning. In most respects, however, these newer media serve
as poor substitutes for books when it comes to learning.
Admittedly, television holds certain advantages over books for imparting certain types of
knowledge. For the purpose of documenting and conveying temporal, spatial events and
experiences, film and video generally provide a more accurate and convincing record than a
book or other written account. For example, it is impossible for anyone, no matter how keen an
observer and skilled a journalist, to recount in complete and objective detail such events as a
Ballanchine ballet, or the scene at the intersection of Florence and Normandy streets during
the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Besides, since the world is becoming an increasingly eventful
place, with each passing day it becomes a more onerous task for journalists, authors, and
book publishers to recount these events, and disseminate them in printed form. Producers oftelevised broadcasts and videos have an inherent advantagein this respect. Thus the
speaker’s claim has some merit when it comes to arts education and to learning about modern
and current events.
However, the speaker overlooks several respects m which books are inherently superior to
television as a medium for learning. Watching television or a video is no indication that any
significant learning is taking place; the comparatively passive nature of these media can
26
render them ineffectual in the learning process. Also, books are far more portable than
television sets. Moreover, books do not break, and they do not depend on electricity, batteries,
or access to airwaves or cable connections---aU of which may or may not be available in a
given place. Finally, the effort required to read actively imparts a certain discipline which
serves any person well throughout a lifetime of learning.
The speaker also ignores the decided tendency on the part of owners and managers of
television media to ffiter information in order to appeal to the widest viewing audience, and
thereby maximize profit. And casting the widest possible net seems to involve focusing on the
sensational---that is, an appeal to our emotions and baser instincts rather than our intellect and
reasonableness. The end result is that viewers do not receive complete, unfiltered, and
balanced information, and therefore cannot rely on television to develop informed and
intelligent opinions about important social and political issues.
Another compelling argument against the speaker’s claim has to do with how well books and
television serve their respective archival functions. Books readily enable readers to review and
cross-reference material, while televised broadcasts do not. Even the selective review of
videotape is far more trouble than it is worth, especially if a printed resource is also available.
Moreover, the speaker’s claim carries the implication that all printed works, fiction and
non-fiction alike, not transferred to a medium capable of being televised, are less significanceas a result. This implication serves to discredit the invaluable contributions of all the
philosophers, scientists, poets, and others of the past, upon whose immense shoulders society
stands today.
A final argument that books are made no less useful by television has to do with the
experience of perusing the stacks in a library, or even a bookstore. Switching television
channels, or even scanning a video library, simply cannot duplicate this experience. Why not?
Browsing among books allows for serendipity--unexpectedly coming across an interesting and
informative book while searching for something else, or for nothing in particular. Moreover,
browsing through a library or bookstore is a pleasurable sensory experience for many
people--an experience that the speaker would have us forego forever.
In sum, television and video can be more efficient than books as a means of staying abreast
of current affairs, and for education in the arts that involve moving imagery. However, books
facilitate learning in certain ways that television does not and cannot. In the final analysis, the
optimal approach is to use both media side by side--television to keep us informed and to
provide moving imagery, along with books to provide perspective and insight on that
information and imagery.
Issue 23
"Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a
contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests,
however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem."
Should academic scholars and researchers be free to pursue whatever avenues of inquiry
and research that interest them, no matter how unusual or idiosyncratic, as the speaker
asserts? Or should they strive instead to focus on those areas that are most likely to benefit
society? l strongly agree with the speaker, for three reasons.
27
First of all, who is to decide which areas of academic inquiry are worthwhile? Scholars
cannot be left to decide. Given a choice they will pursue their own idiosyncratic areas of
interest, and it is highly unlikely that all scholars could reach a fully informed consensus as to
what research areas would be most worthwhile. Nor can these decisions be left to regulators
and legislators, who would bring to bear their own quirky notions about what would be
worthwhile, and whose susceptibility to influence renders them untrustworthy in any event.
Secondly, by human nature we are motivated to pursue those activities in which we excel. To
compel scholars to focus only on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true
talents. For example, imagine relegating today’s preeminent astrophysicist Stephen Hawking
to research the effectiveness of affirmative-action legislation in reducing workplace
discrimination. Admittedly, this example borders on hyperbole. Yet the aggregate effect of
realistic cases would be to waste the intellectual talents of our world’s scholars and
researchers. Moreover, lacking genuine interest or motivation, a scholar would be unlikely to
contribute meaningfully to his or her "assigned" field of study.
Thirdly, it is "idiosyncratic" and "unusual" avenues of inquiry that lead to the greatest
contributions to society. Avenues of intellectual and scientific inquiry that break no new ground