If his field was political theory he would be a massive neoliberal. From my own experience, the way anglo-american academia seems to work is that if your field is related to that, it’s very hard to get a job in academia without reproducing US empire propaganda. For instance, their philosophers don’t read Marx, and a lot of the political philosophy they study exists to basically justify liberal democracy as the most ethical system that exists.
If you come from a different field though, like English literature, there is more leeway to study Marx and critical theory. Grover Furr is also a massive ML and hobbyist historian of Soviet history, and it probably bleeds into his classes quite a lot.
Isn’t Furr’s official field like, Medieval literature? Why are his students studying US foreign policy?
If his field was political theory he would be a massive neoliberal. From my own experience, the way anglo-american academia seems to work is that if your field is related to that, it’s very hard to get a job in academia without reproducing US empire propaganda. For instance, their philosophers don’t read Marx, and a lot of the political philosophy they study exists to basically justify liberal democracy as the most ethical system that exists.
If you come from a different field though, like English literature, there is more leeway to study Marx and critical theory. Grover Furr is also a massive ML and hobbyist historian of Soviet history, and it probably bleeds into his classes quite a lot.
Because he has tenure
The reviews here imply he’s teaching literature too, not history. I’m sure it makes sense somehow but what’s the deal?