Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Update: The Group's Openly Political Agenda

The John Hope Franklin Institute is inviting Duke professors to apply for faculty fellowships for the 2008-2009 academic year. The six recipients will each receive a two-course workload reduction. The theme: “The Alternative Political Imaginaries.”

The co-directors: Group of 88 member Michael Hardt and Women’s Studies/”clarifying” professor Robyn Wiegman. Wiegman is best known for lobbing intellectually unsustainable allegations of racism against Steve Baldwin and for announcing that presuming the lacrosse players’ guilt wasn’t a “crime.”

The program’s wording is arrestingly blunt, even for the Group of 88 and their campus allies:

The humanities have come to be characterized in recent decades by an overarching concern for politics, from the politics of cultural practices and knowledge production to political issues more traditionally conceived, such as state power, social movements, public policy, and law. As a result, almost all humanities scholarship is now considered political in one sense or another, whether it names its political intention or not . . .

Although our investigation of alternative political imaginaries will be wide ranging, we have a specific investment in using this topic to rethink what we see as the predominant way in which humanities research approaches politics today, namely critique: the critique of commodity culture, representational practices, colonial thought, patriarchal structures, tyrannical regimes, racial hierarchies, sexual normativities, and so forth. Such critical practices generally seek to unmask domination and speak truth to power with the implicit belief that doing so will undermine and topple its control . . . We sense, however, that a search is already underway within the humanities for alternative political imaginaries that will enable producing not just different affects but different itineraries for political scholarship and action . . .

Fellowship proposals from Duke faculty members should include . . . your teaching goals and the ways in which your participation in the seminar might support your work in the classroom.

Over the past 18 months, evidence was rather scarce of the Group of 88 and their allies “speaking truth to power” in Durham.

How many Duke parents, alumni, or trustees are aware that the University’s humanities openly state that their goal is not instructing students in the traditional disciplines of the liberal arts, but instead engaging in political activism based on a “critique of commodity culture, representational practices, colonial thought, patriarchal structures, tyrannical regimes, racial hierarchies, sexual normativities, and so forth”?

288 comments:

1 – 200 of 288   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

I think I'm going to be sick. Will this nonsense ever end?

These professors obviously feel quite comfortable in their environment and will continue to be safe as long as Brodhead supports them and the BOT supports Brodhead. The whole lousy lot has to go.

Grafton Potter
T '68

Ralph Phelan said...

How many Duke parents, alumni, or trustees are aware that the University’s humanities openly state that their goal is not instructing students in the traditional disciplines of the liberal arts, but instead engaging in political activism based on a “critique of commodity culture, representational practices, colonial thought, patriarchal structures, tyrannical regimes, racial hierarchies, sexual normativities, and so forth”?

They don't just state that that is their approach.


The humanities have come to be characterized in recent decades by an overarching concern for politics, from the politics of cultural practices and knowledge production to political issues more traditionally conceived, such as state power, social movements, public policy, and law. As a result, almost all humanities scholarship is now considered political in one sense or another, whether it names its political intention or not . . .

It seems that they are in 100% agreement with David Horowitz as to how politicized the humanities are. Their only disagreement is whether politicization is a good thing.

Anonymous said...

Is Wiegman a Communist?

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Dagnabit, I have been cheated.

My whole college career was a complete desert in which we were deprived of those enticing sexual normativities. Does Duke offer an advanced degree in same? I'm signing up tomorrow, and insisting on inclusion of the 'and so forth' part as well.

AMac said...

How many Duke undergraduates and applicants are aware that the University’s humanities openly state that their goal is not instructing students in the traditional disciplines of the liberal arts, but instead engaging in political activism?

Steven Horwitz said...

If "alternative political imaginaries" means what I think it means, which is alternative depictions of what the "good society" might look like (as opposed to continually engaging in critique), I think it's about time that people in the humanities starting talking about the social scientific implications of their various critiques.

Of course I'm very skeptical that in attempting to develop those "alternative political imaginaries" that they will engage with the best thinking in the social sciences, a good hunk of which suggests that there are very severe limits to our ability to consciously create the worlds we might wish to see.

Being able to imagine an alternative political/economic order doesn't make it possible to create that order any more than imagining one can flap ones arms and fly makes that possible.

The biggest problem with deconstructing everything is that it's easy to imagine you can reconstruct it the way you wish. I, for one, would love to see what alternative political imaginaries they come up with, mostly because I'd relish the chance to do some deconstruction of my own.

Anonymous said...

The sad thing is that most parents are happy enough for their child to go to a reputable university, without further inquiry. This is where the Trustees should come in. They should know that, often enough, intellectual drivel passes for scholarship these days. They should care enough to do something about.

If humanities teaching at Duke is an intellectual shambles, the buck stops with the Trustees.

Anonymous said...

actually KC, this program seems to be a direct response to the broad critique launched here and elsewhere of the G88ers' pathetic excuse for a career.

Now they are seeking to avoid teaching as well as avoiding doing any publishing.

They are certainly a bunch of creative Marxists when it comes to avoiding work

Anonymous said...

If I was an optimist, I would read this as recognition by the authors of their biases and a convoluted call for more traditional professors.

As a pessimist, at least in regards to Duke, I take it to mean the authors do not believe they are being effective enough in tearing down western traditions and are looking for even more radical faculty to help speed up the process.

Scott'66

Anonymous said...

"alternative political imaginaries will be wide ranging" Somehow I doubt that any thought will be "wide ranging". Is there really an opportunity for any proposal which expresses an original or novel thought to exist in the humanities?

And "speak truth to power"? I can't say anything; it's too easy. Please: is there a Duke insider out there who can confirm that at least in private Wiegman and co. acknowledge their utter failure to speak truth to CORRUPT power when the opportunity presented itself? Even if they are unwilling to acknowledge such a failing publicly, I would hope that they could admit it privately.

Anonymous said...

WTF??!! I mean, seriously, just what are these idiots trying to do to Duke University? Are there literally *no* adults anywhere on campus that can put a stop to this crap? Do these morons really want to drive the university further into the ground by making it even worse than the laughing stock it has become?

Just breathtaking. And a rather pathetic parody.

Anonymous said...

If Waaaahneeeema receives a fellowship, her work load will be down to 0 courses. Besides, she already has an over-active political protest agenda / schedule / routine / ritual / race / calss / gender / perfect / perftection / offend / offendor / offensive isms / tions.

Literature is just not her strength.

no justice, no peace said...

One must authenticate the source, the integrity of the messenger, and ensure the data has not been manipulated...

Why should anyone believe anything that comes from the frauds?

Why haven't any at Duke stood up to speak "truth to power"?

Blog Hooligans stifle Klan of 88 free speech, that's the ticket.

"Air America radio host Randi Rhodes is temporarily off the air, but claims she was brutally attacked near her Manhattan apartment are bogus, her lawyer and a police source said today.

Fellow host Jon Elliott claimed on the liberal radio network that Rhodes had been mugged while walking her dog, Simon, on Sunday night. Elliot, who said Rhodes lost several teeth in the attack, waxed about a possible conspiracy.

“Is this an attempt by the right-wing, hate machine to silence one of our own?” he asked on the air, according to Talking Radio, a blog. “Are we threatening them? Are they afraid that we’re winning? Are they trying to silence intimidate us?...”

Wow! The real amazing thing is that this did NOT appear to have occured in Durham.

Anonymous said...

There is a more direct connection than many realize with national politics. The villian in chief of the University of Pennsylvania "water buffalo" railroading case, Sheldon Hackney, then university president, was later appointed chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities by Bill Clinton. His behavior at the University of Pennsylvania demonstrated his utter unfitness for any position of authority, but Clinton didn't care, maybe even regarded this as a plus.

I would not be in the least surprised to see a President Hillary Clinton, a President Obama, a President Edwards, or a President Richrdson appoint the likes of Chafe, Broadhead, or a Gang of 88 member with an apparently semirespectable publication record to the NEH, the Civil Rights Commission, or some similar level position. I don't anticipate that anyone from Duke would actually be chosen (although, from Duke, Chafe seems perhaps most likely), but their equivalents exist at most major universities in the US, and are very likely to be appointed to at least some such positions.

Anonymous said...

K.C., thank you for publishing this, along with the other various dissections of dubious scholarship that you have published since the "Listening Ad" caught your attention.

I suspect that this blog and other publications will now see Duke's "scholars" screaming like scalded cats again- and soon. Exposing their own words and teachings to public view is horrifying to many of them. As far as I can tell, their spurious scholarship is absolutely dependent upon parents and alumni remaining ignorant about what is being "taught." Exposing their bafflegab and psychobabble to the light of day is essential if we care about the future excellence of this generation. No wonder critical thinking skills are not valued in the humanities any more.

TexasMom

Anonymous said...

They just thought K C Johnson had gone away and it was therefore safe to attack him.

Anonymous said...

Apart from their crazy politics, I think it's worth noting how self-centered the humanities have become. The whole request for proposal basically just calls for navel gazing--humanities professors writing about the "humanities" as field of study--rather than writing about any particular work of literature (or even political issue).

Anonymous said...

Michael Hardt is best known for his book Empire, co-written with the convicted Italian terrorist Antonio Negri. Negri is widely believed to have been the intellectual mastermind behind the infamous Red Brigades, and some evidence connects him with the murder of former Italian PM Aldo Moro.

That's Duke for you!

Anti-Leftist Liberal

Anonymous said...

"Such critical practices generally seek to unmask domination and speak truth to power with the implicit belief that doing so will undermine and topple its control . . ." So the John Hope Franklin co-directors wish to "undermine and topple" political power, including "state power, social movements, public policy, and law." I appreciate their explanation, but I can't decide whether to call it anarchy or treason.

Anonymous said...

What always strikes me about the focus on politics in the humanities is how little knowledge of political theory or history humanities scholars typically show. Based on what I've read of their writings, very few could discuss the competing world views of Hobbes and Rousseau or the intellectual threads connecting Hegel and Marx. Instead, their political knowledge seems to be based on what they "picked up" from talking to each other or by reading the newspaper.

This is a tragedy for many reasons, not least because they remain ignorant of the reality of age old debates that prove to any grounded thinker that all political systems are significantly imperfect, though some are better than others, that the history of humanity is almost completely one of those with little power oppressing those with even less, and that Western Civilization is virtually unique in at least aspiring to break that cycle.

Anonymous said...

these professors are rebellious and attempting to change the traditions and culture of DUKE which is the PAST has educated men who would lead the largest and most powerful companies in the USA...such as GM

i wonder how the GM chairman would like the idea that the HR instructors would have the gall to think they could cause GM to change and revise its own history

the arrogance of professors at DUKE who use the power of the word WE, who think they control the means of production, is indeed the "chariots of fire" they will endure

the more they tell us, the more we know why patton defeated Rommel..."we read their BOOKS"

Kilgore said...

Sheesh. The fun just never stops in Wonderland. Thanks KC for pointing this out.

It reminds me of an article I saw online today that basically accuses western culture of not growing up. I think the author may have a point and the 88 bullies are prime examples.

Anonymous said...

Clearly the Duke humanities faculty are the power that needs some truth spoken to it.

AF said...

EMERGENCY MEETING OF THE GANG OF 88 (and friends)
Halloween edition

Karla: Well, plans A and B didn't exactly "pan" out. Maybe we should have tried pots instead of pans.

Mark: I tole you not to "slug" it out with these guys. This intellectual crap don't work. Bang the pots louder.

Houston: Where did this freight train come from? I thought we had everything worked out with Mikey so we were the only ones on this railroad track. Wha happened??

Piot: I think we need to move on to plan C. We need much more vidersity training at this uvinersity. If we keep playing the care card often enough and you monews will just keep being angried up, maybe we can get this KC guy out of our hair. He isn't in "Kansas" anymore, is he?

miriam: i do believe he has taken a short sabbatical to israel. maybe he will find my "capital" there.

John Boy Burness: I can only that whatever we have done, no matter how bad it was, will be recognized as a major attempt to advance the cause and not a transparent attack on a bunch of innocent kids. And I certainly hope that those guys don't succeed in discovering what I REALLY did to them. That might cause my legacy to be subverted to Mikey Liefongs.

Grant: Focus! Focus!! We've got to get KC out of our hair. Maybe we can get Al Rogue to star him in "An Inconvenient Lie". It could be a study on global warming and the effect of beer on stripper parties.

Steel: Will you guys just "Shut Up and Teach". We have enough opportunities for Anger Studies without having to bring KC into this discussion. Why don't we file a lawsuit against them for defamation of character?

WahWah: I have plenty of character. That's what we can do. Let's sue them and make them PROVE we attacked those guys without justification.

Shadee: Let's indoctrinate KC wotj another version of academic waterboarding. Just when he thinks he's heard it all, we'll blindside him with more of our diverse opinions. He can't keep up with us.


November 1-----KC really knows how to trick us into admitting our sins. At this rate, I may be in confession at the turn of the NEXT century. Yours truly, Dicky Boardhead

More Deja Moo!!

scott said...

"Such critical practices generally seek to unmask domination and speak truth to power with the implicit belief that doing so will undermine and topple its control ..."

Ah, speak[ing] truth to power ... now there is a phrase that has completely lost any utility it may have had when it was coined.

My first reaction when hearing that phrase is to infer that whatever the speaker is speaking is anything but the truth.

mac said...

What's striking is that they admit that what they're attempting to do is to "undermine and topple."

"Does that mean that the Duke BoT has to go, too? I mean, we love our children..." Babara Walters sniffs, as the NBBP declares that the revolution will spare no one, not even the children (which everyone knows means the BoT.)

Meanwhile, Duke President Brodhead hands a chocolate candy to Defense Minister Chauncey Nartey, who is standing beside the piano with Al Sharpton. Both fight over the candy, Al snarfing it down right out of Chauncey's fumbling hands, Nartey saying something about Al's children.

Michael Hardt is making out on the couch with a mirror behind his lover's head for a better view, and Kathy Rudy is becoming fond of the cocker spaniel named Mitzy. The whole gang of 88 is here. Revolution is in the air.

(with apologies to Tom Wolfe: any resemblence this bears to "Radical Chic" is purely purile and "semi-tentional" (a word that Thugga%$##@Intellectual likely coined.)

Anonymous said...

Marxism 101

bill anderson said...

That is one point on which I have been pounding for more than a year. Politicized curriculum ultimately means a corrupt curriculum. In the end, the G88 and their allies are trying their best not only to politicize ALL of Duke's curriculum, but really to destroy the very purpose for higher education: the pursuit of truth.

Can anyone imagine an entire country with a legal system that would be designed and run by someone like Karla Holloway? ALL guilt and innocence would be determined by one's race and social status.

One cannot even have normal human relationships with these people, as all of their rhetoric is full of political jargon. Ultimately, they are very destructive people.

Anonymous said...

Oh, goody, a new term from the lefties to obscure their intellectual bankruptcy - "political imaginaries." Would anyone care to tell us what uninteresting concept is behind this one? (Yeah, Google coughs up a few hundred references for this term, but all appear to be equally obfuscatory.)

Anonymous said...

Let's be blunt: there's been a paradigm shift in the liberal arts, from an objective and politically (for that matter, philosophically) "disinterested view" of "the good, the true, and the beautiful" to "political propanda to overthrow or consolidate political power." The two views are fundamentally opposed and, in the long run, one will vanquish the other. The culture war is profoundly real. It's impossible to avoid taking a side, and long past time to get on with it. In my humble opinion.

Shouting Thomas said...

Uh... Duke professors are the power in Durham.

To state the opposite of your final paragraph: Duke's humanities departments are openly practicing political indoctrination. Now, at least, they admit it.

Anonymous said...

"and so forth" equals helmet sports.

Gary Packwood said...

The John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute @ Duke is closely aligned with Scholars at Risk, a network of universities and colleges working to assist persecuted scholars.

http://scholarsatrisk.nyu.edu/about.html

These people believe that academic freedom trumps the legal underpinning of most countries of the world to include the United States and our own criminal justice system.

Foreign scholars receive support from this group which I presume makes the United States Department of State and the CIA a tad bit nervous.

They seek to undermine and topple those who control and dominate.

Apparently this group also funded Orin Starn in his study of cultural politics of golf and his seminar on the Duke campus last Spring.

Presumably, white male golfers dominate and control.

Duke alumni and parents of Duke students should be just 'thrilled' to know about this group and their connection to Scholars at Risk.
::
GP

gs said...

I give up, what is:

The Alternative Political Imaginaries

Is this a rigged contest, because I( asked 5 people I know, and no one knows what it means.

Ask someone you know.

Anonymous said...

In addition to being immune from irony (as well as oblivious to it) these people are beyond caricature, or even parody.

And yes, the shine is off the apple.

Get used to it.

They are in control and there is little to suggest that they will be relinquishing their power any time soon.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

Well one might hope that this recognition of humanities going astray would lead to proposals for bring humanities out of the political realm and back closer to its original focus. I doubt it, but as I said one could hope.

Anonymous said...

TO: John Hope Franklin Institute
FROM: K.C. Johnson (Prof. Emer.)
DATE: October 16, 2007
RE: Fellowship Application*

I would like to lend my "voice" to the "narrative" and provide some "imagineering" about "cultural" concerns. Penis. I "sense" that I have the ability to "critique" and take down "tyrannical regimes" and "racial hierarchies." Pikachu vagina. Granted the opportunity, I will "speak truth to power" during the seminar, even if it means "unmask[ing] [ab]omination[s]."

Diversity is a smile on a cloudy day!
_______________

*not a real application.
_______________

WARNING: This is a parody. It is not meant to reflect actual reality. Nor is it gay or straight. It is just a bunch of letters prodded together. Really, you are reading way too much into all of this. In fact, I will have to ask you to please stop reading this warning. Now.








Apparently, you have a problem with authority. I asked you nicely to stop reading the warning. Maybe I will not be as nice next time.

_______________

P.S. Just being goofy. I thought this had to be K.C. Johnson's first stab at a complete parody, then I found this on a Duke website:

"Monday, February 07th, 2005 :: 04:30 PM
Room 240, John Hope Franklin Center
Lecture
Biocapital: Subjects of Speculation as Genomics Goes Global
Kaushik Sunder Rajan, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of California at Irvine
Kaushik Sunder Rajan\\\'s research has been conducted in the United States and India, engaging theoretical and ethnographic issues relating to emergent life sciences and their relationship to capitalism and globalization. He is particularly interested in the ways in which the globalization of technoscientific discourse and practice, along with the globalization of capital and markets, lead to appropriations and mimeses of American IMAGINARIES in 'Third World' sites, in ways that are often radically incongruent, and co-productive of, new structures and strategies of state and corporate governance.... He is particularly interested in the ways in which such emergent political economic systems are co-produced not just with new ways of doing science, but also with divergent manifestations of salvationary and nationalist belief-systems."

(emphasis added). This reminds me of the "Seinfeld" episode about the New Yorker comic strip. Can anyone explain this stuff? I think we are supposed to "sense" that there are important things afoot after you read something like this (even if there ain't). MOO! Gregory

Bella said...

Because further encouraging professors who so openly and obviously hate some of their students (i.e. white males, white male athletes, athletes, female lacrosse players who support the preceding groups, frat boys, anyone who disagrees with a professor, anyone who even takes a sip of alcohol within 30 miles of Duke, AND anyone who supports/associates with them) is a fantastic idea.

Eric said...

Also interesting is the assertion, by the humanities professors, that the humanities are specifically trying to "unmask domination and speak truth to power with the implicit belief that doing so will undermine and topple its control".

It's not research, it's revolution...

Anonymous said...

Note the prize to the awardees: a two-course workload reduction. The JHF Institute is a part of Duke. The whole thing is smarmily peculiar in the extreme.

Anonymous said...

Get a life, KC Johnson. What business is it of yours what kinds of fellowships/programs Duke has? In short: it's not your business. If you're on your Fulbright, I'd've thought you should be doing work connected with that, not sticking your nose in Duke's business.

I'm sure all of your right-wing blog buddies will think you're just great, but I think you should be ashamed. You've gone from defending the LAX to an on-going attack on a university, indeed, perhaps, attacking intellectual diversity, by going after that which you don't like. For shame.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, get a life all you blog hooligans! Hardt and Wiegman have found a sure way to improve Duke, and all you can do is complain. If they could get all of the G88 to take a two-course workload reduction the overall quality of instruction at Duke will rise markedly.

-RD

Gary Packwood said...

Texas Mom 7:12 said...

...No wonder critical thinking skills are not valued in the humanities any more.
::
Well, there is some hope if we can get it over to the students at Duke and recent graduates.

Critical Thinking
http://www.criticalthinking.org/
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Gary Packwood at 2:52, What is "critical thinking"? Many who engage in it for a living might well disagree with your definition. Or the one you linked.

If the situation in the humanities has been so bad for so many years, you would think that businesses would have noticed it and quit hiring humanities majors, especially those from Duke. What, are HR people so stupid or so blinded by the prestige of a Duke degree that they hire Duke graduates despite the fact said graduates have been taught/indoctrinated/insert whatever word you use ____ by these apparently worthless--and worse--scholars? No, probably not. Either the Duke faculty are better than you give them credit for or the indoctrination by "revolutionary," "Marxist," fill in your own insult ________ scholars really isn't taking place. I suspect both.

For the rest of you, if KC's Fulbright wasn't awarded to blog about Duke, aren't you going to complain that your tax money is being misspent? I feel as if mine is.

xutag77 said...

Does this mean that Duke should lose its tax-exemption?

AF said...

2:01
True that the attack on this "foundation" is reprehensible. RD @ 2:29 got it right. Give all the Klan of 88 one of these "gifts". If all receive an appointment, that means there will be at least 160 fewer classes in ridiculous studies.

5:44
Are you jealous of KC or what? Just because he can dissect every one of your pathetic statements with little more than 5th grade reasoning skills (because that's all he needs). Give him a challenge. Come up with some concept that doesn't reside in ridiculous race/sex/gender phobia.

mac said...

I would love to be a fly on the wall of a BoT emergency meeting now. If they have one. Seems as if it must be an emergency, since the idea of this latest initiative is to take over and dismantle the institution.

But then, the Duke BoT can't be all that smart, or all that interested, can it? They musta been drinking the water every time they visited the City of Duhh, which has lead in it, for real.

RD at 2:29 is right. An even better solution is to give them all fellowships that send them away, never to teach again, anywhere.

"Mau Mauing the Flak Catchers" has a lot of good startup concepts on how to begin with this counter-initiative, and Brodhead looks a whole lot like the quavering, sphincter-clenching bureaucrats that're described in the book.

mac said...

The alien is asked, in "Independance Day, if there's a chance for peace:

"No peace," he rasps through the vocal cords of the dead scientist.

When asked what he wants earth-people to do, he responds:

"Die! Die!"

This is what the program seems to imply, with regard to existing powers: just die. Move on out. We're taking over.

The analogy is apt, except for the fact that the alien in the movie seemed a whole lot warmer and fuzzier and lovable than Michael Hart and Wahneema Lubiano.

Anonymous said...

These people pose no threat. University politics are vicious only because the stakes are so small. This group of 88 and their minions will never matter. They pose NO THREAT to anyone but themselves and the students who squander 4 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars (of someone elses money) basking in all that ideological sunshine. They're going to find themselves seriously out to lunch. Destined for some racial quota job with the government. This is the era of wealth creation. C'mon, political ideologies focusing on victimization and wealth redistribution are archaic. Wealth creators....people capable of creating economic opportunity for others - they're the people will ensure the nations survivability. And they're busy vacuuming up ambitious, greed driven college graduates who understand economic globalization for the juggernaut that it is. Smart students understand that there are millions of well educated Pakistani's out there willing to pick up the slack. The nation's political complexion will ultimately conform to whatever accommodates and nurtures these people. The nation's tax base relies on them. African studies? Gender studies? Their charter is to create and stratify special interest agendas. Smokescreen. Marxist clowns have been with us for a century now. It's a tired story. They simply want stuff they're incapable of acquiring on their own. Successful people understand these weak-sisters for the losers they are. No threat.

bill anderson said...

The joke here is that these people insist they are "speaking truth to power." It seems, instead, that they have been "speaking lies in search of power."

Their lies were aimed at convicting three innocent young men for a rape that never occurred. Don't ever forget that Holloway, Wigman, and the others DESPERATELY wanted a rape conviction, and they openly told us they did not care about the truth. Remember Houston Baker's "who cares whether or not there was a rape" comment?

These people are about lies and nothing else.

Anonymous said...

KC has a LONG career harrassing anything at Duke that doens't match his vision of what a university should be. Lord knows he has little influence at Brooklyn College, and what inifluence he has doesn't much matter since it's Brooklyn College. And he is overseas on a fellowship made possible by his Republican and rightwing buddies--academic graf if there ever was such a thing--which means that he can blow off working on whatever project he said he was going to work on and instead blog about Duke! Way to go KC!

This stopped being about the Lacrosse accusations a long, long, long time ago, and has been the 'KC the righteous and aggrieved academic Show' for quite some time. It's all about KC! Why on earth do you think he spent so much time writing about Piot's article? Because it gets to be about him! (And by the way KC, just how long *did* you spend on that blog entry! It's gi-normous!)

Now we know the trutth! The Duke Lacrosse Scandal is about KC Johnson! He will be the Blog Decider of the World and say what is good and bad about anything at Duke! All Hail Wingnut KC! Yay!! LOLOLOL!!

jim2 said...

What I find so depressing about KC's post, is that I knew so many fine professors who convinced me that they enjoyed teaching the liberal arts. They stated that their goals were for their students to develop an active engagement with knowledge, and not to be just the passive recipients of facts, or the regurgitators of the opinions of others.

Their stated goals were for us students to develop pesonal positions based not upon the authority of parents, peers, or professors, and not upon ignorance, whim, or prejudice, but upon personal examination and evaluation of argument and evidence. Logic, rhetoric, philosophy, music, poetry, etc. were all classes intended to help us develop the habit of organized thinking and the tools of rational analysis.

I think - I so dearly hope! - that the great majority of the professors out there in academia are still like the ones I had. I feel that it would be a very bad thing for our nation if the liberal arts portion of academia has truly become dominated by the Group88 or Angry Studies folk and their ilk.

Jack said...

How ironic, a Board of "trustees"

Ralph Phelan said...

I think I'm going to be sick. Will this nonsense ever end?

These professors obviously feel quite comfortable in their environment and will continue to be safe as long as Brodhead supports them and the BOT supports Brodhead. The whole lousy lot has to go.

Grafton Potter
T '68


It's not just Brodhead, and it's not just Duke.

Chances are good that your tax money is helping support this program.

It's a certainty that your tax money is supporting equally egregious programs at other universities in America.

The solution to this behavior on the part of academia as a whole will come not through the any university's BOT but through the US Congress. Follow the money!

If you want to help send a message to all universities, support HR 3675.

Duke parent 2004 said...

Where have you folks been these past thirty years? There are thousands of courses across the fruited plain that resemble those being promoted by Duke's Franklin Institute. Why do you think David Horowitz gets pies thrown at him when he speaks at our degraded colleges?

Read Walter Williams's article posted today at www.townhall.com on "Academic Cesspools," a review of the documentary "Indoctrinate U." It ain't pretty, and it's not likely to improve much until several generations of the barbarians assume room temperature.

gwallan said...

Anonymous @2:01 AM said...
Get a life, KC Johnson. What business is it of yours what kinds of fellowships/programs Duke has? In short: it's not your business. If you're on your Fulbright, I'd've thought you should be doing work connected with that, not sticking your nose in Duke's business.

Even we foreign, lefty libertarians plan to continue attacking the frauds represented by the G88. KC has shown us how. The angry studies charlatans in my country are in for a rude awakening.



I'm sure all of your right-wing blog buddies will think you're just great, but I think you should be ashamed. You've gone from defending the LAX to an on-going attack on a university, indeed, perhaps, attacking intellectual diversity, by going after that which you don't like. For shame.

This was never simply about defending the Duke LAX players. It was about the undermining of the most fundamental principles of democracy and freedom in a place that should be leading their defence.

The G88 and their like demonstrate neither intellect nor diversity. They disguise their poor scholarship with mangled language. Rather than demonstrating true diversity they demand that everybody marches to the same drum. They are fantacists, and extremely poor ones at that.


I have finally tracked down what I believe to be the single well spring of their work.
Communications From Elsewhere

Best if read all the way from top to bottom. Click your reload button for subsequent installments.

The Failure of Sexual identity: Surrealism and modernist nationalism is particularly good.

Anonymous said...

As someone who has gone to Duke, sent other family members there, paid full tuition, served on boards at Duke, served on aaa committees, and given a lot more in $ than I could afford (and a ton more than to my other schools--2 Ivies), I believe that anyone who cares about Duke (like K C does) should speak truth to lies. Many of the Group of 88(89, if President Brodhead is included as one 88er has stated) have demonstrated they are craven, lacking intelligence, and are unfit to teach at Duke. Perhaps they should consider countries and systems where their propaganda and hate ,along with their techniques, would be more welcome: Iran., North Korea, Cuba, Burma, and China. These folks got where they are because of race, hate, group mind think, and political ideology. The students at Duke have got them figured out, as the alumni and other friends of Duke.They are deer in a torchlight...exposed.Duke Family of 5 grads.Save Duke University!!

Anonymous said...

Give it up folks. I hear the President and Provost, with the approval of the BOT, named the Franklin Humanities Institute one of the seven (maybe it'ssix) new "signature" centers at Duke, rewarding them with mega cash infusions and high stature. They not only get to do this, but do it with the highlight of what Duke does right. Don't forget who it is named for.

Shouting Thomas said...

"These people pose no threat."

You are wrong. Beginning in about 1998, kids who had been indoctrinated in this crap began to appear in the workforce.

Executives, motivated by fear of lawsuit, began to buy into the "diversity" con game. Every HR department in the country hired some young (usually white and upper middle class) woman to cleanse the corporation of sexism, racism and homophobia.

The diversity con artists then began (just like the Duke scam artists) to invent the very problem that they were purportedly hired to solve. If racism, sexism and homophobia could not be proven to exist in concrete incidents... no problem. These ills existed "structurally" and could not be seen. Thus, the diversity scam artists ensured themselves of perpetual employment.

The terrorist campaign hatched in the Marxist enclaves like Duke is now entrenched in every workplace in the country. I admit that it has flattened out, as white men have fought back with counter suits and internal complaints. However, in the years from 98 through 01, the diversity scam artists launched a total war against hetero white men in the workplace.

Managers were rewarded with bonuses and gold stars in portfolios for promoting the favored women, blacks and gays over white hetero men. (This resulted in an odd phenomenon among a few young white men. They pretended to be gay for the perks.) Gay white men, not surprisingly, became the darlings of the office. Why? Black men, the preferred quota target continue to refuse to get an education no matter how many set asides they received. So, they really don't exist in the office in large enough numbers to promote.

During the worst of this period, workers had to sit through Maoist re-education sessions in which they were lectured about the evils of their ancestry... at their place of employment!

I'll repeat once again... swag is everything in this all out war over patronage. The diversity scam artists have discovered a virtually bullet proof weapon to use against hetero white men... the "discrimination" game. Anything that favors hetero white men (such as actual qualifications, work ethic, etc.) is countered with charges of discrimination.

Hetero white men are virtually defenseless... except for those who are really clever, like KC, who know how to play the game back against the scam artists. We are all assumed to be born to wealth and privilege and judged guilty of the sins of the past. Individual absolutions cannot be granted. In leftist communities, there is only one path to power among hetero white men... denouncing other hetero white men.

Hetero white men will continue to be virtually defenseless until we recognize this for what it is... an all out war for swag. The "discrimination" gambit works, because hetero white men have agreed to do what no other group will agree to... abandon their own self interest. In the aftermath of the civil rights era of the 60s and early 70s, hetero white men caved in. We bought the absurd theory that there was something uniquely evil about hetero white men. The truth is that hetero white men are remarkably generous, civil and law abiding. And, this is being used against us. We are patsies.

KC, when will you recognize this for the battle over swag that it is?

no justice, no peace said...

It was disappointing to see that part of Finnerty's, Evan's, and Seligmann's settlement did NOT include renaming the Franklin Center after them.

Wouldn't it be rich to have the frauds forced to enter the building under the masthead with the names of those they so despise?

Anonymous said...

To: 5:52pm

Good observation, but image is everything and I don't think the absence of substantive content in the curriculum matters. For a young adults first job the only thing that matters for work outside the sciences, engineering, or business trade (like accounting or finance) is the name of the institution on his/her resume. Pretty sad, but I think prevalent.

Ralph Phelan said...

Gregory 10/16/07 11:26 PM


"Imaginary" is something like "belief system" or "mythology" or "cultural practices and institutions" ... I'm not sure axactly what, as all definitions of it I've found on line are deliberately obfuscatory and vague.

However if you substitute the above definitions into the talk description you can see it actually is about something - the transfer of various cultural "stuff" from the US to India alongside of technology.

This work is not ocmpletely meaningless - just unnessecarily incomprhensible in language, and most likely assuming unfounded political conclusions.

traveler said...

gs said...
I give up, what is:

The Alternative Political Imaginaries

To gs, Is that a trick question?

Anonymous said...

Could somebody please post a link where i can see a copy of the original "Listening Statement" for some reason all the sites related to Duke have pulled it. Perhaps its publication is "pending" but in the meantine I'd like to make a hard copy. Thank you.

Stephen said...

KC:

As a Duke alum and current Duke parent, your post stimulated me to learn about John Hope Franklin and the JHF Institute at Duke. Of course Googling led me first to Wiki, where I discovered two connections to your post, in excerpts pasted at the end of my comment.

The first was that JHF was once the chair of your institution's history department, and led me to wonder what his view is of the scholarship that is currently going on at Duke, to some degree "in his name". The second was to see that historic term "tarred and feathered" used by another notable Afrian-American historian in praising JHF's work, without any racial connotations whatsoever - one of thousands of examples proving the "intellectually unsustainable allegations of racism against Steve Baldwin" made by Robyn Wiegman, as noted in the second paragraph of your post.

That quote below praising JHF's courage is also notable and prophetic that "we may be heading again into a period when the free concourse of ideas in the academy will have a price put upon it" - which occurs when faux charges of racism are launched by those whose scholarship is subject to rigorous discussion and challenge.

From Wiki on John Hope Franklin:

Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Levering Lewis said that while he was deciding to become a historian, news came that Franklin, his mentor, had been named departmental chairman at Brooklyn College. "Now that certainly is a distinction. It had never happened before that a person of color had chaired a major history department. That meant a lot to me. If I had doubt about (the) viability of a career in history, that example certainly help put to rest such concerns." [5]

In researching his prize-winning biographies of W.E.B. Du Bois, Lewis said he became aware of Franklin's "courage during that period in the 1950s when Du Bois became an un-person, when many progressives were tarred and feathered with the brush of subversion. John Hope Franklin was a rock; he was loyal to his friends. In the case of W.E.B. Du Bois, Franklin spoke out in his defense, not (about) Du Bois' communism, but of the right of an intellectual to express ideas that were not popular. I find that admirable. It was a high risk to take and we may be heading again into a period when the free concourse of ideas in the academy will have a price put upon it. In the final years of an active teaching career, I will have John Hope Franklin's example of high scholarship, great courage and civic activism." [6]

6.http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_23_21/ai_n8706839

Anonymous said...

I love the way those that want to disagree can't argue the facts, so they attack the writer. Just proves the point, doesn't it?

Of course, a lot of the people KC focuses on don't know how to argue the FACTS. They wouldn't know a fact if it hit 'em in the head.

Anonymous said...

These academic posers are not liberal. They are communal, pacifistic libertines struggling to release themselves from the experience called "adulthood". Having outgrown comic books, they now find enlightenment in the editorial pages of the free hip-culture-and-entertainment weekly throwaways. Their theme song is "Imagine", and they think that its laments are attainable in real life.

Their "trip", first and foremost, is intellectually financed by clinging to discredited Marxism. There was a time in the past century when theoretical economic systems hadn't yet been tested, and the science of economics was pubescent. There was a time when Econ departments sheltered some of the biggest dreamers on campus. But that was then and this is now. Things have become rational. All of those big government and central planning models - and their variants - have been field tested multiple times in multiple countries, and have been found inferior in performance and efficiency to lightly-fettered free-market systems. But do those lab results ever penetrate the thick skulls of the Imaginers? Econ has grown up, and is much more mature than, say, global warming research. Guess which one holds the most appeal to the Lennonites?

"Imaginaries..." To be blunt, it's comparable to what fourteen-year olds do under their covers when their brains are being overpowered by their hormones, too.

Anonymous said...

If there's an upside to all of this, it's that Institute award recipients will be teaching fewer classes, thereby exposing fewer students to their nonsense. They don't do serious research, can't write well enough to reach an audience beyond the confines of their own insular community, and don't publish except in marginal journals or on a "forthcoming" basis. Add to this their demonstrable inability to debate, necessitating "speech codes" to protect them from having to, and the utter uselessness of their ideas in the marketplace, their prospects for survival are dicey at best. They face academic extinction within a generation.

They rely on political power to maintain their status, and at present they enjoy the prestige of university sanction and funding. But this won't insure their future, either. In 1948, serious genetic research in the Soviet Union was declared "bourgeois psedoscience," and Lysenko's politically-correct Michurianism was official Soviet academic doctrine throughout the Stalinist era. The effects on Soviet agriculture were disastrous. Mao borrowed the doctrine for his Great Leap Forward with the same results. Several millions had to starve to death, but Lysenkoism is dead as a doornail.

Anonymous said...

After a one-month search process, Donna Lisker, director of the Women's Center, was named associate dean of undergraduate education Tuesday.

Anonymous said...

re: 10/17 5:44 AM

For the rest of you, if KC's Fulbright wasn't awarded to blog about Duke, aren't you going to complain that your tax money is being misspent? I feel as if mine is.

Given KC's demonstrable workaholism and prodigious scholarship– in addition to this blog– it's doubtful that anyone is going to accept your baseless calumny. (You ladies never actually try to prove anything, do you?)

On the other hand, were it so, I'd kinda like the idea of my tax dollars going for something besides diversity and angry studies grants.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, 7:37, you said it better than I could. I can't imagine anything good about this blog except that it shows the rest of us where we can go to read the latest in craziness all in one place! KC and the Loons. (Don't you just wonder how difficult it will be for the Liberal Arts--especially history--at Brooklyn to recruit with someone like Johnson on the faculty?


Jim2 at 8:06: Are you so unsure of yourself that KC Johnson's blog would convince you that your liberal arts teachers all lied to you?

8:34: You sound like you are a product of an education in Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Burma [sic!], or China. Let's attack those who think differently than we do. Why don't you just send your kids to Bob Jones U. or Oral Roberts?

traveler said...

Re: Sexual normativities
I have to admit that I was not knowledgeable about the less than classic study subjects mentioned.

I chose, sexual normativities, to research information for a better understanding of the course possibilities.

My first screen issued a warning that I was about to view adult content,and I had to assert that I was an adult.

One of the first search entries was the 2002 annual American Studies Association Meeting.

There was a schedule of the roundtable discussion topics with a referenced article. The meeting was well attended by Duke professors.

I admit to cherry picking the titles, but I request praise for brevity. There were dozens of obvious page turners.

Are Negroes More Amorous Than Whites?

Converting Sexuality in the U.S. Christian Right

Queer Desire and Subjectivity within Postmodern Geographies

Feeling Backward: Queer Allegories of Refusal

The Erect Male: Carving Masculinity in American Folk Art

The Naughty Girls from Honolulu Do the Naughty Hula Dance": Performing Hawai'i in the Imperial U.S.


Note: No hate here!

Left Critique and the War on "Terror" (ROUNDTABLE)
CHAIR:
Robyn Wiegman, Women's Studies Program, Duke University
PANELISTS:
Wahneema Lubiano, Department of Literature, Duke University

http://asa.press.jhu.edu/program02/friday.html

Anonymous said...

There's an even better link. Drum roll....
Question: Who are founding co-directors of the John Hope Franklin Center?

Answer: Cathy Davidson and Karla Holloway.

http://news.duke.edu/2000/10/johnhopeo06.html

Anonymous said...

9:52, So show me how KC Johnson is a workaholic? Prodigious schoarlship? I don't think so. Where are his sources? In the US, true? In English, true? Many published, true? Not so difficult to produce a narrative, is it? Or do you know? What are you comparing his output with?

Now, if KC had a life, maybe he'd spend time on that rather than this blog.

Sorry, Charlie, not a baseless calumny. An assertion of fact. But, I'm thinking you and your boys wouldn't recognize truth if it walked up and bit you on the but.

I'm opposed to angry studies, too, we just define it differently. And angry blogsters, but I figure you will all die of clogged arteries soon enough! YIPPEEEEE!!!

Anonymous said...

Dear 9:33, One of the fun, fun things about die fakts is how they can be twisted. KC do a right good job. And he never, never make a mistake. No, sirree, Bob. KC be right excellent faktmeister.


The best part is all of the people who believe every last word he writes. Amazing.

jamil hussein said...

I think it would be good idea to split all universities into two separate institutions:

University of Real Sciences
This would be similar to what Universities used to be decades (or centuries) ago.

School of Indoctrination, Activism, and Meta-Narratism
Here they don't have to bother with "whiteness" restrictions (e.g. laws of physics, scholarly reviews, honesty). Personal rants and posters are worth of PhD dissertation, hear-say and fifth-hand rumours are valid proof and grade retaliation for people of wrong skin color or gender are ok. Naturally, race and gender privileges are essential part of admission and tenure process. Mandatory re-education camps are available for those with wrong political opinions (or gender or skin color).

inman said...

The concept espoused in the last paragraph of this news article is surely born of the politicized humanaties scholarship.

The definition of "hate crime" may one day be extended to include seemingly benign comments on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Some moron asked:


If the situation in the humanities has been so bad for so many years, you would think that businesses would have noticed it and quit hiring humanities majors, especially those from Duke.


The only Duke grads I have seen in the companies that create the wealth that America lives off have been from the science and engineering areas.

Steven Horwitz said...

Anon at 933 says:

Their theme song is "Imagine", and they think that its laments are attainable in real life.

Best one sentence summary of the intellectual problem with many radical Left humanities faculty yet. That the social sciences are in the business of putting parameters on our utopias has not sufficiently been appreciated by many of those folks, suffice it to say.

I used the lyrics to "Imagine" as part of a prompt for a final exam question in my Comparative Econ course for many years. I always thought that if students could both understand the history of the well-intentioned impulse behind those lyrics and the reasons why those good intentions don't translate into a workable set of social institutions, they had learned something very useful.

Anonymous said...

I thought a student went to college to study Literature, History, Math, Science, Music, Anthropology, Medicine.....etc. Courses that broaden their horizens and give them a solid base to make a positive contribution to society. These students are to take these teachings and apply them to their choice of career, but to also learn make the world a better place. These professors at Duke and it seems in alot of the colleges and universities in their humanities departments teach anything but humanities. They teach hate, racism, radicalism, they disorient the students and separate them taking their opportunity to understand the world on their own terms and come to their own opinions. Instead they shove their opinions and agendas down their throats and god forbid a student disagrees. What a scary thought that students are afraid to speak up in class afraid of what the repercussions would be from that professor. At Duke even the administration and other teachers have been afraid to speak up and have been shut down when they do try to voice their opionions. To hell with affirmative action. It has allowed the AA and the activists, feminists, extremists in this country to run rampant. It is time to pull back the reins as now the Constitution is been stepped on like a piece of trash.

Anonymous said...

5:29 PM

"Will this nonsense nver end?"

No, it will not end. This is the reality of acacemia. It is the reality that drove the lacrosse case no matter what the facts or lack of fact. When they, these racist, sexist, class individuals speak of "truth to power," it is both their truth and their power that underline the dialectic. They are speaking to the mob to create their own power. They can motivate a mob that carries signs saying "Castrate" without a hint of hypocrisy as they argue for civil rights as if those rights and protections are just for them. They still do not see the injustice and ignorance of their positon, and it is this that has, as much as anything, created such a reaction among so many who post on these blogs. These people are sheer tyrants and protected.

AMac said...

Anon 9:29am asked about the Listening Statement. A picture and its text can be found here. The Statement formatted as a Word file, here.

Serial Anonymous posters--your arguments (anti-KC or pro) will come across better if you use an identifiable pseudonym.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 9:29 said...
...Could somebody please post a link where i can see a copy of the original "Listening Statement" for some reason all the sites related to Duke have pulled it. Perhaps its publication is "pending" but in the meantine I'd like to make a hard copy. Thank you.
::
There is a link to the Listening Statement on the front page of this blog (DIW). On the right side of the front page.
::
GP

AMac said...

Few things in life are all good or all bad. Enabling comments on a blog is one of those things in the middle.

Rightly or not, fairly or not, the Comments to this blog have provided KC's enemies in academia with more grist for their mills than any other single thing.

Academic blogger Greg Mankiw just shut his comments off. Explanation at 'Why Comments are Gone' (via Insty).

duke09parent said...

Well, gang the above string has an unusually large number of very good essays.

Anon at 7:48 pm 10/16: I love your label "Anti-Leftist Liberal" I am declaring myself one, too. The thought and behavior control desires of the American Right has as little appeal to me as the Left.

Anon 8:27 pm 10/16: Excellent point about the leftist humanities cultural warriors ignorance of history of political philosophical thought. Those folk probably ignore Hobbes, Rousseau, Hegel and even classical Marx because those guys are all white European males.

Anon dissenter at 5:44 am today:
You give this alternative on explaining why Duke graduates have not been brainwashed: "Either the Duke faculty are better than you give them credit for or the indoctrination by "revolutionary," "Marxist," fill in your own insult ________ scholars really isn't taking place." It isn't taking place because most Duke students are smarter than these cultural warrior profs give them credit for. Those students are pretty good at seeing through the B.S.

Anon at 7:16 am today: Your argument that these academic culture warriors are not a threat is persuaive: "Wealth creators....people capable of creating economic opportunity for others - they're the people will ensure the nations survivability. And they're busy vacuuming up ambitious, greed driven college graduates who understand economic globalization for the juggernaut that it is." Long term I agree with you. But these wealth creators are ignoring the erosion of individual rights and freedoms caused by attacks from the right(the ironically named "Patriot Act") and the left (controls on free speech by organized attacks on anything but politically correct commentary). And the current ascendancy of the left in the Democratic Party, enabled by the Bush misadventure in Iraq and civil rights abuses in the name of security, is very worrisome in the short term (next 10 years, say).

I am surprised at the frankness, a bit disguised by its obscure writing style, of the JHF program statement. It is certainly a manifesto for their side in the cultural wars.

Thanks again, KC, for shedding more of that disinfectant light on this growing bacteria.

Signed,
Another Anti-Leftist Liberal

Steven Horwitz said...

Folks might find this article on academic freedom of interest.

The first half is, IMO, pretty good, but the second half slides from concerns about academic freedom to issues of curricular and faculty "balance" without making that distinction clear enough. And the latter half also sees him engaging, to some degree, in the same failure he sees in others to distinguish "criticism" and the choices that faculty make from true "censorship."

Anonymous said...

This is all pretty grim stuff, but “Durham in Wonderland” participants out to be able to exhibit a little more sophistication than some of the hopelessly parochial Duke faculty. To begin with, don’t believe everything you read, such as the claim that “almost all humanities scholarship is now considered political in one sense or another, whether it names its political intention or not .” I taught the humanities for many years—including “Great Books” courses, broad historical surveys, and very specialized topics on a variety of topics. I have published numerous books on such topics. And I have had literally thousands of students pass through my classrooms. You will have noticed by now that most of the Duke faculty who show up frequently on this blog live in a tightly circumscribed self-referential world. Perhaps among their group it is true that “almost all humanities scholarship is now considered political in one sense or another, whether it names its political intention or not”. That would not amount to all that much scholarship even were it true, but I don’t think it is even for them. It is not true for me, or for most of my humanities colleagues across the country.

The term “humanities” derives from the Latin phrase “litterae humaniores”. That is what the “classics” used to be called and still are in a few places. The phrase means “the more humane branches of literature”. It is meant to distinguish secular literature from the “sacred page,” as the Bible was called in the schools and universities of the Middle Ages. Today the “humanities” cover a much wider range of the cultural achievements of the human race, but the focus is still on the constructs of the human mind and spirit. Most of us who study these subjects are far from believing that they can all be reduced to something “political”. Most of us approach our subject with delight, with respect, and often with awe. Most of us are very far from believing that the great artifacts of human culture are a kind of giant Rorschach test, interesting only for what we have to say about them. There is indeed a crisis in the humanities, but it is not that by and large humanists concur that “almost all humanities scholarship is now considered political in one sense or another, whether it names its political intention or not”.

A second point has to do with undergraduate students. Many of today’s posts imply that students are intellectual pushovers, easily misled by the gobbledygook of any smooth-tongued professor. In my experience students tend to be both intelligent and independent minded. Certainly if we believe the boasts of our admissions officers they are. Most students do defer to their professors in the sense that they begin with the assumption that their teachers are worthy of their moral and intellectual respect. But the moment they conclude that the assumption was mistaken, they vote with their feet. Students, tolerant though they tend to be, rightly demand respect as well. They are keenly aware of shoddy teaching, inadequate preparation, lazy grading of their papers, and, yes, intellectual fraud. It may take them a while to get it, but they do get it. And naturally they react adversely to the realization that their professors don’t like them, indeed perhaps despise them, on account of their race, class, gender, or preferred extracurricular activities. Finally, students do not arrive on the Duke or any other campus as empty vessels simply waiting to be filled with any value system offered them. They arrive with values derived from their family experience, their religious traditions, and their own independent reading and thinking. It is true that their value systems are often somewhat fragile and tentative; but I have never met a freshman yet so wet behind the ears as to be ready to leap for the first “alternative imaginary” on offer. Common sense may be in short supply, but it has not vanished utterly from the earth. In the history of the Great Rape Hoax, many Duke students displayed quite a lot of it.

Anonymous said...

KC,

I repeat. Get a life.

Richard Aubrey said...

Coupla questions:

What proportion of current Duke students read this blog?
Ditto their parents?
Ditto prospective Duke applicants and their parents?

Do the Humanities folks who see their role as...whatever it is...make that clear in the course outline?
Or do they pretend to be real teachers?

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 5:44 said...

...Gary Packwood at 2:52, What is "critical thinking"? Many who engage in it for a living might well disagree with your definition. Or the one you linked.
::
I understand. You are creating a mote around your job filled with water and things that bite.

When in doubt just change the definition of 'work' and your jobs will be insulated from those who think critically.

Now you need to 'work' on your description of HR. Hiring managers hire new employees and those hiring managers are not HR people unless of course the job is an HR job.

And, of course you are going to try and change that definition also whereby HR folks are in charge.

Keep up your marketing campaign. It might work! Or, might not.
::
GP

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 10:16 said...

...There's an even better link. Drum roll....
Question: Who are founding co-directors of the John Hope Franklin Center?

Answer: Cathy Davidson and Karla Holloway.

http://news.duke.edu/2000/10/johnhopeo06.html
::
Ah! And here I thought our former Enron executives were advising business frauds in Latin America.

Thanks for the link. Most interesting.
::
GP

jim2 said...

Anon- at 10:08 AM

You posted:

+++++++++++
Jim2 at 8:06: Are you so unsure of yourself that KC Johnson's blog would convince you that your liberal arts teachers all lied to you?
++++++++++

I find your interpretation of my words to be ridiculous.

My undergrad experience was decades ago. My fear is that that the current rot that KC has well-documented to be the case within a considerable part of the Duke liberal arts establishment is representative of elsewhere at Duke and other universities.

Yours might have been an honest misunderstanding. I hope so, for your sake. I pray that it is not simply fresh evidence of the agenda-driven-drivel that the liberal arts academia may be turning out now.

Anonymous said...

10:30 AM

At least, you refer to the facts. The DukeGroup88 did not need any "facts." They and their pot-banging cohorts created "fact" out of their own scholarship and almost produced a lynching. This appears to be the only "fact" they are capable of producing. Millions of dollars later and still counting the facts are still being sought out and sifted through without the slightest help from these erstwhile scholars who knew the "truth" and banged pots so to speak as it were, but then they are important to the narrative for without them this whole affair might have been resolved, but then it is so much fun for Brer Fox Johnson ro ramble the bramble of the intellectual briar patch called the DukeGroup88.

Anonymous said...

Could the critic(s) of KC Johnson in this thread please kindly stop using generalities, actually quote or cite something Johnson has said, and then show us why it's wrong? If you do, then just maybe people will listen to you the way they have listened to Johnson.

Alas, there are very few points on which you can do that. That's why you resort to ad hominem attacks, vague generalities, and misrepresentations of what Johnson is saying.

Anonymous said...

Brief comments on various points made above (Excuse the failure to reference "anon" at so-and-so)

"And 'speak truth to power'? I can't say anything; it's too easy. Please: is there a Duke insider out there who can confirm that at least in private Wiegman and co. acknowledge their utter failure to speak truth to CORRUPT power when the opportunity presented itself? Even if they are unwilling to acknowledge such a failing publicly, I would hope that they could admit it privately."

Actually, it's worse -- because more brazen -- in private. Here, as a small sample, are what G88-type faculty say behind the scences.

"My goal is to rid undergraduates of their naive belief in individualism."

"I would present students with an argument for capitalism, but I can't think of one."

"If we get control of key administrative positions, we can keep conservative ideas out of the classroom."

Re the notion that humanities "education" at Duke must be good because companies keep recruiting Duke students.

Those students are prized because they are intelligent, ambitious, hard working, entrepreunerial -- traits they possessed long before entering Duke. Those students deserve massive credit for maintaining those character traits *in spite of* their deplorable humanities "education."

Years ago, when this phenomenon was still a mystery to me, I asked a former student -- who was a history major and who now is a successful entrepreneuer -- what he did as an undergrad to make himself so marketable to companies. He told me that most of his liberal arts courses were boring and worthless, but that he did a lot of summer internships at companies and spent a lot of time in the library reading business magazines. This strategy, I have come to learn, is common for Duke students.

"What always strikes me about the focus on politics in the humanities is how little knowledge of political theory or history humanities scholars typically show."

In my view, this is the fundamental tragedy. Centuries of important knowledge are being lost and not being taught to students.

I often ask my seniors, majoring in history, literature, and even economics if they know, for example: any major events of ancient Greece, the Dark Ages, the Renaissance; the works of John Locke, Hobbes, Bastiat, Say, von Mises, Shakespeare, Sophocles, Dante.

The overwhelming response is a blank stare.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

10/17 10:28 AM:

9:52, So show me how KC Johnson is a workaholic? Prodigious schoarlship[sic]? I don't think so. Where are his sources? In the US, true? In English, true? Many published, true? Not so difficult to produce a narrative, is it? Or do you know? What are you comparing his output with?

Proof that he's a workaholic? Geez, I've lost count of the dozens of referenced articles and thousands of words that comprise his blog, Durham in Wonderland, alone. In addition to a widely-read general audience book– Until Proven Innocent– and a scholarly work– Congress and the Cold War (Cambridge University Press, 2005), which just received the 2007 D. B. Hardeman Prize, a prestigious annual award for a scholarly publication about Congress– all produced within the same timeframe. In addition to 6 other books and over a dozen scholarly articles and book chapters. Scholarly prodigiousness compared to whom? Try, oh, Associate Professor Wahneema Lubiano of Duke University's pathetic output (1 book chapter since 1994, 1 article since 1999, 2 books have been listed as "forthcoming" for years-- doubtful that they'll be published in your lifetime) for comparison purposes. Now please stop pretending to be stupid.

Sorry, Charlie, not a baseless calumny [i.e., that KC is spending his Fulbright Scholarship on this blog]. An assertion of fact.

An assertion of fact without a shred of evidence presented to back it up. Please stop being lazy.

But, I'm thinking you and your boys wouldn't recognize truth if it walked up and bit you on the but [sic].

And, really, please learn to write without using trite, overused, and strikingly inappropriate metaphors. Strikingly inappropriate in that you've just had yours handed to you.

anon@9:52, but you can call me "dave"

scott said...

My dictionary defines "Imaginaries" as

Having existence only in the imagination; unreal

Hmmmmm ... that would be like the rape claimed by Mangum. The one that was the source for the Listening Ad (Charles Piot's denial notwithstanding) that was signed by the G88.

The link between imaginaries and the G88 goes far beyond any fellowships being offered by Duke next year.

Anonymous said...

Bravo, 11:33 and Duke Prof@12:10, bravo.

dave

mac said...

It looks like the Dilbert Principle is being applied (a variant of the Peter Principle.)

To apply the principle here:

Promote the worst professors to positions high enough that they cannot harm the students or the institution, or cause them to be placed in legal jeopardy. I would conclude that having a two-classload reduction is a fine example of the Dilbert Principle.

Anonymous said...

*** P O S T O F T H E W E E K ***

Anonymous said...

These academic posers are not liberal. They are communal, pacifistic libertines struggling to release themselves from the experience called "adulthood". Having outgrown comic books, they now find enlightenment in the editorial pages of the free hip-culture-and-entertainment weekly throwaways. Their theme song is "Imagine", and they think that its laments are attainable in real life.

Their "trip", first and foremost, is intellectually financed by clinging to discredited Marxism. There was a time in the past century when theoretical economic systems hadn't yet been tested, and the science of economics was pubescent. There was a time when Econ departments sheltered some of the biggest dreamers on campus. But that was then and this is now. Things have become rational. All of those big government and central planning models - and their variants - have been field tested multiple times in multiple countries, and have been found inferior in performance and efficiency to lightly-fettered free-market systems. But do those lab results ever penetrate the thick skulls of the Imaginers? Econ has grown up, and is much more mature than, say, global warming research. Guess which one holds the most appeal to the Lennonites?

"Imaginaries..." To be blunt, it's comparable to what fourteen-year olds do under their covers when their brains are being overpowered by their hormones, too.

10/17/07 9:33 AM


submitted by RRH

Anonymous said...

AF said (in the voice of the 89): “KC really knows how to trick us into admitting our sins. At this rate, I may be in confession at the turn of the NEXT century. Yours truly, Dicky Boardhead.”

I have read just a little about IndoctrinateU, but I imagine there are people claiming that the premise of the documentary is preposterous. Then, the Gang of 88 comes out with this fellowship. As Chevy Chase might say, the Gang’s timing is "not ... not good."

______________

Ralph Phelan said...

" ‘Imaginar[ies]’ is something like ‘belief system’ or ‘mythology’ or ‘cultural practices and institutions’ ... I'm not sure exactly what, as all definitions of it I've found on line are deliberately obfuscatory and vague.

However if you substitute the above definitions into the talk description you can see it actually is about something - the transfer of various cultural ‘stuff’ from the US to India alongside of technology.

This work is not completely meaningless - just unnecessarily incomprehensible in language, and most likely assuming unfounded political conclusions.”

I think you are right, Ralph! Thanks. I still believe “we are supposed to ‘sense’ that there are important things afoot after you read something like this.” Like a New Yorker comic, the communication was specifically designed and tested, for some reason, to go over our heads.

It could be that the speaker has something IMPORTANT to say, but he has wasted a valuable opportunity. On the other hand, the speaker may be disguising the fact that he does not have something important to say. MOO! Gregory

Ralph Phelan said...

"To begin with, don’t believe everything you read, such as the claim that “almost all humanities scholarship is now considered political in one sense or another, whether it names its political intention or not .” I taught the humanities for many years—including “Great Books” courses, broad historical surveys, and very specialized topics on a variety of topics. I have published numerous books on such topics. And I have had literally thousands of students pass through my classrooms. You will have noticed by now that most of the Duke faculty who show up frequently on this blog live in a tightly circumscribed self-referential world. Perhaps among their group it is true that “almost all humanities scholarship is now considered political in one sense or another, whether it names its political intention or not”. That would not amount to all that much scholarship even were it true, but I don’t think it is even for them. It is not true for me, or for most of my humanities colleagues across the country."

Duke's administration seems to agree with the statement - at least to the degree that they're willing to support it with Duke's money.
A quick scan of the titles at an MLA conference support the claim.
The Michael Bellesisle scandal supports the claim.
Any recent experience on an "elite" college campus supports the claim.

"Most of us approach our subject with delight, with respect, and often with awe."
I'm going to need more than an unsupported assertion from an unnamed commentator who doesn't even tell us what sort of institution he teaches at before I give the above any evidentiary weight.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the Duke "Alternative Political Imaginaries" faculty fellowship has any connection beyond the title to the project of the same name by Judith Halberstam of USC.

"Judith Halberstam is a renowned gender theorist, specializing in cultural studies, queer theory and visual culture. She demonstrates that female masculinity is not in imitation of virility, but a lively and dramatic staging of hybrid and minority genders. Halberstam has also written a book examining queer temporality—queer uses of time and space that are developed in opposition to the institutions of family, heterosexuality, and reproduction. She is currently working on a project about "Alternative Political Imaginaries.""

In a 2005 lecture by Robyn Wiegman at the international conference, "Heteronormativity - A Fruitful Concept?" she refers to the work of Halberstam.

Anonymous said...

Kc,
I find "political imaginaries " to be as content free as ,say,"purple Fahrenheit".Have any of your collegues given voice to the type of banalities these idiots create?

Ralph Phelan said...

Steve Horwitz said:

And the latter half also sees him engaging, to some degree, in the same failure he sees in others to distinguish "criticism" and the choices that faculty make from true "censorship."

You compare the group consisting of "criticism" and "the choices that faculty make" to "true censorship."

I would group those three things the other way:
"Criticism" in the sense of someone expressing an opinion, is much very different in kind from
"the decisions faculty make" about who will and who won't speak on campus, who will and who won't be employed, what will or what won't be taught in class, what will or won't be published in a given journal.

Those decisions risk being much closer in kind to "true censorship" in the sense of deliberate attempts to impede the communications of those you disagree with. In practice the only difference I can see is the honesty and integrity of those making the decisions.

Having lost my trust in them, it seems fair to me to describe the politically driven imbalance of views on campus as, if not "true censorship," at the very least a close relative.

Ralph Phelan said...

"On the other hand, the speaker may be disguising the fact that he does not have something important to say."

Most "theory" laden fields seem to specialize in using vague language and inappropriate models to make their progress as inefficient as possible, so as to stretch a MS thesis' worth of material into an entire career.

Anonymous said...

Dave, If KC is in Israel on his Fulbright as he said he would be, he's spending Fulbright time on the blog. If he's not there, he's not. It's not rocket science.

Anonymous said...

PS, Dave, I rather suspect the CUP book you mention with the prestigious prize (check the number of competitors) was completed before the blog started. Most scholarly books have a several month referee cycle and then go through copy-editing and proofs. I think you'll find the research and writing was probably completed before spring 2006.

The non-scholarly volume UPI and the blog are exactly that: non-scholarly.

If someone claims KC Johnson is very productive, I ask in terms of whom? If he's working with easily available sources, and in English, I guess I expect him to produce books with some regularity.

Anonymous said...


anonymous at 8:34 AM said ...

As someone who has gone to Duke, sent other family members there, paid full tuition, served on boards at Duke, served on aaa committees, and given a lot more in $ than I could afford (and a ton more than to my other schools--2 Ivies), I believe that anyone who cares about Duke (like K C does) should speak truth to lies.

anonymous 88ist at 10:08 claimed that 8:34's position could be summarized as ....

"Let's attack those who think differently than we do."



This from the people who gave us "speech codes", "hate crimes", and "political correctness".

8:34 is right: It's not that they "think differently", it's that they LIE.

RRH

Anonymous said...

Duke Prof at 12:10 PM said...

Centuries of important knowledge are being lost and not being taught to students.

I often ask my seniors, majoring in history, literature, and even economics if they know, for example: any major events of ancient Greece, the Dark Ages, the Renaissance; the works of John Locke, Hobbes, Bastiat, Say, von Mises, Shakespeare, Sophocles, Dante.

The overwhelming response is a blank stare.


If you want to see a lot of waving arms and eager faces, ask if they can recite any evil things that white men have done.

RRH

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.19:

It's not quite clear what you mean by "Fulbright time." I looked over the terms of my award just to be sure, and it did not include a requirement that I could not post blog entries.

If you have any concerns, however, I'd urge you to consult the US-Israel Fulbright Committee. I'm sure they could answer any questions about the terms of the award you have.

To the 1.23:

"If someone claims KC Johnson is very productive, I ask in terms of whom? If he's working with easily available sources, and in English, I guess I expect him to produce books with some regularity."

To take one example, perhaps "in terms of" those Group of 88 members who work in English-language sources. Based on their stated research interests, around 75% of the Group work in English-language sources.

To place the "easily available" sources I use in some context: for Congress and the Cold War, I used over 100 manuscript collections in 63 different archives in more than 30 states. Some might consider those sources to be "easily available"; most people, I suspect, would not.

Ralph Phelan said...

kc 1:33 -
Are you gonna blog about Israel?
Pleeeeaaase?

Anonymous said...

"to rethink what we see as the predominant way in which humanities research approaches politics today, namely critique:"

The delusional arrogance of these people that arises out of their narcissistic elitism is oddly reminiscent of Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette. Careful they do not meet with the same fate one of these days.
Modern medication is a wonderful thing...I think some of these guys should avail themselves of it.
To think of yourself so highly that you are the arbiter of critique is truly amazing.

Anonymous said...

KC,
I live in Michigan and still read the Detroit papers.Yesterdy(the 16th)an article appeared re' a local state rep. suggesting a $5 surcharge on each felony convictionin the state to fund NURSE EXAMINERS.The rationales were pretty interesting,given ER's are generally thought to be the place a rape victim goes.But,the "victim may have to wait hours to be seen and could then leave.The ER nurses (evidently there are no 'docs) in Michigan ER's might not have the special training or equipment the NURSE EXAMINERS would have at the rape /investigation centers.And the ER wouldn't offer ananymity.
Every SR I was in had standing orders to loudly pronounce the name and the possibility of a rape when a rape patient was seen.And we'd yell even more loudly if it was a multiple rapist attack.
The article mentions a "nationallly prominent expert"-someone in the psychology dept of Mich state who'd done a 12 year study on a county,which she refused to name that had higher convictionrates if the alleged victim was seen by a NURSE EXAMINER- than by the ER.
I didn't know where to leave this comment do I'mleaving it here.I do plan to contact the legislator who sponsored this and also the nationally known researcher.I will try to get a letter to the editor about St.Tara of Levicy also to let people know about such inspired idiocy.
Best wishes,Corwin
By the way,if you'd like to view the article,I'll try to find a link.

Anonymous said...

KC,

Did you have to go to the 63 archives or have the manuscripts been published and are they on line?

FWIW, I figure you're working in English, since you haven't said otherwise. And, as we know, to put it in perspective, a lot of the people you've attacked at Duke work in other languages. I know that from having read some of their work, not from looking at "stated interests." I wouldn't make assumptions so readily as you seem to...

Ralph Phelan said...

"The delusional arrogance of these people that arises out of their narcissistic elitism is oddly reminiscent of Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette. "

One more similarity:
[Pell grants, GI Bill, Land grand colleges, guaranteed student loans, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, Research grants under the "Violence Against Women Act", research grants from the NIH investigating "behavioral health", etc., tax-free status of universities, etc., etc., etc....]
Like the French peasants of 1788, you're paying for it!

Anonymous said...

No, of course, KC, your Fulbright terms didn't state you couldn't post blog entries. The Fulbright terms weren't written just for you...!!!

Indeed, if you have the less prestigious teaching fellowships (the research fellowships are generally considered more prestitigous, requiring as they do, knowledge of languages of research), but I wonder how it looks for future Fulbrighters--especially teaching Fulbrights--to see that one of their own spends his time obsessing about Duke. If I were the Israelis, I'd feel like you weren't such a good Fulbright choice, since you're mind is pretty obviously on Durham...

Anonymous said...

KC, I don't feel a need to consult the Israeli Fulbright committee. If you're giving them less than 100 percent, that's your issue. I'd just be ashamed of taking someone's money and not concentrating on the issues at hand.

Anonymous said...

1:19

Dave, If KC is in Israel on his Fulbright as he said he would be, he's spending Fulbright time on the blog. If he's not there, he's not. It's not rocket science.

It's not indentured servitude, either. Fulbright may pay for travel, room, board, and Fulbright time. Which isn't all Fulbright, all the time. Any visiting professor, temporary in-house corporation consultant, or film production exec on location understands how it works. It isn't rocket science.

Anonymous said...

1:33/KC,

I'm sure some Americanists and others not familiar with archival sources will be impressed with your 63 manuscript collections in 30 states. I'm underwhelmed.

You're doing really tough slogging IMHO if
a) the manuscripts haven't been catalogued, so you're going through them w/o much guidance;
b) if they haven't been published anywhere, including microfilm, microfiche or on line;
c) if you've gone to all 63 of your archives...
d) if most of the material isn't typed and couldn't be photocopied or photographed...

BTW, I want to make clear to the other reader//your avid defender that you were hardly working on a book published in 2005 at the same time you were working on this blog...

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.47:

Yes, I traveled to all of the archives. None of them were (or are) available on-line. I work in congressional history, where on-line resources are very rare.

To the 1.52:

I'm reassured to know that you see no need to consult the Fulbright Committee.

To the 1.50:

I'd urge you to contact the US-Israeli Fulbright committee if you have any doubts regarding how they feel about me.

Anonymous said...

To KC,

The 1:50 here. If you're satisfied that you're really giving your Fulbright 100 percent of your time/interest and not letting your Duke obsession get in the way of whatever you're meant to be doing, I'm sure everything is just hunky-dory.

It's not my intention to micro-manage someone else's business. I'll leave that to you with Duke.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Dave, If KC is in Israel on his Fulbright as he said he would be, he's spending Fulbright time on the blog. If he's not there, he's not. It's not rocket science.

10/17/07 1:19 PM
-----------------------------------
Do the terms of a Fulbright award require the recipient to spend 24 hours per day doing 'Fulbright work'? If KC reads a newspaper while eating breakfast (in Israel)is he cheating the Fulbright people? If he blogs over breakfast? Think not.

One Spook said...

Anon @11:33 AM, regarding students at Duke, writes:

"They are keenly aware of shoddy teaching, inadequate preparation, lazy grading of their papers, and, yes, intellectual fraud. It may take them a while to get it, but they do get it."

Then Duke Prof @ 12:10 writes:

"I often ask my seniors, majoring in history, literature, and even economics if they know, for example: any major events of ancient Greece, the Dark Ages, the Renaissance; the works of John Locke, Hobbes, Bastiat, Say, von Mises, Shakespeare, Sophocles, Dante.

The overwhelming response is a blank stare."


Those were both excellent posts in their entirety.

I would ask this of the 11:33:

Isn't it a responsibility of the academy at Duke to vet "...shoddy teaching, inadequate preparation, lazy grading of their papers, and, yes, intellectual fraud." rather than leaving that effort up to the students to eventually "get it?

And, to the 12:10 I would ask:
What is the academy at Duke doing to prevent or eliminate that "blank stare"?

One Spook

Ralph Phelan said...

"KC, I don't feel a need to consult the Israeli Fulbright committee. If you're giving them less than 100 percent, that's your issue."

I really don't think the Fullbright people expect recipients to be at work every waking hour. Most of them will spend some of their weekends doing typical weekend things, like playing tourist, and spend some of their evenings doing typical evening things, like going to bars to try to pick up one of these.

If kc is such a nerd he'd rather spend his free time blogging instead, I really don't think they'll care.

Anonymous said...

Re. the moronic 88ist who is breaking her teeth on KC's ankles:

How Israel feels about having KC? LOL. KC is the rock star of college professors in the most power nation on Earth. How do you think the Israelis feel about having him there? LOL! Cheated?

RRH

Anonymous said...

1:46 A rape kit is a rape kit is a rape kit. It consists of collecting swabs and mateials to send to the Forensic Lab. THis is usually done by a Doctor. Any RN can do the question and answer checklist. The Lab does the forensic work on the materials. Nurses are "FACT" witnesses not expert witnesses. Please do link the article as I found you post confusing.
KC I know you do not care about the posters trying to demean your fellowship - Keep up the good work and have a grand time in Israel.

One Spook said...

To the ankle-biting, ad hominem attack poster who is so concerned about KC "obsessing about Duke":

You write as if KC's shedding light on the faux scholarship at Duke has occurred in a vacumn. You poor dear!

Rest assured that thousand of Duke alums and Duke students are now aware of the light that has been shown on Duke. Those alumns and students are the university and the 88 are the university's employees.

KC has a life, while you and others may soon not have a job ... or certainly not one that is a charade-posing-as-a-job that you now enjoy.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

I love how the Group of 88 and their enablers attack KC! It's beyond childish. KC is a liar, a liar, he doesn't work hard enough (please imagine a sing song tone).

Here's the bottom line - KC has hoisted the Group of 88 and their band of "politically correct" thugs (that's their term, or a least one of them, thugniggaintellectual if I remember correctly) on their own petard. In the meantime, KC's productivity, national recognition , and professional objectivity speak volumes.

It's pretty damn difficult to attack someone from a place of significant weakness. Please produce evidence of the Group's productivity, empirical knowledge, research time, and academic objectivity. Then, the battle might be interesting.

Anonymous said...

"If someone claims KC Johnson is very productive, I ask in terms of whom? If he's working with easily available sources, and in English, I guess I expect him to produce books with some regularity."

Well said, Wahhhnnnneeeemmmmaaa!

p.s. R U a communist?

Anonymous said...

I've read numerous Fulbright awards over the past 25 years. Not once do I recall seeing any requirement that recipients spend 100% of their WORKING day on the assignment. That dog won't hunt.

Frankly, the academic and research requirements seemed to be broadly drawn and even minimal. Let's not overlook personal time.

I spent 20 years as an auditor of Federal programs, looking for misuse of tax dollars. The Fulbright program would be in the BOTTOM 1% of my concerns for wasted funds.

On the other hand, I would award the top 10% of wasted, lost, or fraudulent funding to any one of the Department of Education programs. (And it's not easy to beat Health and Human Services when it comes to waste, fraud and abuse.)

Anonymous said...

1:52 says: "I'd just be ashamed of taking someone's money and not concentrating on the issues at hand."


I can't imagine you feeling ashamed about anything. You seem to me to be somebody that would do or say almost anything to protect your turf and perogatives. If you had a disagreement with the specifics of an argument you would make them, but you don't. So you attack the messenger. Pretty weak!

Anonymous said...

Question:
Who was dean when Wiegman was recruited to Duke to become chair of women's studies?
Answer:
Carla Holloway

The Center circle closes.

Anonymous said...

Hello, Bright auditor for Federal programs at 2:51, you seemed to have missed the Department of Education Fulbrights. Did you award them top 10 percent? Problem there, since there are lots of Fulbright programs.

Anonymous said...

1:23:

PS, Dave, I rather suspect the CUP book you mention with the prestigious prize (check the number of competitors) was completed before the blog started.

I'd judge the prestige of the prize by the standards required to win it, and the quality of what has, not the number of competitors.

For example, I have no idea how many competitors climalarmist Al Gore faced for the Nobel Peace Prize, but I know that in the past it has been awarded to butchers (Arafat-- and why do I think you'd probably include Kissinger), frauds (Ribogerto Menchu Tum), ineffectual and thoroughly corrupt bureaucracies (the U.N.), equally corrupt General Secretaries (Kofi Annan), and failed presidents (Carter), so that nowadays about the only people it impresses are the Swedes. Even the mainstream media can't conceal its cynicism over the award to Al Gore.

You are right that I should not have placed Professor Johnson's Congress and the Cold War in the same production timeframe as UPI (the slacker!), but I note that the next volumes of LBJ Tapes under his editorship are due out this year. Perhaps he did a little work on them within the Durham in Wonderland/UPI timeframe. Or, if he completed that, too, beforehand, then maybe writing an important and widely-read book and dozens of blog articles on one of the most important civil rights cases of the century, all of which will become standard reference works for future scholars of the case, was something of a vacation for him while teaching.

But let's be clear about the scholarship involved in the professor's recent efforts. There's more professional scholarship in his last blog post, Reflections on the Piot Principles than there was in the Piot article that motivated it-- an article published by the presitigious (if you count the number of contributors) scholarly publication Transforming Anthropology.

Granted, he researches and writes in English, but I think you'll grant that, compared to other scholars whose work lies in English-dominated fields, his output is ahead of the curve. I cited Lubiano for comparison purposes earlier (she writes in English, of a sort), shall I give you more? May we begin with you, anonymous?

dave

Anonymous said...

2:52,

You haven't a clue what I'd be ashamed of, so you attack me, just as you claim I attack the messager. Which messager? And since you haven't a clue about me--or perhaps about anything--you haven't any idea what my perogatives are and turf is. If you mean from KC? Hardly. He can't do what I do. He doesn't have the training. And, I don't want to do what he does.

Bye-bye!

Anonymous said...

No, RRH, KC is not the rock star of college professors. Most don't know who he is. And don't care. Rock stars don't wear bow ties.

I doubt most Israelis know or care who he is. They, like college professors, have better things to do with their lives than obsess over Durham.

Anonymous said...

Dear One Spook at 2:46,

I'm not real worried about my job, ta very much. I do more than my fair share of work and I don't have to worry about bottom feeders like you, so quit with the silly threats, already, ok?

Anonymous said...

Oh, yeah, and the Gang of 88 spends 100% of their time working on Duke things. Yeah, right.

And my employer doesn't let me lead a life outside of work either. Can't ride a bike on the weekends, can't surf the 'net, can't talk to my kids.

Their only defense is to attack KC? That just shows how weak and pointless their defense is!

Anonymous said...

You can't have it both ways, 3:08. Either KC Johnson spends a lot of time doing the research that makes his comments worth reading or he blogs over coffee as someone else noted. If his research is so good, it takes time. And while no one argues (warning; look out for the straw men) that Fulbright expects 100 percent of anyone time, it seems pretty clear that KC Johnson's still spending a very great large amount of time on this blog.

More than riding a bike, surfing the net, and talking to whomever...

Interesting that you don't agree with me, so you attack me. I'll be you're just great to live with.

Anonymous said...

In just the last couple of days, we have seen Book Envy, Prize-Winning Book Envy, Person With a Real Discernible Purpose Envy, Fulbright Envy and Truthfulness Envy. The use of the term "ankle-biter" for those envious few was inspired.

As for Professor K.C. Johnson spending too much time on Duke. I suspect his Israeli students and colleagues are fascinated with "political correctness," "alternative political imaginaries" and "rogue prosecutions." These concepts must fascinate a people who must stay united or suffer instant defeat and death from hostile neighbors. I wonder if there are any parallels to be drawn between Duke "politics" and Arab-Israeli politics?

Anonymous said...

Prof. Johnson--

A quick question for you. Unlike many of your posts, you haven't linked to an online announcement for this program. How did you find out about it?

Curious to read the full account, I searched the Franklin Center's website but came up empty. Would you mind offering a bit more information as to the full extent of this seminar and how you came about the information?

On an unrelated note, questions of obsession aside, I think it is a little naive to think that a Fulbright scholar must devote 100% of his or her time to their professed project. Moreover, the idea that "taxpayers" should "oversee" this allocation of time sounds to me like the same sort of nonsense that says that since I pay taxes I can tell any university to get rid of tenured faculty. Both, in my view, are rather silly arguments to make.

Thanks in advance, --ss

Anonymous said...

Duke Prof at 12:10 PM said...

"Centuries of important knowledge are being lost and not being taught to students.

I often ask my seniors, majoring in history, literature, and even economics if they know, for example: any major events of ancient Greece, the Dark Ages, the Renaissance; the works of John Locke, Hobbes, Bastiat, Say, von Mises, Shakespeare, Sophocles, Dante.

The overwhelming response is a blank stare."

That's right, centuries of important knowledge are not being taught to students. One might foolishly surmise then that if less is being taught, the cost of education must be coming down, right?

Wrong water buffalo breath!

I'm dating myself when I recall my 6th grade experience: one teacher covering the 3 R's, and we DID learn. Now my grandson is in the 6th grade, which is now housed in a "middle school", and he tells me he has 8 different teachers. I asked his mother if that was true, and she says it is. To quote some of my fellow bloggers: WTF?

The tax and spend liberals are killing us in more ways than one, both intellectually AND financially!

No wonder our real estate taxes are skyrocketing almost as fast as our health insurance (except that house values are plummeting at the same time).

To quote a favorite protest song from my grade school years,

"when will they ever learn,
when will they e-ver learn?"

In this instance, "they", of course is us.

Anonymous said...

I think KC is one of the rock stars of Professors - bow tie and all. I quess the fellowship is like any other job - work 10 to 12 hours a day - get your nightime and weekends and holidays off. You can be sure KC is devoting more time than is required to his fellowship obligations. It is just that he is able to juggle ten balls at once. We all know that he barely sleeps. "Be ashamed to take the money" is laughable poster.

Mike Lee said...

I am sorry to see this is what has become of the "conversation" the 88 claimed they wanted to start. Friends of Duke, Students for an Ethical Duke, KC Johnson, and many many other people and groups have attempted to engage the 88 in a dialogue (one they claimed they wanted) and they have refused, run away, and blocked email addresses.

Yet here they and their supporters are anonymously posting on KC's blog. What a brave bunch they are.

Those who have run and hidden from public debate and any defense of their own actions who are now posting on this blog are truly pathetic. I'm not sure how they look themselves in the mirror.

Here's to you anonymous, and anonymous, and anonymous again. Please let the 88 and their supporters know that it's never too late to answer the questions posed by FODU and others and have that conversation. Alas after reading the comments here, it's clear they would rather sling mud in anonymity. Most impressive.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 3:08 writes:

"I'm not real worried about my job, ta very much. I do more than my fair share of work and I don't have to worry about bottom feeders like you, so quit with the silly threats, already, ok?"

Awww ... you poor scared wittle thing! Call your Daddy ... he'll make it all better and then you won't have to name-call, honey.

I made an observation, not a threat, dear ... learn to recognize the difference. There is no need to threaten the already frightened, marginalized types like you.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

JLS say....,

I was driving in to my office hours today and it dawned on me what needs to be said to these idiots in humanities who really what to be social scientist. What they need to be told is GO LEARN SOME MATH, SOME CALCULUS, SOME DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS, SOME STOCHASTIC CALCULUS and then study human behavior. Learn something about the models of human behavior in economics. Learn something about the experiemental designs in psychology. Learn about the public choice modeling and optimal voting strategy in political science.

After they have done some of this work MAYBE, just maybe they will be able to contribute something to social sciences. Until they do that they need to refocus on humanities. They need to focus on art or literature or music and what is good, what the author or artist meant or what influenced them. And until they have studied human behavior, they need to shut up about it.

Anonymous said...

to 3:02

This is the auditor speaking.

As you may know Fulbright awards have been housed in various USG agencies (remember USIA?) at different times. I have never looked at the one part of the Fulbright program that was awarded by the Department of Education. As I recall, the Department of Education lobbied hard to get the authorizing committes on Capitol Hill to move a small amount of Fulbright authority to Education....probably to give them some credibility or international travel funds? However, I do not amend my comments to scope out Fulbrights that were awarded by Education. Rather let me clarify and say all "non Fulbright" Department of Education grants and awards.

I have looked at numerous BIG $$$$$ grants programs at Education. In terms of professionalism, transparency, effectiveness and accountability they range from mediocre to terrible

There is no comparison to the Fulbright programs'awards processes with joint US-Other country committees, 40+ years of standard, established practices, and external review committees, etc. Last I looked (2004) that process had stood the test of time well.

Certainly any awards process can be corrupted, especially if the managers of it lack skill, objectivity or genuine intent.

If the Fulbright progam is worthy of our tax dollars (that is a separate question) I am not at all worried that any recipient is wasting my tax dollars.

Anonymous said...

One Spook,


I'm not marginalized. Why would I be? And certainly not by you. Not a chance our paths would cross. I don't have any reason to be around your sort. Bottom feeders who talk baby talk. Such an adult behavior. I'm impressed.

Why would you think I'm scared? Of you, not hardly. Indeed, not of much.

Fine, if it's an observation. I guess your observations are just sort of useless.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 1:46 said...

...I live in Michigan and still read the Detroit papers. Yesterday (the 16th) an article appeared re' a local state rep. suggesting a $5 surcharge on each felony conviction in the state to fund NURSE EXAMINERS.
::
I'm not sure that you have picked up on the sneaky politics of permanent funding for nurses.

The SA of SANE is Sexual Assault and the NE is Nurse Examiner.

The SA or sexual assault examination does not require that a nurse give the examination.

A SANE category of nursing employee is just one more paycheck that hospitals do not wish to be responsible for.

The proposed Michigan legislation that you are talking about is an attempt to mandate such nursing positions by law via permanent funding.

You are being set up! Don't follow the feminists and jump off the cliff into the sea.

You can start by saying SA Examination and drop the SANE.
::
GP

Debrah said...

There sure are a lot of mental cases in this place today.

From where have they come?

Should this be allowed?

Ralph Phelan said...

"maybe writing an important and widely-read book and dozens of blog articles on one of the most important civil rights cases of the century, all of which will become standard reference works for future scholars of the case, was something of a vacation for him while teaching."
Given that the resources for it are mostly on-line and largely searchable, rather than files of paper scattered in dozens of dusty archives, that actually sounds pretty plausible.

Ralh Phelan said...

"Oh, yeah, and the Gang of 88 spends 100% of their time working on Duke things. Yeah, right."

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they sincerely believe that their job is to "critique commodity culture, representational practices, colonial thought, patriarchal structures, tyrannical regimes, racial hierarchies, sexual normativities, and so forth" and that they are, in fact diligent in doing so.

Which is too bad, as the world would be a far better place if they spent more time goofing off instead.

Anonymous said...

KC is "not a rock star professor"? A google search for "KC Johnson" returns more than 140,000 hits. Show me another professor whose age is within 10 years of KC's and who has even half as many hits? (Btw, the return for "William H. Chafe" is 24,300. Just to save you some time there.)

RRH

Ralph Phelan said...

"Either KC Johnson spends a lot of time doing the research that makes his comments worth reading or he blogs over coffee as someone else noted. If his research is so good, it takes time."

During a coffee break in February, 1997, KC Johnson researched, wrote, proofread and published a complete biographical encyclopedia of 19th century US state legislators. In the years since, only 17 factual errors have been found, 13 of them due to typographical errors in the source materials. MOO Apologies to Gregory for copping his schtick.

Anonymous said...

Duke, and other universities, need presidents backed by Boards of Trustees or Regents who have the guts to speak truth to the crap that passes for much of humanities scholarship these days. As an earlier commenter noted, too many of the pseudo-scholars have no real understanding of political theory or history and they would like to displace traditional humanities with their political groupthink which manifests itself in the gibberish they publish. They perceive themselves as the revolutionary thinkers of the age, yet their facile scholarship is mostly fiction, "imaginaries." The number of PhD theses produced by non-thinkers mimicking their activist professors is astounding, and departments such as Cultural Anthropology hire these clones who, in the case of Duke, sign en masse an unsubstantiated statement condemning students.

The pity is that university resources are wasted on these self-annointed visionaries and that taxpayers help fund them, both at private and public universities.

Universities should be places where new and non-traditional ideas are examined in research and scholarship, but the faux-scholar activists deem that anyone who criticizes their ideas is racist, sexist, or classist, and antediluvian in thought. Administrators and other professors dare not speak of the thinness of some of their course offerings or criticize their scholarship.

Imagine the outcry if the John Hope Franklin Institute got less funding or if a loud-mouth activist were not given a raise for lack of meaningful publications. It's easier for an administration to acquiesce. I guess WaWa gets her associate professor's salary based on her service to the University as she professes to improve its culture. I remember when Duke was embarrassed to be associated with the parapsychology lab and happy to disassociate with it. Strange that the trustees and big donors and the administration don't seem to be embarrassed by the trendy replacing the traditional in humanities. There's room for trendy, but trendy wants to dominate and Duke's administration and BOT seem to be allowing that. Faculty self-governance has its limits in some departments.

"History is bunk," as Henry Ford is quoted in Brave New World. Let's rewrite it according to our metanarratives, not according to disciplined and time-consuming research, where the facts are not already predetermined by the metanarratives (or the politics), and let's get degrees and tenured positions and our JHF fellowships as we attach our metanarratives to our so-called disciplines. Yes, Professors Wiegman and Hardt, you have indeed tried to characterize all of humanities by an "overarching concern for politics, from the politics of cultural practices and knowledge production to political issues more traditionally conceived, such as state power, social movements, public policy, and law." How broad and sweeping and how self-important you sound. It's not about the truth, says Alleva to Pressler. No, it's not. It's about the politics.

Ralph Phelan said...

"The article mentions a "nationallly prominent expert"-someone in the psychology dept of Mich state who'd done a 12 year study on a county,which she refused to name that had higher convictionrates if the alleged victim was seen by a NURSE EXAMINER- than by the ER."

I wish we could find out what county that is so we can make a list of cases that had a SANE involved and send it to the innocence project.

Debrah said...

"Of you, not hardly....."

Whatever your circumstances....please learn to speak properly.

You are either a rural mutt or one of the AA hires at Duke.

(Judging from the way you express yourself)

Anonymous said...

KC.

Why on earth do you insist upon wasting your time to respond to the malicious trolls who continue to visit this board in an effort to derail your participation here. When this latest feeble attempt to appeal to your "feelings" about non-existent Fulbright prohibitions against blogging fails to dissuade you, he/she will simply try another avenue of attack.

You have ruffled many feathers with your outstanding scholarship re the academy and since these child like defenders cannot compete with you intellectually, they will continue to deflect, obfuscate and attack.

That is who they are and this is all they know how to do

Anonymous said...

Debrah wrote:

"There sure are a lot of mental cases in this place today.

From where have they come?

Should this be allowed?"

Agreed.

Probably from Durham.

It's the free exchange of ideas and it should always be allowed; no matter how painful.

Ralph Phelan said...

"A google search for "KC Johnson" returns more than 140,000 hits. Show me another professor whose age is within 10 years of KC's and who has even half as many hits? "

12 years older, so more of an established star than an up & comer, but still:
Steven Pinker, "about 1,160,000 hits".

By comparison, Johhson's still working his way up through the club scene. Though rising fast, I'll admit.

Anonymous said...

Debrah (and others),
Back on an earlier post, I predicted that they'd freak when Brodhead "apologized." Might not have been exactly what we thought was needed, but it SURE wasn't what they thought was needed.

Their solution? Shoot the messenger. I'm just sorry KC has been subjected to their vitriol. They sure can't beat him with the facts (not that they've brought any with them).

Anonymous said...

Thanks for helping prove my point, Ralph. Btw, if you put quotemarks around "steven pinker", the google total drops off to 903,000. Still yes, a star, but one closer in age to Billy Joel than to KC.

RRH

Ralph Phelan said...

"I remember when Duke was embarrassed to be associated with the parapsychology lab and happy to disassociate with it. Strange that the trustees and big donors and the administration don't seem to be embarrassed by the trendy replacing the traditional in humanities."
Hopefully that can be changed. Open mockery is a useful tool in this. Particularly the support for PC is widely overestimated due to widespread preference falsification. I suspect PC is one of those systems that's vulnerable to "tipping point" dynamics when the silenced majority finally figure out that they are a majority.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know whether the SBI has decided to pursue criminal charges against those who sought to railroad Collin, Reade and Dave??

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story/694041.html

According to that article, the SBI was evaluating whether or not to conduct a criminal investgation back on September 6--but thus far, I don't recall hearing anything more. I would think that rather than worry about civil trials, those whose hands are dirty ought to be more concerned about criminal trials and prison time.

Anyone know if the SBI has come to a conclusion yet or not?

Ralph Phelan said...

Continuing my thoughts from 4:32-
One thing we all should do is swear to ourselves that, anytime anyone else is accused of racism, sexism or anti-intellectualism, we will give him all available benefit of the doubt, and if not stick up for him at least not pile on.

Anonymous said...

MIKE LEE SAID:
"I am sorry to see this is what has become of the "conversation" the 88 claimed they wanted to start. Friends of Duke, Students for an Ethical Duke, KC Johnson, and many many other people and groups have attempted to engage the 88 in a dialogue (one they claimed they wanted) and they have refused, run away, and blocked email addresses.

Yet here they and their supporters are anonymously posting on KC's blog. What a brave bunch they are.

Those who have run and hidden from public debate and any defense of their own actions who are now posting on this blog are truly pathetic. I'm not sure how they look themselves in the mirror.

Here's to you anonymous, and anonymous, and anonymous again. Please let the 88 and their supporters know that it's never too late to answer the questions posed by FODU and others and have that conversation. Alas after reading the comments here, it's clear they would rather sling mud in anonymity. Most impressive."

10/17/07 3:29 PM


Well said, Mike Lee. Well said.

Debrah said...

TO 4:26 PM--

The thing to remember is that if Brodhead had his way, he would not have apologized. This was a very nervous delivery from him...an embarrassingly nervous delivery.

The reason it was phony and forced and not sincere was precisely because of how self-concious and uncomfortable he was throughout.

How anyone could have really believed it was a true apology, I'll never know.

You are quite correct that the Gang of 88 are livid over even a hint of concession on his part.

A concession of any stripe is a loss of bravado for them.

Brodhead reminded me of myself at about the age of five....being forced to get up and "entertain" guests who came to visit with a "little song".

When I didn't want to do it, my face would turn red and I'd start fidgeting.

LOL!

Then I'd rebel and start doing cartwheels in the living room, instead.

The only thing missing from Brodhead's "apology" were the cartwheels.

Debrah said...

TO 4:22 PM--

Depends on the established rules I would think.

Fortunately, I don't live, and have never lived, in Durham.

Unfortunately, we have one or two regular commenters--not from Durham--who post both with their names and anonymously.

One of them spews dirty ad hominem that would rival the Gang of 88 when he's had enough brew.

Some people are just cowards.

Nothing can be done.

no justice, no peace said...

"If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller, Women's rights activist

The Klan of 88 and their abettors have become what they despise...the mythology of Archie Bunker.

Too damned funny...

I still chuckle when I think that these expert communicator/educators had to clarify the poorly written Listening Statement.

One wonders if they allow their student a re-write to clarify fuzzy, inept meaning?

One Spook said...

Anon @ 3:44 writes:

"I'm not marginalized. Why would I be?"

I have no idea why you would be marginalized; that's between you and your therapist, but let me guess ... it has something to do with (pick one, two, or three) race, class, and gender, right?

People who argue solely using ad hominem attacks, call others names, and presume to know the inteligence level of those with whom they disagree regardless of not knowing them, are most often (1) very marginalized, (2) hopelessly frightened individuals.

You are both (1) and (2) above.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Morgan Stanley Sells Entire New York Times Stake

The second-biggest shareholder in New York Times Co., sold its entire 7.3 percent stake today, according to a person briefed on the transaction, sending the stock to its lowest in more than 10 years

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY9iww4X.01g

Anonymous said...

2:02 PM

As it happens, I do some of the same kind of primary source research, and I'd guess in a lot of the same archives, that Professor Johnson does, albeit in a few more countries, and for very different reasons. I find some of your criteria for "really tough slogging" a little specious:

a) Unless you're kicking around clay tablets in Ebla, there's not an archive on the planet that doesn't have some form of cataloguing, however rudimentary, even if it's just the venerable custodian knowing approximately where various rolls, scrolls, pottery shards, and manuscript piles are supposed to be located.

But even visiting institutions with more catalogues, lists, and finding aids than manuscripts in their collections, does not guarantee a researcher an easy time of it. At both NARA and LoC (places where I'm sure KC hangs out), I've found documents that weren't supposed to be in the collections where I found them, and "discovered" manuscripts that no one had ever catalogued before. If Houghton or the Huntington would let me rifle through their meticulously-documented piles, I'd likely find something they missed. Point is, catalogues or no catalogues, manuscript research of any sort is not a picnic.

b) Principal scholarship on the Qumran manuscripts was done from photographs. Microfilm and microfiche make it easier to access more manuscript material more quickly, but they're not internet search engines (which are only good for what's been PDF filed, not necesarily just scanned, onto the net). If you're asked to run down what appears may be an important, unpublished personal reference to President Lincoln in Secretary Stanton's reply to a Cincinnati contractor's bid to manufacture Sibley tents, written sometime between 1863 and 1864, despite easy access to all couple of hundred microfilm reels of War Department Correspondence at the National Archives (don't try ordering them all, and no university repository has them), and despite the various registers of letters sent and received by clerks of the time (as close to a "catalogue" as you'll get), you'll still spend hours, days, maybe even a couple of weeks looking for that letter on microfilm-- if the microfilmers knew of its existence and had it in their possession when they microfilmed. Which still may not be reproduced clearly enough for you to read, sending you back into the original manuscript collection to find the original, which you hope isn't so faded that that is reason for the poor reproduction.
c) Researching published Congressional journals and reports is one thing (although any U.S. Civil War buff can tell you that the transcriptions of original material published in the Official Records are not entirely to be trusted, that on a matter of critical importance the original document should be consulted, as a professional historian would on any subject); researching the voluminous correspondence, personal journals, and contemporary newspaper and other accounts of the activity behind the Congressional laws and debates is something else again, practically none of it on the internet or even microfilm, and by no means all of it in DC. Of course one has to travel. And as congressional history is inseparable from presidential history, and presidential libraries are scattered all over the country, one has to visit those personally as well.
d) if most of the material isn't typed and couldn't be photocopied or photographed... Oh gosh, one wonders whether, if Professor Johsnon were deciphering Linear B in the basement of the Bibliotheca Palatina, even that would suffice as rigorous research. I've pored over ink-faded typescripts from the 1870's that are about as difficult to decipher. Give it a rest.

You know, archival researchers love trading war stories. Perhaps you'd share some of yours. But I have to warn you, if you haven't slogged through the Petén to record glyphs at Naranjo, I'm not impressed. If you held off looters long enough to find the glyphs, I might be.

dave

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 4:20 said...

...KC.
...Why on earth do you insist upon wasting your time to respond to the malicious trolls who continue to visit this board in an effort to derail your participation here.
...
...You have ruffled many feathers with your outstanding scholarship re the academy and since these child like defenders cannot compete with you intellectually, they will continue to deflect, obfuscate and attack.
...That is who they are and this is all they know how to do
::
He responds because he was 'raised' properly and for goodness sake don't suggest that he stop responding.

The childish attacks are more fun to watch than the movies, and in fact, I haven't been to a movie in ages.

I miss the popcorn.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Ralph, for the last two days you have been on a freaking roll!

Anonymous said...

ralph phelan@10/17 3:53 PM:

**starts, blinks** You're right.

dave

Gary Packwood said...

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the G88 and their staff member and student friends.

Here is a little NEWS UNENCUMBERED BY THE FACTS, about the G88 et al

http://carbolicsmokeblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/duke.html

Enjoy and thanks to the Duke Community Forum folks for the link.
::
GP

mac said...

I suspect that KC allows attacks like 3:44's for the same reason he's posted the words and comments of the highlighted professors: they make themselves look childish to a degree that would have been unbelievable, until they proved it themselves!

And yet, they do prove it, themselves, continually. (Piot is a fine example.) As predicted, there really ARE a lot of Piot-alikes displaying Piot-Envy, hoping to emulate their master, Mister Piot. Unfortunately for them, they are only half-Piots.

I can even predict with some degree of certainty that one day, there'll even be a one-person play called "The Piot Monologues."

Anonymous said...

10/17 3:16 PM

Interesting that you don't agree with me, so you attack me. I'll be you're just great to live with.

Written without a trace of irony.

traveler said...

Re: "A google search for "KC Johnson" returns more than 140,000 hits.”

Is your Google --- My Google?

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,210,000 for KC Johnson

Results 1 - 10 of about 260,000 for Charles Piot

Results 1 - 10 of about 83 for Waheema Lubiano

don t. said...

to 4:22

Then why is perdition did we go to war with Adolf????

trinity60

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

The very talented Ann Coulter goes after the gang of 88 as only she can:

Another liberal noose-ance

The one real example of racism on a college campus in recent memory was perpetrated against white men of the Duke lacrosse team. As that injustice was being perpetrated, gender and ethnic professors at Duke kept droning on about the "racism and sexism" students "live with every day" – as the professors put it in an open letter that falsely presumed the players were guilty of rape. We don't expect a rally against the prejudiced professors, but an apology might be nice.

Anonymous said...

Ralph - The IP lawyers have stated numerous times that their clients have been convicted on eye witness identification. It is the DNA that clears them. If they had had DNA from rape kits (not SANE) they would not have been convicted. Are you really suggesting that the rape kits have been tampered with by the dope Sane nurses? Was it not VP who said "DUMC tampered with the evidence?" I think the SAME gig is stupid, but no patient is worth losing a nursing license. BTW, bad nursing is what you saw on the boot camp tape. Hey Mac - how you doing?

Anonymous said...

Unknown name of "expert"
Unknown name of Mich. State "department:
Unknown name of "county"
Is this a joke - who believes this kind of reporting?
The rape kit consists of a QA checklist, collecting swabs and material that go to a Forensic Lab.
Please link this "article."

Debrah said...

Another gem from Thomas Sowell.

Jim in San Diego said...

Serial anonymous posters:

Facts are useful in argument. Try some, some time.

Jim in San Diego said...

Serial anonymous bloggers:

If you do not know that facts are useful in argument, and that is the reason you do not use them, you have been betrayed in your education.

Thus, it is not your fault.

Anonymous said...

Butt Light presents:

REAL POSTERS OF GENIUS

"Reeeeal posters of geeenius!"

TODAY WE SALUTE YOU, MS. ANONYMOUS K.C. JOHNSON BASHER.

"Ms. Anonymous K.C. Johnson baaaaasher!"

HAVING BEEN AWARDED A GRAND TOTAL OF ZERO FULBRIGHT FELLOWSHIPS YOURSELF, YOU ARE MORE THAN QUALIFIED TO TALK ABOUT K.C.'S.

"I mostly almost got an article in 'Transforming Anthropoloogy,' mostly!"

AS A MEMBER OF THE GANG OF 88 SUPER BEST FRIENDS ANTI-JUSTICE LEAGUE, YOU HAVE THE SUPER POWER ABILITY TO BRAVELY CALL PEOPLE NAMES, ANONYMOUSLY.

"Narcissism and my computer give me couraaaage!"

SO, CRACK OPEN A NICE COLD BOTTLE OF BUTT LIGHT, OH MIGHTY ANONYMOUS K.C. JOHNSON BASHER, BECAUSE YOU WON'T WANT TO BE SOBER WHEN WE PULL YOUR REPUTATION OUT OF THE DUKE HOAX CAR WRECK.
----------------

WARNING: This is a parody. If parody persists for 4 or more hours, call a doctor.
________________

ALARMA: Este es una parodia. Mi gato es gordo e feo. Mi gato comida quatro medicos.
__________________________
__________________________

Here is my "alternative political imaginary":

1. Set a five-year deadline on all race- or gender-based quota systems, including all schools, all fire stations (except that any all-gay fire stations will be grandfathered in), all state and local governments, busing, etc.

-This will give everyone adequate notice.

-If we cannot get the job done in there in five years, then it really is a quagmire.

-Seriously, is there an end-game here? Do we have an exit strategy?

-People will have an opportunity to modify their behaviors if necessary.

2. A "surge" plan will be used in public schools when most of the troops are brought back from Iraq. Troops (or the money formerly used to pay them), retired citizens and new hires will flood schools dropping the student/teacher ratio to no more than 6 to 1 in every elementary school.

-This will allow teachers to provide actual individual attention to students.

-Elementary schools will teach reading, writing, researching, mathematics, dodgeball, science and a love for education. Nothing else.

3. English will be declared the official national language in the America, except for Texas and California. Oh, and they can continue to speak whatever it is that they speak in Minnesota.

4. Race-baiting will be a crime punishable by jail and a fine. Racism and genderism (which will be defined to include only the actual use of another's race or gender to deny that person a job, housing, medical treatment or benefit) will be a crime punishable by jail and a fine.

MOO! Gregory

Gunslinger said...

"Rightly or not, fairly or not, the Comments to this blog have provided KC's enemies in academia with more grist for their mills than any other single thing."

If the comments were not here, they's just make something up. Surely that's obvious by now.

Debrah said...

Only now am I caught up on the last few days of posts.

The Piot extravaganza was one in which KC quite simply demolished him. This, no doubt, accounts for the declasse, sewer-laden attacks on this thread today.

One should never piss off the Diva in Wonderland......(all "anonymous" drunks on the attack should be dismissed to their private squalor).

For only she can provide the necessary ammunition to thoroughly demolish disgruntled Duke and Durham urchins.

Of course, a concise scholarly dissection which was provided by so many here is a necessity; however, for the particular strain of diseased faux pedants (such as little Orin and the Mrs.)......

.......along with the phlegmatic Piot....(What a stubby cretin!).....a heavy dose of Diva detumescence---a thorough collapse of a stiff Piot, as it were---is the remedy.

Piot takes everyone on a little too much of a Potemkin-tour around Duke with his fellow fetid followers.....

...as they make their way to the othered facade of the Franklin Center.....its walls heaving and fuming with great eructations of human misery.

Just ask Wahneema how much misery!

Anonymous said...

Ralph Phelan at 4:32 p.m. quoted and commented on a previous blog, copied below.

Ralph, could you explain a bit more about "preference falsification"? I'm wondering to what extent it is operating at Duke, given the stated diversity goals of the institution and the ardent politics and outspokenness (euphemism) of some activist professors.

Duke alum
___________

"I remember when Duke was embarrassed to be associated with the parapsychology lab and happy to disassociate with it. Strange that the trustees and big donors and the administration don't seem to be embarrassed by the trendy replacing the traditional in humanities."

Hopefully that can be changed. Open mockery is a useful tool in this. Particularly the support for PC is widely overestimated due to widespread preference falsification. I suspect PC is one of those systems that's vulnerable to "tipping point" dynamics when the silenced majority finally figure out that they are a majority.

Debrah said...

I am exponentially disgusted that in Piot's prim little principles he has accused KC--and, by extension, all of us who participate in Wonderland--of using a "racial epithet" when the goofy, doofus-inspired "thugniggaintellectual" moniker is discussed.

What?

Are we to believe that girly-man Neal wants to keep this silly preening to himself?

What a load.

This ridiculous moniker---grasping for street cred---is one which Neal specifically and preciously designed.

Let's revisit his instability when he tells his students that he is going to "intellectually choke the s*** out of" them.

LOL!

If anyone should be angry, it is the students and their parents who pay the salaries of such muck-ridden misfits.

Another bright and gleaming example of the idiocy which these Piot-esque degenerates employ for an outlandish gutter-grab of double standard uniqueness .

Other-ness

traveler said...

FYI:
There is a new Duke t-shirt for sale.

The front says:
DUKE LACROSSE
1ST ANNUAL
WITCH HUNT

There is a Center graphic of a pile of burning lacrosse sticks.

Lower printed:
EVIDENCE IS OVERRATED

Be sure to zoom in for a better look at the graphic.

http://www.collegeflavor.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=26

Anonymous said...

There are several clips of Prof. Michael Hardt on YouTube. In this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioopkoppabI

he talks about love as a political concept.

RRHamilton said...

anonymous at 3:18 PM said...

The use of the term "ankle-biter" for those envious few was inspired.

It's hard to believe that I may have invented a term -- or the new use of an old one -- like ankle-biter, but maybe I did.

I can tell you that I have used it as I have on this site for the last 20 years. The first time I used it was during the debate on aid to the Nicaraguan freedom-fighters. During the fight in Congress, President Reagan's spokesman, Pat Buchanan, had said that Congress had a chance to "stand with President Reagan or stand with the Communists". Of course, the lefties in Congress went spastic over the use of "the c-word", and Buchanan quit using it.

After considering other terms -- like "the anti-anti-communists" -- I was looking for a term that would express my contempt for the little men and women, like then-Speaker Jim Wright and then-Congressman Tony Coelho (now both disgraced, what a shock, eh?), who were trying to slowdown a giant like Reagan. "Nattering nabobs of negativism" would work, but it had been used, and most people didn't know what a "nabob" was. So I began calling them "ankle-biters" because they reminded me of little children -- people who would write "Dear Commandante" letters to Soviet stooges thugs like "Hollywood Danny" Ortega.

When I first came to this blog and noticed the mental Lilliputians who occasionally flash their tiny teeth at KC Johnson from the safety of "anonymous", I thought the same word was most appropriate and so I used it here as well.

Soooooo, unless someone can show me a common usage of the term before 1985 (or 1987 or whatever), then I'm going to feel like taking credit for inventing (at least a new use for) a term of art. :D

Gary Packwood said...

Lisker to fill undergrad admin post.

After a one-month search process, Donna Lisker, director of the Women's Center, was named associate dean of undergraduate education Tuesday.

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/home/
::
GP

A Duke Dad said...

Re: KC Johnson's publications.

Is Dr Johnson violating the terms of his Fulbright by taking time to feed his cat?

Judging by his TRACK RECORD (which excludes FORTHCOMING items), he is head and shoulders above most of the Gang of 88. If one were to weight the VOLUME of publications by factoring in the QUALITY of the research, the gap would be even wider.

Dr. Johnson's impressive cv is at

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/cv.htm

Debrah said...

I do hope that our illustrious Chucky Piot applies for one of those delectable faculty fellowships being offered by the John Hope Franklin Institute.

With a two-course reduction in his teaching schedule, he'd have so much more extra time for writing hard-hitting articles like the one we've all just read.

Perhaps even Hal Crowther's Indy will make space for some of them. That way, more than a half dozen people will read them the next time.

And he can once again include them on his CV !

Gotta move beyond obscure black anthroplogy publications which are run by your buddies if you want your work to sizzle, Chucky.

Just from a glance at your profile I see that the African Diaspora is one of your specialties.

Good work.

It's a plus that you chose to go global with your diversity schtick.

Now go a bit more radical and work on your own diaspora.....

.....for you are certainly enslaved by a shockingly warped mind.

Anonymous said...

Read the Senate testimony of R.D. Johnson and then tell me that we don't need a total takeover of university education.

Reading it, I was reminded of Clemenceau's remark ... "But wait, I thought, how many of today's history professors can finish the quote: "War is too important...."?

C'mon Steven, tell me you can finish that sentence -- one I learned in elementary school. My high school dropout father of 10 children was smarter than every professor I met in college, and I am meaning book smart (he drove me to read the Encyclopedia Americana six times, word for word). C'mon Steven, show your erudition.
I'll bet KC can finish the sentence.

Anonymous said...

And Steven, I assume you don't need me to identify myself.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 288   Newer› Newest»