Founders College Curriculum - Novels I

Novels I has six novels:

1. Walter Scott, Ivanhoe
2. Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter
3. Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
4. Victor Hugo, Ninety-Three
5. Edward Cline, Sparrowhawk Book One
6. Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

This list is broadly Randian. Ivanhoe, The Scarlet Letter, and Ninety-Three are books that Rand read, and Ninety-Three was perhaps her favorite. It doesn't appear that Rand said anything about Dickens and Austen.

Most notable is the first volume of Edward Cline's book Sparrowhawk series. Cline, who is associated with the ARI, is quite dogmatic, even for an ARIan.

Founders College Curriculum - Writing and Grammar

Here is the course.

There are four books that are required or recommended:

(1) Writing and Thinking: A Handbook of Composition and Revision, Norman Foerster and J. M. Steadman Jr., with foreword by Jean F. Moroney. Paper Tiger, N.J., (2000).

(2) Rex Barks: Diagramming Sentences Made Easy, Phyllis
Davenport, Second Renaissance Books, (1999).

(3) The Elements of Style, William Strunk and E.B. White, 4th
edition with foreword by Roger Angell, Longman (1999).

(4) A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, H.W. Fowler, 2nd
revised edition, Oxford University Press (2003).


The first two are ARI-approved texts. Writing and Thinking is published by ARI-associated The Paper Tiger. Jean Moroney is the wife of Harry Binswanger, Official Objectivism's number 2.

Rex Barks is also published by The Paper Tiger, and is favored by ARIans.

Founders College Curriculum - Ancient & Medieval History

The course syllabi for this semester at Founders College are now on-line.

Ancient and Medieval History has the least overtly Objectivist slant.

The required books are:

Hans Nissen, The Early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000 BC-2000BC (University of Chicago Press, 1988)

Charles Freeman, Egypt, Greece and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean (Oxford University Press, 2004)

Plato, The Complete Works (Hackett Publishing, 1997)

William H. McNeil, The Rise Of The West (University of Chicago Press, 1992)

Chris Wickham, Framing The Early Middle Ages (Oxford University Press, 2007)

William Chester Jordan, Europe In The High Middle Ages (Penguin, 2004)

Most interesting is that students will be reading Plato's Republic in its entirety (a fairly long work). Given that Prof. Garmong has assigned some Plato for his Philosophy I course, wouldn't a book containing primary sources or a work such as Herodotus' Histories be better? This appears to emphasize the Objectivist view that philosophical ideas are the main drivers of history.

The time-span of the course is also of note. It starts with the beginning of history and ends at about 1300. However, the second year, second semester history course at Founders is Great Figures of the Industrial Revolution, a course with an explicitly Objectivist tilt. I'm all in favor of studying Edison, Ford and Vanderbilt, but the inclusion of a separate course on them has resulted in what should be a two semester course reduced to a one semester course.

Professor Thomas Woods Interviewed by Jeff Tucker

Dr. Woods discusses his new book on American history.

Founders College

Over at Greg Nyquist and Dan Barnes' blog, Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, folks have been discussing Founders College. For those who don't know, it's a new liberal arts college in Virginia which obviously has ties to Objectivism (of the ARI variety), but doesn't want to come clean on its connection. (Which isn't to say that it is supported or sponsored by the ARI, which I doubt.)

Here is further evidence of the Objectivist connection.

Compare Founders' logo:

With this cover to Rand's The Romantic Manifesto:

For what it's worth, I think a college with a moderate Objectivist tilt would be a step up from what Russell Kirk called Behemoth State University.

The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part II

The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part II is out.

Test Your Knowledge, Number 5

Identify the following:

1. Carlos Slim

2. Slim Whitman

3. Slim Pickens

4. T. Boone Pickens

As:

A. Mexican Billionaire

B. Actor

C. Corporate tycoon

D. Country Crooner

James Valliant and Rand's Use of Dexamyl

The extent to which James Valliant is willing to misrepresent his sources can be seen in his evaluation of Barbara Branden’s discussion of Rand’s use of a diet pill, Dexamyl (which contains an amphetamine).

On page 173 Branden mentions that Rand had low physical energy level. and was worried about her weight. She then drops the following footnote, which I will quote in full:

"It was during this period of nonstop work on The Fountainhead that Ayn went to see a doctor. She had heard there was a harmless pill one could take to increase one's energy and lessen one's appetite. The doctor, telling her there would be no negative consequences, prescribed a low dosage of a small green tablet which doctors had begun prescribing rather routinely. Its trade name was Dexamyl. Ayn took two of these pills each day for more than thirty years. They appeared to work: she felt that her physical energy had increased, although it was never high, and her weight stayed under reasonable control. In fact, medical opinion today suggests that they soon ceased to be a source of physical energy; their effect shortly became that of a placebo."

"Dexamyl consists of two chemicals: an amphetamine and a barbiturate. It was not until the sixties that researchers investigated the effects of large doses of these chemicals. They found that extremely high doses were harmful, sometimes even resulting in paranoid symptoms; but to this day, there is only the most fragmentary and contradictory scientific evidence to suggest that low doses such as Ayn took could be harmful. As one pharmacological specialist has said: 'Perhaps they hurt her, and perhaps they didn't.'"

"In the early seventies, when for the first time she became seriously ill, her doctor took her medical history, and, quite innocently, she told him about the Dexamyl. Disapproving, he ordered her to cease taking them at once. She never took another."

"I include this discussion only because I have learned that a number of people, aware that she took this medication, have drawn ominous conclusions about Ayn's mental health; there is no scientific basis for their conclusions." [PAR, p. 173 n. 1.]

There have been (and continue to be) unsupported allegations over the years that Rand was addicted to “speed.” Branden wanted to put these allegations to rest.

Valliant’s mangling of Branden’s footnote is as follows:

“The level of Ms. Branden’s desperation for evidence can be measured by the fact that she speculates in a footnote that the low-dosage diet pill that Rand was prescribed by a doctor ‘may’ have resulted in ‘paranoid symptoms.’ Ms. Branden does so despite also conceding that the pills only had a ‘placebo effect’ after just a short time. Nor is Ms. Branden in any way dissuaded by the fact that Rand easily discontinued their use, again on medical advice.” [PARC, p. 51.]

Society Without A State

Society Without a State by Murray Rothbard is probably the best introduction to anarcho-capitalism and how such a society might function

Free and Pay Media

The internet makes it possible to distribute large amounts of media for free. It's interesting to see the different approaches taken by organizations.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute provides audio or video of what seems like all of their conferences for free. For example, David Gordon's recent series on The History of Political Philosophy was posted on its website within a day or so of each lecture. Religious organizations also provide large amounts of free material, much of which is of interest to those who don't share their perspective. Reformed Theological Seminary has a number of free course lectures. I've been listening to John Frame's lectures on the history of philosophy and they are quite good. Also worth listening to are Knox Chamblin's lectures on C.S. Lewis.

The Ayn Rand Institute has only a limited amount of free stuff. They have recently posted some free lectures by Rand and others, available to registered users. Most of ARI's material is quite expensive. The Teaching Company's slickly produced courses must be half the price of ARI's lectures, and you can download them and save shipping costs. The Teaching Company's courses I've heard are excellent, if a bit self-consciously "middle of the road."

I'd recommend Prof. Daniel Robinson's course Great Ideas of Psychology which is excellent, if a bit chatty in places. (When the course is on sale you will be able to download if for considerably less than $100.)

Fred Seddon on James Valliant versus the Brandens

This is an interesting essay by Fred Seddon on part of PARC that I haven't discussed (the break with Rand). A good example of how Valliant's claims don't stand up to scrutiny. Note the non-existent fact checking by Valliant and the poor sourcing.

James Valliant on Rand's Claim that "No one helped me."

Valliant accuses Nathaniel Branden of alleging that Rand engaged in “grandiose dishonesty” in making her claim in the About the Author postscript to Atlas Shrugged that “no one helped me . . . .” Valliant notes that Branden also says that Rand made a similar assertion on another occasion. (PARC, p. 41.) Valliant concludes that because Rand did express gratitude for the help she received on numerous occasions, Branden is wrong to conclude that Rand sought to deny or minimize the help she received. (PARC, p. 43.)

As usual, Valliant’s description of his source omits important points. Nathaniel Branden begins his discussion by recounting Rand’s relationship with screenwriter Albert Mannheimer. Rand told Branden that “during her years of financial struggle”, Mannheimer sent her a check for five hundred dollars. Rand said how she would never forget the helped she received from him. However, Branden noted that in another conversation in front of several people and in the 1957 About the Author postscript to Atlas Shrugged, Rand denied that anyone helped her during that same period of time. Branden sees this as an “evident contradiction.” (JD, pp. 60-61.) Valliant ignores the fact that Branden’s discussion is explicitly limited to Rand’s “years of financial struggle”, which would apparently be from her arrival in the United States until she first obtained success as a writer. Nowhere (at least in the pages cited by Valliant) does Branden refer to this as “dishonesty” (grandiose or otherwise). Although Branden doesn’t say it, it is reasonable to conclude that he sees Rand as minimizing the help that she received during this period of time as far as her public personae was concerned. It is important to note that, contrary to what Valliant implies, Branded does not say that Rand never publicly acknowledged the help she received from others.

Valliant attempts to refute Branden on this by pointing to the many occasions that Rand did acknowledge help from others. Most of these examples are irrelevant because they fall outside the time period at issue.

As far as 1957’s About the Author postscript to Atlas Shrugged is concerned, I think it is an example of Rand ignoring the help she received. Her statement is sweeping:

“I decided to be a writer at the age of nine, and every thing I have done was integrated to that purpose. I am an American by choice and conviction. I was born in Europe, but I came to America because this was the country based on my moral premises and the only country where one could be fully free to write. I came here alone, after graduatingfrom a European college. I had a difficult struggle, earning my living at odd jobs, until I could make a financial success of my writing. No one helped me, nor did I think at any time that it was anyone's duty to help me.”

Valliant claims that Rand was only denying “altruistic” help, such as welfare. I don’t find this persuasive, but readers can decide for themselves.

Five years later, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden published a book entitled Who is Ayn Rand?, which included a biographical essay by Barbara Branden based on interviews with Rand. In this essay, Branden discusses how Rand’s relatives in Chicago put her up after she arrived from the U.S.S.R. and how she received affordable lodging at the Hollywood Studio Home shortly after her arrival to California in 1926. Nathaniel Branden doesn’t mention this; at the same time, he doesn’t say or imply that Rand never publicly acknowledged that she received help from others.

Valliant ends his discussion by thundering that “[t]he notion that Rand had any difficulty in acknowledging what she regarded as appropriate ‘help,’ . . . is simply absurd, as the Brandens know well.” (PARC, p. 43.) Why “the Brandens”? Valliant does not quote Barbara Branden as making any blanket claim about Rand in this respect. In fact, he does cite PAR for three examples of Rand’s gratitude toward others.

It Was 20 Years Ago Today

Granted, government was roughly the same in 1989 as 1981, but would Carter or Mondale have said: "Tear down this wall"?

History of Political Philosophy

Dr. David Gordon of The Ludwig von Mises Institute is giving an excellent series of lectures this week on the history of political theory.

James Valliant and "Uncritical Reliance" on "the Brandens"

In reading PARC, one gets the impression that all the negative reports about Rand’s personality have their origin in the Brandens’ books and that without these books there is no reason to accept as accurate the description of Rand provided in them. Let’s remember that the most Valliant is willing to concede about Rand is that her anger could be unjust at times and that she made some poor choices.

However, we shall see that Valliant has ignored a large amount of evidence that Rand had personality flaws beyond her anger. These were well documented prior to the publication of PARC.

Valliant makes no mention of Justin Raimondo’s biography of Murray Rothbard, An Enemy of the State, published in 2000. Raimondo quotes a 1954 letter from Rothbard to Richard Cornuelle. Rothbard writes “[George Reisman] found himself under a typical vitriolic Randian barrage, according to which anyone who is not now or soon will be a one-hundred percent Randian Rationalist is an ‘enemy’ and an ‘objective believer in death and destruction’ as well as crazy.” (An Enemy of the State, p. 110.)

Another book which isn’t mentioned is Stephen Cox’s 2004 biography of Isabel Paterson entitled The Woman and the Dynamo. Although I won’t go into the details, Cox’s description of Rand is somewhat negative and he takes Paterson’s “side” against Rand’s claim that Paterson failed to acknowledge that she got some of her ideas from Rand. Cox interviewed Nathaniel Branden, Henry Holzer, and Ericka Holzer.

One book that Valliant does cite is Jeff Walker’s The Ayn Rand Cult. Valliant occasionally uses this as a source, claiming it gives a version of events different than Barbara Branden’s, while attacking its general reliability. There is nothing inherently contradictory about finding a book that one doesn’t consider reliable to be accurate in certain cases. However, Valliant doesn’t say why TARC is reliable when it quotes Kay Nolte Smith concerning changes to Penthouse Legend but not the critical things she says about Rand. Likewise, why is TARC believable when it quotes Henry Holzer concerning his break with Rand, but not believable when it quotes the Holzers’ description of Rand as “nasty”, “insensitive” and “unkind”?

Finally, Valliant’s use of the Brandens' books as historical sources is contradictory. Valliant says that the books are “valueless as historical documents.” (PARC, p. 6.) However, they become quite reliable when they contain admissions by the Brandens. For example, Valliant credits Nathaniel Branden's claim that he became Rand's "enforcer" although alleging that Rand didn't know about Branden's conduct. (PARC, p. 59.) And, as Ellen Stuttle has noted, Valliant does not question either Nathaniel or Barbara Branden when it comes to their claim that Rand received Frank’s consent for the affair. Yet they are the only sources for such a claim.

Branden bases much of her account on interviews with those who knew Rand post-1968. Some of these people are quoted extensively. Branden quotes Allan Blumenthal: "She [Rand] was relentless in her pursuit of so-called psychological errors [concerning judgments on art]. If an issue were once raised, she would never drop it; after and evening's conversation, she'd telephone the next day to ask what we had concluded about it overnight . . . It was becoming a nightmare." (PAR, p. 387.) She quotes Joan: "but, often, she would seem deliberately to insult and antagonize us." (Id.) When I asked Valliant about this, he says he doesn’t dispute the Blumenthals’ account or that they have been quoted accurately. I read the Blumenthals account to go considerably beyond a claim of “unjust anger.”

Incidentally, Valliant does not dispute the reliability of anyone who says anything critical of Nathaniel Branden. Edith Efron is not credible in her description of Rand's anger, but Valliant finds her trustworthy in her denunciations of Branden. (PARC, 65, 77-78.)

Finally, Brian Doherty recently published a history of the libertarian movement in 2007 called Radicals for Capitalism which discusses Rand extensively. He likewise confirms unfortunate aspects of Rand’s personality and the authoritarian nature of her movement. He interviewed, among others, Robert Hessen, Ralph Raico, Barbara Branden, Nathaniel Branden, and Joan Kennedy Taylor. He also quotes letters from two anonymous “longtime members” of Rand’s “inner circle” attesting to Rand’s “cruel[ty]” and lack of a “benevolent sense of life.” (p. 705.)

In addition to my general point that negative aspects of Rand’s personality have been confirmed by those who knew Rand, Walker, Cox and Doherty have obviously made their own independent evaluation of the credibility of many of the sources used by Barbara Branden. It is thus unfair for Valliant to claim that they uncritically rely on PAR for their negative assessments of Rand.

Walter Block on Ayn Rand

An article from The Journals of Ayn Rand Studies.

Atlas Shrugged and Virginia Tech

A post from Carol Iannone on National Review:

"I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand's writings or ideas but she has a long section in one of her novels about a train wreck which kills many people that seems apropos today. Everyone says of the train wreck that nothing could have been done to prevent it, but she goes over the whole buildup to the accident, every little piece in the chain, and shows how human choice, action, and decision-making accumulated step-by-step until culminating in the horror. That's how the Virginia Tech Massacre appears to me. No one thing might have prevented it, but it was caused, or permitted to happen, by a long accumulation of faulty actions and perceptions, of denials and mistakes, of bad decisions and assorted other failures. The only thing is to try to learn from it all. "

Radicals for Capitalism

My copy of this new book hasn't arrived, but I did come across this rather snide review in the New York Times by David Leonhardt.

Here is a sample:

"MOST troubling, Doherty merely catalogs the movement’s failings rather than grappling with them. He relates that Rand 'notoriously testified' before the big-brotherly House Un-American Activities Committee in October 1947, when the committee was investigating Hollywood, where Rand had worked as a screenwriter, but the episode receives only two paragraphs. He skates over other questionable matters, too: for instance, that Friedman advised the murderous Pinochet regime in Chile; that Merwin Hart 'infected his free-market thought with anti-Semitism'; and that Rothbard supported Strom Thurmond’s segregationist campaign for president in 1948 (because, Doherty casually observes, 'he admired Thurmond’s states’ rights position'). The book fails to ask why people who claim to love freedom have so often had a soft spot for those who would deny it to others."

A few comments:

1. Yes, Rand testified before the House Un-American Activities Commitee, but to discuss the role of commies in the film industry. Not the wisest decision perhaps, but Leonhard leaves the impression that she was turning people in for prosecution.

2. Who is Merwin Hart? I've never heard of the guy and I'm pretty much up on the libertarian movement. And in case Leonhardt didn't know, the main libertarians (Rand, Friedman, Rothbard and Mises) were all Jewish.

3. Friedman advised the Pinochet regime. That appears to be something of an exaggeration. In any event, does it bother Leonhardt that Friedman also gave advice to the Red Chinese or the Yugoslavian communists?

4. Rothbard supported Strom Thurmond in 1948. Yes, but Rothbard throughout his career tried to make alliances with people who shared some of his ideas. Of course, one might question the widsom of this approach, but let's not forget the context either.

The Truth Is Out There Somewhere, Part II

As I stated in a previous post, Valliant uses as one of his sources Jeff Walker’s book The Ayn Rand Cult (“TARC”). TARC is an explicitly anti-Rand book which is, as Valliant notes, is something of a repository for all anti-Rand stories. Curiously, Valliant uses TARC at times to supplement PAR, implying that it contains a better or more complete account of some events. He does this notwithanding that he accuses it of “extensive reliance” on the Brandens’ books. (PARC, p. 373.) One example concerns the production by Phillip and Kay Smith of Rand’s play Penthouse Legend (Night of January 16th), which precipitated the split between Rand and the Smiths. Valliant notes that while Branden reports that Rand split with Phillip and Kay Smith, she does not give the details of the split or connect it with the play.

In 1973, an off-Broadway performance of Penthouse Legend (Night of January 16th) was staged. Phillip Smith directed and co-produced the play; his wife, Kay Nolte Smith co-produced the play and acted as well. (PAR, pp. 369-372.) Walker says that Kay Smith made “unauthorized changes to a few lines of dialogue for a public performance” and for that reason was expelled from Rand’s inner circle. (TARC, p. 35.) Valliant’s only source is TARC. (PARC, p. 400.) Valliant’s version of the events is different. He says the Smiths, “changed the dialogue in their production of Penthouse Legend without authorization from Rand.” He describes the Smiths’ conduct as “systematic and personal betrayal.” (PARC, pp. 75-76.) However, TARC doesn’t describe the changes as concerning the “production” of the play but limits it to lines in one performance. Valliant doesn’t acknowledge the fact that TARC not only doesn’t support his description of this event, but contradicts it. Valliant also mentions that he asked Kay Smith for an interview in 1983, which she declined. Of course this could not be in connection with PARC since PAR wasn’t published until 1986.

As Michael Stuart Kelley notes, Phillip Smith supports TARC’s contention that the change was limited. Dr. George Reisman recounts the incident as follows in his weblog in 2006:

"Many years ago, there was a young actress to whom Ayn Rand gave the responsibility of directing a production of her play 'The Night of January 16th.' Toward the close of the play’s run, an actor prevailed upon this young woman to allow him to alter one of Ayn Rand’s lines in one of the play’s last performances. When Ayn Rand learned of this, she was furious and completely ended her relationship with this young woman, who had been in her inner circle for several years."

So while I think that, in retrospect, Branden should have included the details of this split, reporting it probably wouldn’t have changed the typical reader’s opinion of Rand.

Incidentally, when confronted with the obvious problems in his description of the split with the Smiths by Chris Sciabarra, Valliant responded that he had “anonymous sources” for his version of the split (and also anonymous sources for other events). Yet no such sources are mentioned or even hinted at in PARC with respect to the break with the Smiths or any other event. Valliant even goes so far as to claim that “[u]nlike Ms. Branden, I do not rely on anonymous sources as my only source for something . . . .” Valliant is relying on his anonymous sources exclusively for the Smith break given that Walker contradicts his version (or, perhaps, he is just misquoting TARC). And finally, one can’t notice the double standard employed by Valliant: when Branden said post-PARC that she heard the Remington-Rand story from Rand, Valliant accuses her of dishonestly attempting to bolster her case.

The Truth Is Out There Somewhere, Part I

One claim of PARC is that the Brandens’ books can be shown to be unreliable based on evidence that Valliant has unearthed. Most significantly, Valliant argues that Rand’s diaries contradict the Brandens’ version of the 1968 split. However, these diaries do not shed much (if any) light on other events.

Valliant has referenced some, but not all, of the other published works that bear on his topic. He mentions, among other material, Jeff Walker’s The Ayn Rand Cult, recollections by John Hospers, interviews (by others) with the Brandens, and the video of Rand’s first appearance on The Phil Donahue Show. At the same time, he has ignored other sources relevant to his work, such as Justin Raimondo’s biography of Murray Rothbard and Joseph Stromberg’s essay on the Rothbard plagiarism allegation. In addition, while he accuses Nathaniel Branden of departing from Objectivism in various ways, he does not reference any of Branden’s post-split work, with the exception of his memoirs and his 1984 essay “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.”

So far as I can tell, Valliant did not ask either Nathaniel or Barbara Branden for interviews. Barbara Branden’s book is based on dozens of interviews. He did not ask Barbara Branden for permission to listen to the tapes of interviews she had with others. It is quite brazen for Valliant to allege that Branden has fabricated entire incidents without seeking access to the evidence upon which she based her claims. The only interview (or rather attempted interview) that Valliant mentions is Kay Nolte Smith, who he claims refused an interview with him in 1983. (PARC, p. 400.) As Ellen Stuttle noted, by Valliant’s own admission he was, in 1982, a teenager in college.

Notwithstanding his apparent lack of interest in the evidence upon which Barbara Branden bases her accounts, Valliant is quite content to leave the impression that there is some version of events “out there” that she is suppressing. As one example, take Branden’s contention that Frank O’Connor drank excessively. Branden says that “each week” Rand’s housekeeper went to Frank’s studio and “found no new paintings, but instead, rows of empty liquor bottles.” (PAR, p. 366.) We are told by Valliant that “the housekeeper is said to have been indignant at Ms. Branden’s allegation”, apparently telling Leonard Peikoff that she was misquoted or misinterpreted by Branden. (PARC, p. 144.) The source for Peikoff’s statement is “the author’s best recollection of Leonard Peikoff’s statement in response to a question on the subject given during a conversation in his home in California in 1991, and it echoes comments made be Peikoff in the question and answer period following his speech “My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand” . . . on April 12, 1987 . . . .” (PARC, p. 407.) Since Valliant appears to be on rather friendly terms with Leonard Peikoff, it would not have been too difficult for Valliant to have asked Peikoff about this matter instead of relying on his recollection of a conversation fourteen years before. Incredibly, Valliant even claims that “as previously indicated, it is those closest to the O’Connors in their later years who most vehemently deny this charge.” (PARC, p. 147, emphasis in the original.) Really? The only people to whom Valliant could be referring are Peikoff and the housekeeper, and neither is quoted by Valliant as actually denying that O’Connor drank excessively.