By Halima Ibrahim
Sheikh Ali Isa Ibrahim, also known as Pantami, a former Nigerian minister, called for a debate over his books. In response, Ibrahim Bello-Kano, a Professor of English from Bayero University Kano, called Pantami a “poor writer”. The rejoinder, as obtained by The Daily Reality, reads:
Now, I have a few points to make about Mr Pantami wishing or asking to debate his critics. But before my first point, let me say this. If the forwarded message on this platform is really from, or written by, Pantami, then it’s clear that he’s a poor writer and a shoddy thinker to boot.
Look at the poorly written prose and the ample indicators of the writer’s low critical thinking acumen.
So, back to my first point: millions of books and papers by living authors are reviewed across the writing and publishing world daily, but I’ve never heard of any serious writer or author asking to debate his or her reviewers or commentators on his or her book. Pantami’s demand to debate his critics is pretty odd for any sound academic or scholar.
Second, Reviews have a world of their own and are not personal or personalised pieces or responses.
Third, Pantami can respond to his critics in writing. This is quite acceptable. His quip that his critics should rather write their own books is powerful evidence of his being an alien to academic culture.
Fourth, the debate on skills versus degree qualification is an old one, since the 1950s. It was an old credo of American Pragmatism from William James to John Dewey (see, on this, Richard Rorty’s “Consequences of Pragmatism”, 1989). So, Pantami isn’t saying anything new. He’s, again, not conversant with the topic in Education, Pedagogy, or Teacher Training.
Fifth, Pantami is the typical semi-educated person who’s pained by ASUU’s rejection of his illegal Professorship and is desperate to soothe his badly bruised ego.
Sixth, his or the claim that his book is being translated into many other languages is either a lie or just an attempt to pass off his questioned erudition. Let him or his defenders mention or give evidence as to the languages that his book has been translated into. Just how many? It’s rare to see an author literally begging to debate his critics or reviewers in the immediate moment.
Finally, Pantami can have his dubious “bragging rights”, but that’s where his case properly belongs — bragging rights for a man whose ego and scholarly claims have been badly and justifiably bruised.
Indeed, the whole debate on skills and not just degrees was misconceived. Richard Rory in his book, “Consequences of Pragmatism” shows how skills as such and theoretical understanding or epistemic capacity cannot ever be separated. Pantami’s book was a cowardly critique of University academics in general. As a person, Pantami has had deep inferiority complexes relative to his more intellectual colleagues. That became worse after his illegal Professorship debacle, which was heavily criticized by many groups. The Latinate word TECHNE says it all. You learn to root knowledge in the very act of doing.
Conceptual thinking is always present, even in the so-called skills. Take a mechanic who has had long years of learning by doing. Yet that mechanic cannot now know about changes in technology in which one has to follow diagrams, instructions, and manuals to install an electric circuit or new nozzle equipment in a new model car. The best doctors or mechanics are those who keep abreast of theoretical or conceptual developments in their field. Skills are not enough. Theoretical understanding prepares one to adapt to a situation. Pantami is just flogging a dead worse.
Again, he’s not well versed in the very philosophy of action that he wrongly thinks comes before the episteme. Finally, what would Pantami say about a cutting-edge science called THEORETICAL PHYSICS?