More from the slowly sinking U.S.S. Academe: Eric Crump at Bedford/St. Martin’s has developed a site he calls After September 11, “designed to provide teachers and students a starting point in their discussions, research, and writing about these unfolding events.” The link to this site came directly from Bedford/St. Martin’s and was forwarded along to individual English Department instructors here at the University of Denver.

According to Crump, his site “includes links to some of the most interesting and provocative commentaries that have emerged post-September 11; commentaries that represent a variety of perspectives, as well as questions and suggestions for pursuing more deeply the issues these essays raise.”

Hmm. A “variety of perspectives,” you say? Well, to paraphrase Moira Breen, “Horseshit, Eric. Horseshit horseshit horseshit!” Take a quick look at the “commentary” section under the subject headings “Will Propaganda Win the Battle for Public Opinion?” and “Is Religion to Blame? Has Islam been Hijacked?”, for example. The source material Crump provides breaks down as follows: Common Dreams (6), Tom Paine (2), Alternet (1), Andrew Sullivan (1) and The New York Times [Thomas Friedman] (1). Hardly representative of the political spectrum, is it? — unless of course you happen to be a European intellectual or a “journalist” [snigger] for the Guardian. And as much as I like Andrew Sullivan, he’s hardly representative of mainstream conservatism (at least according to NRO’s Jonah Goldberg — himself hardly a mainstream conservative…).

Andrew Hofer takes a detailed look at Common Dreams over on MTZ, but here’s a taste of the kind of provocative “critical” commentary the site publishes (from the now infamous Dr. Robert Jensen):

[I a not optimistic about the demise of ] the problem of U.S. aggression against innocent people in the rest of the world, particularly these days in Afghanistan, where the aggression is most intense. Given the bloody record of the United States in the past 50 years and the seemingly limitless capacity of U.S. officials to kill without conscience, I must confess I am not optimistic that such aggression will stop anytime soon, in large part because those corporate structures that drive the killing are still around. But I will do certain things to work against it.

In fairness, The Bedford/Crump alliance doesn’t link to this particular essay — and even if it did, that wouldn’t give me fits in and of itself; but what needs to be laid bare here is Crump’s frighteningly ignorant assumption that his site has actually presented a “variety of perspectives” — particularly if by “perspectives” we’re to believe that these writings are gleaned from a variety of sources representative of the breadth of the political spectrum.

But here’s the real kicker: I’m willing to bet a month’s worth of Mars Bars that Crump truly believes that his list is representative of prevailing “intellectual” opinion — because for him, intellectualism and conservatism are mutually exclusive. “The Weekly Standard,” you can almost hear Crump scratching his head — “What’s that?” Or, “American Enterprise? Y’mean, like, Newt’s gig — where Hoff Sommers ended up?”

Turn off NPR, Eric. Click over to Fox News tonight (don’t worry, PBS will be there when you want to go back) for a dose of Brit Hume. Pick up “The Washington Times” for a change. But give the rest of us a chance, eh Paco?

—–