Old News

It's pretty old news now that the grandioise, heavily Objectivist-influenced education project Founders College has gone belly up. But given that we at the ARCHNblog were on its case fairly thoroughly from the git-go, we suppose we should note its passing even if belatedly. Our sympathies of course to the students.

In the miscellaneous commentary flying around, this very oddball remark from ARI-approved author Ed Cline stood out:

"I attended the formal opening of Founders. Intially, the opening was I guess standard, but then it began to take on a "religious" character that raised a few flags in my mind. Then the conductor, who was also scheduled to teach music at Founders, led the orchestra in a composition which I immediately dubbed "An Ode to Tylenol Headaches" (atonal, mind-splitting rubbish). I was seated in the rear next to Gary Hull. I heard him exclaim some expletives. I wasn't far off myself in that regard. He got up and walked out of sight to have a smoke. I joined him for a smoke, for I wasn't about to sit still and be assualted by the noise. Dr.Hull in so many words wondered where Fuller found the "creep." I sympathized. So, that whole event left a very bad taste in my mouth."

Why, obviously some non-Objectivist premises had mysteriously crept in to Founders...so no wonder it failed! Hilarious.

Still Foundering

In comments one of our many Anons contributes some additional links (here, and here) to our extensive Founders coverage. Unpaid taxes seem to be the latest issue.

Update: Regular commenter Behemoth points us to the latest story from The News & Record - who have been on this Founders story like a duck on a junebug - which says Founders owner Tamara Fuller has been hit with an $8.2m judgement in another of her businesses. That's gotta hurt.

Founders Founders

A few weeks ago more news of the quasi-Randian Founders College's ongoing woes surfaced; at the time the ARCHNblog fearlessly resisted the temptation to say "We told you so" and to make yet another obvious headline pun on the hapless College's name.

However, the skies are further darkening over the Berry Hill Estate, with news that Founders have defaulted on a $3m loan and have further action initiated against them to the tune of $120k. In a followup story it seems likely that CEO Tamara Fuller is going to take the hit financially. Of the hoped-for 100 students originally envisaged lining up for philosophy, art, politics, history and life from an (implausibly denied) Objectivist perspective, as of now, in Founders second semester, they only have 5 students.

The Obvious Parallels 2: Founders' Romantic Logo-festo

Over Objectiblog way, Neil Parille makes another sharp-eyed catch.

Sobering Fact about Founders

For those who may regard the whole controversy of Founders College and its links to ARI to be trivial, consider the actual tuition fees:

Tuition: $22,000
Room and Board: $7,500
Registration Fees: $500
Student Health Fee: $1,500
Total Fees: $31,500
Total Fees, 4 years: $126,000

Now I realize that tuition fees for private colleges are often enormous, but why would anyone want to pay out such an exorbitant sum to an institution that won't even come clean on its obvious ARI links and which, perhaps even more critically, has no track record to speak of—none whatsoever? Why would anyone, even someone sympathetic with ARI, take such a financial risk, particularly when you consider that there exists no guarantee that a degree from Founders will have any value at all in the job market?

Addendum: Average cost for private four year college in 2004-2005: $26,489

The College 4 Ayn Rand Institute Fans

Two new faculty hires at Founders College; predictably both are Objectivists, and A.R.I. fans.

The first is self-styled "rogue psychologist" Scott J Adams, previously touted as a guest speaker at Founders and now a full-time hire. Adams talks about the "brilliance" of Ayn Rand's contributions towards "a rational and objective" psychology. His website contains Objectivist links to only A.R.I.-friendly sites.

The second is Jena Trammell, teaching Literature. Trammell's writing appears in A.R.I. endorsed books such as this, as well as the A.R.I.'s Capitalism Magazine, where she appears reviewing a book by novelist and A.R.I. guest writer Ed Cline.

This now makes a full 2/3rds of the faculty ARI-flavoured Objectivists, up from the previous 50% composition, making it hard to countenance claims that Founders is moving away from the initial idea of being an orthodox Objectivist college towards a more mainstream position. If anything, the reverse seems to be happening. Also notable is the uniformity of Objectivist orientation - there seem to be no Objectivist faculty members affiliated in any way with the A.R.I's arch-rival organisation The Atlas Society/Objectivist Centre. It looks awfully like a policy in action, which raises other issues. For example, if, as is rumoured, Founders offers a minor in Objectivism, will TAS/OC thinkers like David Kelley be included for study?

ARCHNblog is offering excellent odds right now that, in the unlikely event Founders should ever give a direct answer to a question, that answer would be "no."

All this once again flies in the face of recent strong denials of any Objectivist influence from both Founders founder Gary Hull, CEO Tamara Fuller and Dr Robert Garmong, and denials of any A.R.I. link from anonymous commenters.

ARCHNblog has also put some of its Literature related questions to Dean of Faculty Bryan Niblett, and, following Professor Garmong's advice, to Founders' designated PR firm. As yet we've had no reply. We'll keep you posted.

Unanswerable Questions

As anyone capable of unbiased judgment can readily perceive, Dr. Garmong has not in fact answered the questions posed to him by ARCHN blog, nor is it likely he ever will. How can he? Founders College was originally conceived on Objectivist principles. How else can you explain a reading list that is almost exclusively made up of books cited by Rand? Or consider Professor Garmong's statement about Founder's College mission, which he says is "to provide liberal-arts education in an integrated, hierarchically organized curriculum." (Emphasis added.) The terms integrated and hierarchically are Objectivist buzzwords. Rand and her followers are always stressing the importance of integration and hierarchy in knowledge. So the Randian roots of Founders College are difficult to deny. Why not simply own up to it?

Why do orthodox Objectivists have so little credibility outside of ARI? It stems, at least in part, from their unwillingness to own up to their mistakes or respond to any of their critics, particularly the critics of their management (or rather their mismanagement) of the Objectivist movement. Now I, as a critic of Objectivism, see very plainly that the mismanagement of the Objectivist movement stems from problems with the Objectivist philosophy. The Objectivist conviction that human beings are the products of their philosophical premises, which influences how ARI goes about the business of spreading Objectivism, is just plain wrong and can only lead those who believe in it to frustration and grief. In a sense, there is a kind of justice in the scandals of Objectivism. Bad ideas, if earnestly followed, must lead to bad consequences. Yet there is a tragic element apparent here as well. After all, not everything about the Founders College is ill-conceived. Dr. Garmong insists that "students will be educated on ... all of the major ideas, not just Objectivism." The reading list, though it includes some howlers (like Calumut K, for instance) also includes Doestoevsky, Tolstoy, Balzac, Hawthorne, Mann, and Dreiser. Whatever the deficiencies in the Founders curricula and in its staff, it is likely that the handful of students going there will receive a better liberal education than they would if they pursued a humanities or social science degree at most American universities. But in the end, it will all come to nought, because Founders cannot possibly succeed if it is run by orthodox Objectivists who won't even come clean as to what they are about.

The biggest question about Founders has to do with how non-Objectivist ideas will be taught. Orthodox Objectivism has a very poor reputation when it comes to presenting ideas of philosophers Rand disagrees with. Just consider what Rand and her orthodox followers have said about Hume and Kant. Rand sympathizers like George Walsh and Fred Seddon have become pariahs among orthodox Objectivists for trying to correct Rand's misconceptions about other philosophers. Why should we expect Founders to present fairly and honestly non-Objectivist ideas when there is little if any evidence that orthodox Objectivists are even capable of understanding, let alone articulating, non-Objectivist ideas?

Founders College Professor Replies to ARCHNBlog

Over the last two months, ARCHNblog has been covering what appeared to be the overtly Objectivist (and Ayn Rand Institute) orientation of the staff and curriculum new Founders College. Founders College have strongly denied any Objectivist influence, and Assistant Professor of Philosophy Robert Garmong recently wrote to ARCHNblog also denying that this orientation exists. To help clarify matters, I invited him to answer some direct questions. My questions, and his response, is below:

ARCHNblog:
1) Founders College's Novels reading list has an almost perfect correlation with literature Ayn Rand read or wrote about. Similarly, its Drama course closely follows both Leonard Peikoff's drama course and Ayn Rand's personal favourites. If we were to make the same comparisons using other colleges' reading
lists, we would find nowhere near the similarity. Given your claim that there is absolutely no Objectivist orientation to Founders curriculum, how do you explain this remarkable coincidence?

2) You claim Founders has no undue bias towards the
work of Ayn Rand, and seeks only to give an objective
overview of any given subject. Yet, for example, the
Drama course includes two plays by Rand - a minor
playwright, even by a generous estimation (and one of
these plays in this course, "Ideal", was never even
produced) - while vastly more significant dramatists
such as Shakespeare or Shaw only get one each. How do
you explain this?

3) In your Philosophy course overview, you list a
number of "life's fundamental questions" that will be
discussed. You also state that students will learn
"the important answers" to these "philosophic
questions." Will you be teaching that these age-old
questions have been definitively and correctly
answered? If yes, by whom?

4) Founders Science curriculum includes study of
"important intellectual issues" such as "theories
of...induction." Will Founders be teaching that, for
example, the famous "problem of induction" has been
successfully answered? If yes, how and by whom?

Garmong:
Hi Daniel,

Thank you for your questions. I understand your concerns.

After some bitter experience, Founders College has adopted the policy of directing all media inquiries to our public relations firm, Deeter USA. You may reach them at http://deeterusa.com/.

I have started a personal blog on which I will discuss issues
pertaining to Founders College and, specifically, its philosophy
curriculum. Although I do not intend this site to be a merely
agonistic blog, the sorts of concerns you raise are clearly important
issues to discuss at the outset of this exciting new project. You may
find answers to some of your questions there. The web site is located
at:

http://foundersphilosopher.blogspot.com/

Thank you for your interest in Founders College.

Robert Garmong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Founders College

I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Dr Garmong's letter or blog actually answers any of ARCHNblog's questions above.

The Scandal of the Founder's Reading List

What makes the Founder's reading list so curious, is not so much the inclusion of books Rand liked, but the inclusion of books Rand didn't like. Hence, we find Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, which Rand regarded as the most evil novel ever written; and we also find the inclusion of Theodore Dreiser, an author whose writing Rand regarded as no more competent than that of a typical high school student. Why the inclusion of books Rand didn't like? Some might think it's an attempt to give the devil his due; or maybe merely a way of trying to prove that Founder's is not a slavishly Randian institution after all. However, there is a much easier explanation. The reading list includes books Rand didn't like because these are books that Rand mentioned, and the individual who is most likely responsible for that list, Gary Hull, is a notorious intellectual light-weight who probably has never read at least half the books on his list. After all, it was Hull who, at a party some twenty years ago, expressed credulity at the size of von Mises' books, saying, in effect: "How can anyone read books that are so long!" Hull choose books mentioned by Rand because he had no other way of figuring out which books are important and which aren't, since his reading is so limited.

The trouble is, of course, that some of the books Rand mentioned but disliked are not terribly important. Sinclair Lewis is a fine writer, but he's not a major figure worthy of study in a college literature course. Thomas Wolfe was an immensely talented writer, but his work is excessively narcissistic and, if the truth be told, a disaster for American letters. John O'Hara is a minor figure almost entirely forgotten today. As an additional problem, there are all those books that Rand never mentioned yet which certainly are important—or at least more important than the works mentioned above. Rand seems to have confined reading to classics that she like (or happened to read while attending school in Russia) or early 20th century books. She seems to have known very little (or at least she never mentioned) the lion's share of eighteenth and nineteenth century English and American literature. She never mentioned in print Fielding, Austen, the Bronte sisters, Thackery, Trollope, Dickens, Melville, James, Crane, Eliot, Meredith, Hardy. Major Twentieth century figures she wrote nothing about include Conrad, D. H. Lawrence, Waugh, Faulkner, and Bellow. She also some gaping holes in French literature: Stendhal, Maupassant, Proust, Gide, Giono, etc. etc.

The real issue we have people who are not well-read trying to set up a Great Books curriculum, and that just doesn't, nor can it ever, work. Worse, such a curriculum is, in a deeper sense, at odds with Objectivism itself, because any student who read and absorbed and understood the best that has been thought and said during the course of Western Civilization could not possibly remain an Objectivist. What makes great books great is their ability to describe and illuminate the great insights into human nature and the human condition. Yet it is precisely these great insights that Objectivism tries so very hard to ignore or deny!

The College 4 Ayn Rand Fans

Founders College ad in the Christian Science Monitor online:




Compare and contrast this with Founders College Professor Robert Garmong's denials to this blog last week:

"Those who want to read Founders as an "Objectivist college" are doing an enormous disservice to our students. That is not our stated goal, nor is it my goal as a professor. To those who have raised bizarre and irrelevant criticism of Founders, based on nothing but their own bias against Ayn Rand's ideas, I would recommend that you study the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance."

Despite these and other embarrassing contradictions of Dr Garmong's claims, neither Dr Garmong nor the College's PR firm have responded to our requests so far for elaboration.

(thanks to sharp-eyed commenter Neil Parille for the catch)

The Obvious Parallels

The principals at the controversial new Founders College have been at considerable pains to deny any ongoing Objectivist connection to, and influence at, the College. Gary Hull, the long time Ayn Rand Institute speaker who founded the College, claimed the original plan of an Objectivist College "fell by the wayside." Founders CEO Tamara Fuller said the Ayn Rand connection "distracted" people and claimed that the college "never intended to teach Objectivism." Most recently, Founders Professor of Philosophy Robert Garmong wrote to this blog calling such criticisms "bizarre and irrelevant" and "based on nothing but...bias against Ayn Rand's ideas." He also recommended that those who raised such issues - presumably us included - "study the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance."

We at ARCHNblog have already highlighted over the last few weeks the many connections between Founders and Objectivism, and also, less formally, the Ayn Rand Institute. The Ayn Rand Institute, run by Rand's appointed intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff, is the seat of Objectivist orthodoxy, and encourages Rand's thought to be followed to the letter. Any deviation from Rand's views or personal criticism of Rand is strongly discouraged - an oft-noted irony for these apparent advocates of individualism. Is ARCHNblog's pursuit of these connections as bogus as Garmong claims? While many of the specifics of Founders curriculum are still vague, the outline of their Novels 1&2 curriculum is on-line, along with an outline of their Drama curriculum. We ran a detailed comparison between these two curriculums and Ayn Rand's own highly distinctive and well-recorded views on literature and drama from sources such as The Objectivist Reference Centre combined our own research. The result was an almost perfect match: (apologies for formatting in some browsers)

Founders College       "What Ayn Rand Read"
Novels 1&2 Curriculum   Objectivist Reference Centre
----------------------------------------------------
Victor Hugo             Victor Hugo
Fyodor Dostoevsky       Fyodor Dostoevsky
Nathaniel Hawthorne     Nathaniel Hawthorne
  The Scarlet Letter      The Scarlet Letter
Sienkiewicz, Quo Vadis  Sienkiewicz Quo Vadis
Tolstoy Anna Karenina   Tolstoy Anna Karenina
Thomas Wolfe            Thomas Wolfe
Walter Scott Ivanhoe    Walter Scott Ivanhoe
Alexander Dumas         Alexandre Dumas
H.G. Wells              H.G. Wells
Jules Verne             Jules Verne
Calumet K               Merwin&Webster Calumet 'K'
Mickey Spillane         Mickey Spillane
Theodore Dreiser        Theodore Dreiser
Sinclair Lewis          Sinclair Lewis
Thomas Mann             Thomas Mann
Margaret Mitchell,      Margaret Mitchell,
 Gone With the Wind        Gone With The Wind 

Novels 1&2 cont.       Other References:
O. Henry                O. Henry, (The Ayn Rand Column)
                    One of Rand's favourite writers
Donald Hamilton         Donald Hamilton (Ayn Rand Column)
Balzac                  Balzac, (Romantic Manifesto)
John O’Hara             John O’Hara,
Frederic Brown          Frederic Brown, (Romantic Manifesto)
Kafka                   Kafka  (Peikoff, Ominous Parallels)
The Scarlet Pimpernel    "A...fiction hero loved by Rand"

We do not consider our above references are complete, and welcome any additional connections readers might note. However, what is astonishing is the sheer slavishness with which Ayn Rand's personal and often eccentric literary tastes have been followed by a College publicly purporting to offer a broad, objective (as opposed to Objectivist), liberal curriculum to its students.

However, remarkable as this is, it seems Founders College's Drama curriculum even manages to outdo the Novels course in intellectual forelock tugging. A comparison here shows that Founders Drama course has been lifted bodily from Ayn Rand Institute head Leonard Peikoff's "Eight Great Plays," along with a couple of firmly Ayn Rand-approved extras and of course a couple of Rand's own plays.

Founders College      "Eight Great Plays"
Drama Curriculum       Leonard Peikoff course
----------------------------------------------
Antigone                Antigone
Othello                 Othello
Le Cid                  Le Cid
Don Carlos              Don Carlos
An Enemy of the People  An Enemy of the People
Saint Joan (G.B. Shaw)  Saint Joan, G. B. Shaw
Monna Vanna             Monna Vanna
Cyrano de Bergerac      Cyrano de Bergerac

Founders Drama cont.    "What Ayn Rand Read"
The Browning Version    The Browning Version
The Winslow Boy         The Winslow Boy

Founders Drama cont.    Other ref.
The Miracle Worker     "the only epistemological play
                    ever written."- Ayn Rand
Night of January 16th   Ayn Rand
Ideal (unproduced)      Ayn Rand

Once again we have an almost perfect match, with the only exception being Aristophanes "The Clouds" from Founders list (Aristophanes is however lectured on by the Ayn Rand Institute's Robert Mayhew, so presumably he is approved). One also notes that Ayn Rand, a minor playwright even by the most generous standards, gets no less than two plays in Founders drama curriculum - one of which, "Ideal" was never even produced. Shakespeare, or George Bernard Shaw, by comparison, only get one.

So despite the strong claims of the college's principals, it seems that once again the parallels between Founders, Objectivism, and the Ayn Rand Institute are all too obvious. So far I have emailed Professor Garmong inviting him to answer some direct questions about his claims, but he has not responded. I have also emailed Founders College's PR company seeking further contact information. They have also yet to respond. Certainly as far as Professor Garmong is concerned, it seems it is he himself who is either "ignorant" of his own College's stated curriculum, or is misrepresenting it. We also note that Bryan Niblett, Dean of the Faculty and teaching Writing and Literature is one of the staff who does not appear to have any overt connection to Objectivism or the ARI to date. We would be most interested in Professor Niblett's comments on the subject.

Founders College Professor Writes to ARCHNblog

Under the name "Friscodog" an ARCHNblog commenter - presumably Founders College Philosophy Professor Robert Garmong - makes the following statement:

"I am the philosopher hired by Founders to teach the introduction to philosophy courses, so I believe I have some standing to comment on this school.

As long as I am at the helm of the Founders philosophy department, students will be educated on the major ideas behind the Western tradition. ALL of the major ideas, not just Objectivism.

Before you assume that my personal adherence to Objectivism will lead Founders to a bias in favor of Objectivist ideas, please do me, and Founders, the honor of checking the readily-available evidence of my fairness as a professor and a grader. There are plenty of sources available out there (e.g., pickaprof.com, ratemyprofessor.com). You might also wish to check my statement of teaching philosophy, as outlined on Founders' site.

Founders College will not hold adherence to Objectivism as its standard of right and wrong, not as long as I am involved with this enterprise. Founders expects its students to be prepared to discuss all of the philosophical tradition.

Those who want to read Founders as an "Objectivist college" are doing an enormous disservice to our students. That is not our stated goal, nor is it my goal as a professor.

To those who have raised bizarre and irrelevant criticism of Founders, based on nothing but their own bias against Ayn Rand's ideas, I would recommend that you study the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance."(edited slightly for spelling)

Mr Garmong is referring to coverage of Founders College on this blog (here, here, here) and elsewhere (subscription required) over the past few weeks.

Once again, claims such as Mr Garmong's above seem to clash with both the historical origins of Founders - it was started by by The College of Rational Education Inc. in 2005, which by its own description exclusively applies Ayn Rand's philosophy to all its undertakings - and its current staff composition, which is composed of at least 50% dedicated Objectivists (the Chronicle of Higher Education article underreports this figure). Further, much of the course descriptions and surrounding rhetoric have a strong Objectivist character - for example, the Literature reading list. Thus, it is hardly "bizarre" and "irrelevant", as Mr Garmong writes, to raise these issues. Rather, it is a reasonable conclusion that is consistent with the facts so far.

Given the vague and even murky nature of Founders origins and mission - even CEO Tamara Fuller says on an Ayn Rand related site, there's been "a lot of mystery" surrounding it - it would be helpful if Mr Garmong was willing to answer a few direct questions. If he is, he could email me at estigon2001atyahoodotcodotnz for a short list. I will be happy to publish his answers in full.

'Gary's Gulch'

As covered by ARCHNblog over the last week, the latest Chronicle of Higher Education now carries (subscription required) the Founders College/Objectivism connection in some detail, wittily calling it "Gary's Gulch."

While the CHE notes the Ayn Rand Institute orientation of founder Gary Hull and Philosophy Professor Robert Garmong, and that Art History Professor Lee Sandstead is an Objectivist, it has overlooked that Business Professor Steve Gedeon is also an Objectivist, and that both the latter also have ARI affiliations. (It is unlikely that the CHE would know much about the significance of this in Objectivist politics). The CHE also overlooks that, contrary to claims of the college's ideological neutrality, ARI-friendly Objectivists make up at least 50% of the faculty announced to date.

In the latest twist in this somewhat murky saga, the CHE semi-confirms what an anonymous commenter suggested here a few days ago: "More surprising than Founders' public move away from objectivism (sic) is that Mr. Hull has largely cut his ties with the institution. He remains a shareholder in the founding corporation and will serve as a consultant to the college, but Ms. Fuller says he will not have a role in day-to-day operations."

This, however, seems to still clash with the statement on Founders website from March 14 that since stepping down as CEO, Founders' founder Hull has the role of "Chief of Educational Research and Development with responsibilities for cultivating the faculty, developing the curriculum and teacher training, and maintaining the highest level of academic standards."

This role seems hardly like that of a mere "consultant," so it seems that Hull has wound his involvement back even further since March. The CHE report sheds no light on why:

"'It's his personal choice,' (CEO Tamara K. Fuller) says, declining to elaborate. Mr. Hull has been mum, not returning repeated calls and e-mail messages from The Chronicle over a six-month period."

The CHE report also mentions that scholar Eric D. Daniels "has also backed out of the venture" and that he, like Hull, is also mute, saying only, "I am not and will not be involved, and have not been for about a year." The CHE does not mention the fact that Daniels is another ARI-friendly Objectivist. However, the CHE does mention that "Mr. Daniels taught in Duke's Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace, which Mr. Hull directs. It is one of several programs supported by the BB&T Charitable Foundation, an arm of a financial-services company whose chairman and chief executive officer, John A. Allison IV, describes himself as an admirer of Rand."

This turns out to be yet another ARI connection, as ARCHNblog notes that John A. Allison IV is a "major contributor to the Ayn Rand Institute."

While an official relationship between the ARI and Founders does not seem to exist, given the accumulation of clear yet less formal relationships between Founders and the Ayn Rand Institute, it seems difficult to countenance claims that there is "absolutely no connection."

The CHE takes a somewhat skeptical approach to the project:

"But even before the doors open, Mr. Hull's dream looks like it's beginning to crumble. He has backed out of the project's day-to-day operations, the college's chosen accreditor is in hot water with the government, and enrollment has fallen far short of the 140 students the college hoped to open with in September....The college has reduced the anticipated size of its first class from about 140 students to between 15 and 20. Ms. Fuller plans to supplement the college's revenues by continuing to operate an inn on the South Boston property and by building a retirement and lifelong-learning community nearby.

To float the enterprise, Ms. Fuller and several anonymous investors have put up $10-million, according to documents submitted to the state council. The investors have also taken on $17.1-million in debt, according to the documents, including the purchase of a former plantation, with a 160-year-old mansion, for a campus....The campus also has a spa, swimming pool, a Doric-columned mansion, crumbling slave quarters, and, according to local lore, no fewer than 30 ghosts. This fall the ghosts may outnumber the students. So far, just 10 have enrolled."

New Intellectual 'U': Update

I've now updated my original post below about Founders College, as some anonymous commenters were claiming that there is "absolutely no connection" between the college and the Ayn Rand Institute. In fact, as my update confirms, at least 50% of the faculty to date are committed Objectivists with obvious ARI orientation. Perhaps our commenters are not aware of this. Or alternatively, the apparently Objectivist orientation of the college (it is the "brainchild" of long-time ARI speaker Gary Hull) is not perhaps considered helpful in the marketing of the college to the wider community (one commentator accused us of trying to "marginalise" the college by exploring this connection).

As Greg Nyquist remarks in comments,"the Objectivist view of education, as expounded by Leonard Peikoff, is actually one of its least objectionable theories. The practical sum of it is little more than the Great Books with the eccentric addition of Rand's reading list," and futher,"given how bad so much American college education actually is, this would be an improvement for most students." I would tend to agree, with the caveat that this would depend on just how, for example, the literary list at Founders is taught - whether it would strongly reflect Rand's particular artistic opinions or not. This is not clear at this stage.

Why anonymous commenters would so strongly seek to deny the college's connection with Objectivism and the ARI, when this is obviously the case, is also not clear.

Update:Neil Parille provides a highly useful link in comments which perhaps begins to explain some of the above. From there we get to this story from News 14 Carolina

"There are other questions about the college. Its license application says Founders College will be operated by The College of Rational Education Inc., a nonprofit corporation in North Carolina. According to papers filed with the North Carolina Secretary of State's office in March 2005, The College of Rational Education "shall be exclusively operated as to provide a reality-based, rationally grounded education, by applying Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, to all of the Corporation's activities and undertakings."

Hull is quoted as saying that this idea "fell by the wayside." The story also adds that according to Hull, as with anonymous commenters here, that "there is no connection between Founders College and any particular philosophy or outside organization such as the Ayn Rand Institute, for which he has written articles."

However, Hull's claims, which date from almost a year ago, seem contradicted by reality. The fact is that at least 50% of the current faculty of Founders are longstanding Objectivists with some form of ARI connection. Further, while not much is yet clear on the content of Founders courses, what few specifics are evident - for example, the Literature course reading list - is highly suggestive of orthodox Randian influence, and guest lecturers include self-described Objectivists such as psychologist Dr Scott Adams and ARI writer Andrew Bernstein. Much of the Founders site's writing echoes Objectivist rhetoric. Finally, with its $12m campus and "fine dining" facilities it is clear there is some serious money behind it, if not clear exactly whose.

Thus the situation, like so much else in the ever-shifting world of Objectivist politics is murky. Founders seems to have started out with a strong Randian direction, but this has been diluted; possibly in the face of marketing realities, either reluctantly or strategically. The downside of this dilution is what seems to be increasingly strong criticism of the project and Hull personally from some sections of the Objectivist community. Perhaps Hull's decision to leave Rand to fall "by the wayside" - at least in his publicity - has also compromised his standing to some degree with the ARI.

Nonetheless, despite Hull's claims, there remains a strong Objectivist, and indeed ARI flavour to the Founders project. Unless there is another schism in the works - something that is always a possibility - this seems to be the underlying direction the college is taking.

New Intellectual 'U'?

The Ayn Rand Institute looks like its got its very own university, Founders College, kicking off this year.

For a flavour, here's the Novel course's reading list:
Victor Hugo, Dostoevsky, Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Hawthorne (especially The Scarlet Letter), Quo Vadis, Tolstoy (esp. Anna Karenina), Walter Scott (esp. Ivanhoe), Alexander Dumas, H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, O. Henry, Calumet K, Mickey Spillane, Donald Hamilton, Thomas Wolfe, Balzac, John O’Hara, Frederic Brown, Kafka, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Gone With the Wind, Thomas Mann, Theodore Dreiser, Sinclair Lewis.

Hmmm. Looks like pretty much the usual suspects. No doubt Tolstoy and Thomas Wolfe fans are for the high jump, whereas a suitable appreciation of Mickey Spillane will get you an A+. Not that I'm knocking pulp of course. I'm a big Matt Helm fan myself.

Update: A couple of anonymous comments insist that there is "absolutely no connection" between the ARI and Founders. I based my post on the facts that long time ARI supporter and writer Gary Hull, as Anonymous put it "designed the core curriculum and teacher training, a brilliant achievement in rational education" in addition to recently stepping down as CEO and Chairman, and who is, according to Founders website, staying on as "Chief of Educational Research and Development with responsibilities for cultivating the faculty, developing the curriculum and teacher training, and maintaining the highest level of academic standards" - something that seems to clash with Anonymous' claim that Hull "has no involvement with the operations of the college whatsoever."

Further, Founders' Philosophy Professor Robert Garmong is a regular writer for, and presumably a supporter of, the ARI. Some of his work can be found on the ARI site here, here, and here.

Also, Founders Business Professor Steve Gedeon seems to be a member the ARI-supporting Toronto Objectivist Association, an organisation which also carries Founders opening as a news story on its website. We also find that Robert Garmong, and the presumably related Dina Garmong have also contributed articles and "educational lectures and events" here.

Additionally, Founders Art History Professor Lee Sandstead is also described here as an "Objectivist Art Historian", who has written for The Intellectual Activist during its ARI-endorsed period. Interestingly, two reviews of Sandstead's writing are the only on-line articles in the archives of, you guessed it, the Toronto Objectivist Association. Sandstead also seems to have personally maintained a chronology of Ayn Rand's life and works, and speaks at events promoted by ARI supporters.

Thus we find long term Objectivists, and ARI supporters at that, are at least 50% of the faculty thus far announced, in addition to the college itself being reportedly ARI supporter Gary Hull's "brainchild." Given the extremely small size of the Ayn Rand Institute in the scheme of liberal academia, this composition seems unlikely to be coincidental.

We will also leave aside intriguing hints like the makeup of the reading list, and the general tone and rhetoric of the site itself.

Thus our anonymous commentator's claim - "There is absolutely no connection between ARI and Founders College" - seems itself highly questionable. But then perhaps this is just another of Objectivism's famous "contextual" absolutes. Their other claim - that we are "labeling the college as ARI-related" and that this is "unfair, unsupported and only serves to marginalize something you have not bothered to research" is therefore likewise.

However, in the spirit of open-mindedness, I will add a question mark to the post heading, and rephrase the opening line similarly. And if our anonymous commentators would be prepared to step forward and name themselves, then perhaps we might take their comments a little more seriously.