In my first blog commentary on University of Colorado Italian Studies Professor Cosetta Seno’s 2014 “Italica” article (“Who Did It? The Mysterious Murder of the History of Italian Literature” Vol. 91, # 3, pp. 255-275), I posited that her article is essentially (to my mind) tripartite: 1) A brief, albeit brilliantly cogent, description and generational analysis of the “American Italianisti” and their pedagogic practices. 2) A very detail summary of the three century history (1700 to present) of the writing of “storia della letteratura” (history of literature) manuals, and their demise in the second half of the twentieth century. 3) A concluding section of suggestions and recommendations for the teaching of Italian literature. /// /// The first blog article discussed, in some detail, parts one and two. This article will consider part three “suggestions and recommendations” (pp. 269-275). /// /// While the essence of part three of her article is “suggestions and recommendations”, nevertheless Prof. Seno posited a couple of parenthetical sentences that are pregnant with profound implications far beyond the scope and intention of the article. Specifically she writes: (a) “I do not presume, of course, to tackle theoretical problems”, and (b) “I feel that many of my colleagues share several of my impressions and concerns.” /// /// Regarding sentence (a), those “theoretical problems” go to the essence of her pedagogic concerns; i.e. why “storia della letteratura” has ceased being taught, or even written and published. Prevailing theory of literary criticism governs publication and teaching. Of course, such theoretical considerations would entail another article(s), indeed book(s). However, to my mind, she might have posited a few thoughts on the subject, bringing to the reader’s mind the significance and implications of theoretical issues. For example, Camille Paglia, in her ranting rage about the failure to teach the history of literature, repeatedly lambasted the pedagogic affects of “post-structuralism”(see http://www.c-span.org/video/?115418-1/american-education-reform). After her talk, the listener would not fully understand the specifics of “post-structuralism” on literary pedagogy, but there would be no doubt about its profound pedagogical significance. /// /// Professor Seno, albeit without the trademark Paglia southern Italian fervor, similarly could have provided a tad more theoretical discussion. After the Paglia talk, one interested in the subject of literary history and education knew were to pursue the topic in more detail. Professor Seno does not leave the reader with a clear sense of ‘what should I do now’ … now that I know the problem, how do I proceed to better understand and indeed contribute to a solution? /// /// Which brings up the second ‘pregnant’ thought (b) “I feel that many of my colleagues share several of my impressions and concerns.” Why “feelings”? Why don’t her colleagues articulate, as she and Paglia have, clearly and unequivocally their concerns about the demise of “storia della letteratura”? To my mind, their reluctance points to the essence of the university education bureaucracy and the bureaucratic governance of pedagogy. /// /// There was a “brief shining Camelot moment” during the 1960s when “academic freedom” seemed ‘real’. Like Camelot, it was an illusion. Today, ours is a more honest reality age. That reality is indubitable: academicians are ‘workers’ and like all workers in all crafts, they do (teach) ‘the Man’s bidding’. If they want to get a PhD, get a job, get published, get grants, get tenure, get promoted; they MUST conform to the prevailing social and pedagogic ideological standards, or “drink hemlock.” /// “Who murdered “storia della letteratura”? The same assassin who murdered Socrates! … To wit: Political Correctness!