- NEWS
- Powder in sheriff's office is baking soda 41 minutes ago
- Snow possible in O.C.'s upper canyons 11 minutes ago
- Community college raffles 2010 Prius despite recall 1 hour & 39 minutes ago
- Yorba Linda home tops most-viewed list 1 hour & 2 minutes ago
- SPORTS
- SI exposes Winter Olympians 11 minutes ago
- Laker Rim Shots 2-8-10
- Sneak peek: SI swimsuit edition 2 hours & 19 minutes ago
- Angels' Shields won't be ready to start spring training 3 hours & 50 minutes ago
- BUSINESS
- Temp work pointing to a recovery? 3 hours & 10 minutes ago
- $16.5M apartments sale sets record 1 hour & 16 minutes ago
- Home slashes $1.3 million in 4 days
- Community college raffles 2010 Prius despite recall 1 hour & 43 minutes ago
- ENTERTAINMENT
- Will H.B. woman be the next 'Bachelorette'? 7 minutes ago
- Ed Harris pulls us through 'Wrecks' 1 hour & 19 minutes ago
- 'Housewife' denies she has a new boyfriend 2 hours & 17 minutes ago
- 'Idol' champ Fantasia finds her voice on stage
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Chapman dedicating statue of Ayn Rand today
November 5th, 2009, 8:50 am · 33 Comments · posted by Gary Robbins, science writer-editor
Image by Phyllis Cerf, via Ayn Rand Institute website
Chapman University in Orange will today dedicate a bust of the late novelist, philosopher and playwright Ayn Rand (bio), whose controversial belief system (known as Objectivism) about how a person should behave is still causing arguments 27 years after she died.
The New York Times summarized her outlook this way: “In Rand’s view, selfishness was good and altruism was evil, and the welfare of society was always subordinate to the self-interest of individuals, especially superior ones. In some ways, Objectivism is an extreme form of laissez-faire capitalism, a view that Rand came to naturally.”
Her philosophy formed the basis of “Atlas Shrugged,” her famed novel, which still sells well today. Rand saw “man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
Her basic beliefs have recently enjoyed a resurgence of interest on many college campuses and among more Conservative and Libertarian thinkers. Some of that interest has been stoked by the Ayn Rand Institute, which is located in Irvine.
Rand was also intensely disliked by many people, including me. I very rarely inject personal opinion into this blog. But I had a run-in with Rand that, in my opinion, showed that her beliefs weren’t built on bedrock. It happened in the late 1970s when Rand visited Boston’s Northeastern University to give a speech at the popular Ford Hall Forum.
For reasons she never clearly explained, Rand said that she would not allow herself to be photographed during the public talk. I was a reporter for the campus newspaper at the time and found this to be outrageous, especially because $2,000 in student fees were being used to cover her lecture fee. I walked into the auditorium during her speech and photographed her, at which point she yelled at me. I thought she was interfering with freedom of the press and ignored her protests.
Chapman will dedicate a bust of Rand at 5:30 p.m. today at its Global Citizens Plaza. The event is open to the public — without charge.
- Chapman strips publicity from upcoming ‘undie run’
- Chapman shoots up list of nation’s most expensive schools
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
33 Comments
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
-
-
-
ADVERTISEMENT
Actually whether photographic rights would be part of a contract.
Just like you can’t bring a videocamera to a concert or movie
theatre. Some performers (eg Robert Fripp) do not like flash
photography during performances.
Revkatt: Ms. Rand tried to bar photography at a highly public lecture, and her lecture fee was covered by students. Previous speakers — people like Ed Bradley — had not problem with being photographed.
maybe she just didn’t like being photographed (except for publicity purposes, as above). the $2,000 does not seem like an exorbitant sum - not even at the time. have you seen what most speakers charge these days? look at what Colin Powell got just to come out and speak at Chapman, for reference.
bpsqwerty: $2,000 was a lot of money in 1977. Rand was famous, but she wasn’t of the stature of a Colin Powell.
LOL - well, just because she didn’t stop to acknowledge your pursuit of your happiness and personal goals just then, when you were interfering with her pursuit of happiness and personal goals doesn’t strike me as a clear example of not living up to her principles. But her philosophy leaves me cold.
Dio Mio
If Socrates read Ayn Rand, he’d had drunk the hemlock much, much sooner.
Ayn Rand…then end justifies the means….
Isn’t Chapman a Christian university? Why are they dedicating a statute to an atheist like Rand? What other statues do they have on campus? Why her, of all people? Are they trying to appease some wacky donor?
Bebe: When it was founded, Chapman had strong religious roots. And it has a very active religious studies program on campus. However, it does not advertise itself as a religious institution. By the way, the school has more than 20 busts. They include such figures as Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman.
What amazes me is how Rand, an unabashed atheist, would have such a loyal following among Republicans. Ayn followed your own personal goals which left no room for faith, all those commandments and the rest of the be-nice-to-others stuff. Her motto was more like: To Thine Own Self Be True. Hey, Chapman: Your are honoring atheists now?
Simple as to why Rand is beloved by religious Republicans and others: her philosophy has tremendous bearing in the macro and does not conflict, especially in economics and politics, with one’s own micro way of living.
Rand would think otherwise, but is often the case with philosophers, the public at large picks and chooses those aspects of a philosophy that they find has meaning and truth and mixes it with others to find one’s own code for living.
She must have also been a southpaw, and as such flown right over the heads of most.
It seems she was a lefty, but she’s all right now.
Are you a blogger or a reporter? Is the Register a collection of blogs, a newspaper or the conduit for Rick Warren’s publicity?
Elaine: I have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t write about Rick Warren.
Gary Robbins - just another example of the fact that the media is, in fact, biased and will throw their opinion into their articles any chance they get.
Amanda: You didn’t read the story. It specifically says that I very, very rarely add any personal opinion to an item. This is the first time I’ve done so in more than a year. Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows that. And the comment I made is a familiar complaint about Rand. Indeed, there are 2 new biographies out on her, and this sort of prickly behavior appears in both.
What, you expected her just to allow social parasites to loot the photons that she won by the sweat of her brow?
good, good stuff. she was an important philosopher of our time.
Amanda,
The ScienceDude abides.
She was not an important philosopher. Derrida, Foucault, Heidegger, Wittgenstein where all important 20th century Philosophers. This Rand does not belong in the group. As a writer of literature she was not much either.
Those aren’t philosophers, they are cheese-eating surrender monkeys, with the possible exception of Wittgenstein, but he was still a wanker.
Like her or not, Rand was an important philosopher because she wrote works that were some of the most articulate and comprehensive works ever written regarding individual rights.
Religious people often have problems with Rand because she was an atheist, but many don’t because they agree with her in many other areas. Rand’s position on atheism was not central to her ideas. Rand championed individual rights and reason and that took her to atheism. You could believe in those same ideas and reach a different conclusion regarding belief in god.
If you believe in hard work and you should keep the rewards of your work and not have to support others who don’t believe in your views, there is a good chance you will like at least some of Rand had to say.
I am a Chapman law alumni. Yes the school does have stronger than most religious views, but this is certainly not exclusive. Chapman really wants a diversity of intellectual opinion. The Rand statue is not selling out, its one more in a number of statues. If you have never been to Chapman you may want to consider checking the statues out. They are pretty cool.
Our bust collection (each of which is in honor of an endowed chair or professorship) really runs the gamut of talents, philosophies and political beliefs. Among them are Lincoln, Mozart, Washington, Adam Smith, Ella Fitzgerald, Milton Friedman, Albert Schweitzer, Luca Pacioli (the “father of accounting”), the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Guiseppe Verdi, Cecil B. DeMille and many more. It’s a nice idea — the donors love choosing a historical person to be commemorated in a bust on campus, and the students are curious about the busts — they stop and read the inscriptions and learn something about the historical figures.
I would add that Chapman University, while honoring our historical connection with our founders, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), is completely interfaith and welcomes all faiths, philosophies and beliefs (including non-belief). Come visit our beautiful Interfaith Center sometime.
Very interesting. Thank you PR for this information. I did lenjoy reading “Atlas Shrugged” many years ago. It did help to shape my carrer goals.
When is the Karl Marx statue being installed?
as soon as Obama mandates it…
The New York Times summarized her outlook, “….Objectivism is an extreme form of laissez-faire capitalism, a view that Rand came to naturally.” Well, not quite. She was a Jew born in Russia and lived through the Bolshevik Revolution. Her father’s pharmacy and the building it housed (both owned by him) was confiscated by the Communists. Her philosophy developed from ACTUALLY living under a statist, collectivist government - which she rejected completely.
Given the current move in the US toward collectivism and government control of the economy via the election of Obama and other liberal legislators - with near activist endorsement by the major media , a statue of Rand shows an acceptance of a certain diversity of opinion that doesn’t seem to exist in the public generally, and the public education sector in particular.
At least, the statue might encourage students to actually study Rand’s political philosphy. Those who are bright will see that no society has ever actually tried pure Capitalism. At best, they have seen a Mixed Economy with strong government intervention - intervention that has nothing to do with laissez- faire economic philosophy.
Our founders thought highly of a VERY limited government. Rand’s philosophy was built on a similar view of government in relation to it’s citizens.
Thank You HRA for your very well placed insight. I mean it…thank you!
There’s a big bust of OC businessman George Argyros there too
First, the Times definition is a poor one as each of the points in it requires a specific context to what Rand actually meant. Leaving out the context distorts the meaning of what she said. But I suspect, since you dislike her so strongly, you knew that. Which is perhaps the reason for it.
The part I found most interesting is your admission regarding how you view press ethics. Let’s unroll the context and what you are implying.
First, anyone has the right to sell their labor under whatever terms they wish. Others are free to accept or reject it. Rand, who in the last years of her life didn’t like what age had done to her appearance didn’t like photos. She agreed to speak on the conditions that photography not be allowed. The organizers of the event accept those terms.
Second, organizers of an event where admission is required (thus not a public rally, parade, demonstration, etc.) are free to set the terms for admission. Those terms apply to everyone equally, including the press. So they may say that admission requires purchasing a ticket or wearing formal wear or even refraining from audio or visual taping and photography. Those conditions again apply to everyone equally and are part of “the price of admission.”
Finally, you basically admit you knew the terms and went to the event with the intent of violating them because you think that as a photographer for a school newspaper you are exempt from respecting the conditions of admission to the event. My major was journalism at university but I hold most journalists in contempt because they are unethical bottom-feeders who routinely lie and distort facts. They also believe they are exempt from from basic social rules.
Would freedom of the press allow you to crash someone’s private party because you want to photograph them? Does freedom of the press mean you can enter any classroom during a lecture and randomly start taking pictures because “student fees” are paying those classes? Are they no limits on the press? Could any press photographer rush into any event they wish, regardless of the conditions for admission that apply to everyone else? Your view seems to imply that. And this is one reason many people think the ethics of the media to be barely above those of the politicians they cover.
C;s: I didn’t crash a party. I attended a public lecture to cover a news event. An event that, as a student, I helped pay for. And the organizers can’t set terms for the press. We have a free press, not the kind of situational press you advocate. And the Times summary accurately reflects the essence of her beliefs.
Gary: I didn’t say you crashed the party. You went in openly to an event where you knew the conditions for attending. You chose to violate the terms on which you were admitted. Yes, you are not a god and the event organizers can determine the conditions for attending. It is arrogant to no end to believe that as “press” you don’t have to abide by the same terms for admission as everyone else. You are special, no matter how badly you think you are. You have the same rights as everyone else, or ought to in a free society.