The Carnegie Foundation began [supporting ‘higher education’] by announcing that only colleges, as defined by itself, would be eligible for the [college] grants. The Foundation then defined a college as requiring so many hours of secondary school education (which are still known as Carnegie Units), as possessing an endowment of at least five hundred thousand dollars, as having at least eight departments, and with each department headed by a Ph.D. That was how the Ph.D. became the key to the academic kingdom. Never, of course, has there been a more conformity-creating credential. (The Ph.D. means that university intellectuals are required to beg the approval of their betters for the decade that shapes their professional life. This credentialing system has been more effective than a Central Committee in creating ideological conformity in the ivory tower.) The Carnegie Foundation also announced that it would not fund pension programs for religious institutions. That was how Brown, Drake, Wesleyan, and many other colleges gave up their denominational affiliations, and how the secularization of American higher learning began. As a congressional commission asked at the time: “If a college will give up its religious affiliation for money, what will it not give up?” – Sex, Lies, and Vast Conspiracies, Copyright © 1998 by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Second Thought Books, Los Angeles, CA, Page 122.
“As Lukacs points out, during this so-called Age of Information no one [including the ‘Professor’] reads much anymore because few share the inclination to read. “We have now entire slews of professional experts who read little while they write much, for the sake of firming up their professional status,” he observes. “In this respect too, we may see the devolution of democracy into bureaucracy. . . .” Malice is not the source of this appalling ignorance. It emerges instead from the inability, and perhaps the growing unwillingness, to contemplate ideas that do not correspond with established, institutionalized, and accepted norms and systems. Little professional advantage or reputation accrues to scholars who dare criticize approved methods, impugn cherished theories, and question authorized conclusions. Those who adopt unpopular values and assumptions become immediately suspect, their work regarded as illegitimate, and worst of all, insignificant.” ― Remembered Past; On History, Historians, and Historical Knowledge, by John Lukacs, Page xxi, Preface, edited by Mark G. Malvasi and Jeffrey O. Nelson, ISI Books, Wilmington, Delaware, © 2005 ISI Books.