Unhealthy debate
Sir: Matthew Parris is absolutely right to say that the time has come for facing populists with honest argument (‘In defence of the liberal elite’, 9 November). This call would be all the more persuasive if it were not embedded within the rotten foundations of current lamentable public discourse. Honest argument presupposes the ability to engage with one’s opponents in terms that they would own and recognise: ‘steel-manning’ rather than erecting a flimsy straw man. What Mr Parris, and many others, fail to own is that the concerns of Trump voters, though unpalatably incarnated in Donald Trump himself, are in their essence not only legitimate but good. A desire to provide for family and pursue dignified work are wholly good things; to merely say with ‘chins up’ that it is as black and white as wrong and right runs the risk of that elevated chin not only looking arrogant but being presented as a target. I am all for having the confidence of one’s convictions, but not at the price of contempt for others.
The Revd Hamish Sneddon
St Andrews, Scotland
Save our Sanskrit
Sir: I have little to add to David Butterfield’s astute analysis of the problems ailing academia in general and Cambridge in particular (‘Decline and fall’, 26 October). I took special interest in his mention of Sanskrit, the serious study of which is certainly at risk. Yet the problem here is not just administrative unwillingness to allocate funds. University students increasingly want either a material return on time invested at university or a relatively easy time earning a degree. Learning Sanskrit provides many benefits, but neither lucrative employment nor ease of study are among them.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in