Today’s N&O has a letter from State’s hard-Left English professor Cat Warren, who cautions against accepting any of the ideas conveyed in the Pope Center’s recently commissioned report on the UNC governance system. You can read the letter here.
What Prof. Warren argues is that no one should pay any attention to the report because the Pope Center commissioned the work from American Council of Trustees and Alumni, and she doesn’t like either organization. She says that ACTA “wants to undermine a solid and independent system of public education so the far right can wield its influence more directly.” Wow! What a slam-bang devastating argument!
That mode of “argument” appeals to fanatics: A says X, but since A is bad, X must be wrong. Logicians have a name for that — the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. It’s the fallacy of believing you have refuted someone’s argument merely by pointing out certain features of the arguer, not by showing that anything is wrong with the argument itself.
The fact of the matter is that ACTA didn’t write the study. It was done by Phyllis Palmiero, former Executive Director of the State Council for Higher Education in Virginia. She made what I think are sound arguments in favor of her recommendations, chiefly going to a system of gubernatorial appointments for the UNC Board of Governors and making the board smaller. Exactly how either idea would do what Warren says is the hidden goal of allowing the far right to take over public education (even public higher education) is too mysterious for me.
Sorry, Professor Warren, but this is obviously just a rant instead of a serious argument. The N&O ought to be ashamed of wasting space on it and the writer ought to be ashamed for having revealed her logical shortcomings.
