tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post3014060471827951062..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: The Furieskcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-52437491293056454762007-08-17T19:32:00.000-04:002007-08-17T19:32:00.000-04:00Why are these people being referred to as the 'Gro...Why are these people being referred to as the 'Group' of 88? I much prefer the 'Gang' of 88.curmudgeonly-eccentrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07351598837017598042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88025531297083199492007-08-14T20:37:00.000-04:002007-08-14T20:37:00.000-04:00I am not opposed to the notion that the a communit...I am not opposed to the notion that the a community of scholars should be free to examine what each scholar hopes will be worthy of exploration. Some will be wrong; some right, and, in the very long term, human knowledge will be advanced.<BR/><BR/>I am opposed to the notion that a community of self-proclaimed scholars is to be given a pass from justifying the social obligations placed on others to support that community (e.g. the tax exemption of univerities) because the scholars are innately superior to those who pay the freight. Duke is a very wealthy institution that pays not one penny of tax on the immense income from its endowment. And most of the faculty there is gung ho to tax the rest of us and our employers without respite. If Duke paid its fair share, it would have to let a significant percentage of their current faculty go. In other words, the faculty is sponging off the rest of us.<BR/><BR/>I admit to having no academic right to question the academic value of the drivel that pours out of Duke and similar tax exempt institutions. But I have every right, as does every other person on this blog, to question the social and human value of that same drivel.<BR/><BR/>I am totally unconcerned with whether some, or even all, academics consider me anti-intellectual because I view the contribution to human and social value of some of them as less than nothing. The average garbage man contributes far more to society than the net contribution of all of the Klan of 87 put together.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-20824010933655023912007-08-14T18:38:00.000-04:002007-08-14T18:38:00.000-04:00M Simon says:Let me give you the general idea. Up ...M Simon says:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Let me give you the general idea. Up means down. Except when it means up. Perfectly clear. How do you tell which is which? In the context of the narrative. However, not just any narrative. It must be in the context of supporting the victim class against the victimizers.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>The Gang of 88 and their ilk throughout academia have forgotten (or more likely were not aware of in the first place) evolution and Newton's third law.<BR/><BR/>They are simply forcing their betters to do a better job of bypassing and eliminating them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41711414975987066132007-08-14T16:57:00.000-04:002007-08-14T16:57:00.000-04:00Watch out for the postmodernists!Lets' see how oft...<A HREF="http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-postmodern-logic-manages-to-win-all.html" REL="nofollow">Watch out for the postmodernists!</A><BR/><BR/>Lets' see how often the G88 defenders are using contradictory discourses.<BR/><BR/>Like Political Correctness, it's aimed at shutting up anyone with opposing view points.LarryDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10955273945502612268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-30206229394458742292007-08-14T11:36:00.000-04:002007-08-14T11:36:00.000-04:00Complaints that K.C. and we commenters lack the ex...Complaints that K.C. and we commenters lack the expertise to question the work of the 88 make me tired.<BR/><BR/>I'm a nuclear engineer with an expertise in nuclear waste. I have spent a lifetime answering to the public, to regulators, and to legislators for my projects. Who among the 88 and their sympathizers will stand up with me at my next public meeting and tell those who don't know a neutron from a neuron that they do not have the right to question my work?<BR/><BR/>Do I prejudge when I say these are the very people who would turn out in droves to question both my work and my motives?Christyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12623422545436294378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-35766015294706456422007-08-14T11:11:00.000-04:002007-08-14T11:11:00.000-04:00KC,The 88ers' rush to claim that their odious writ...KC,<BR/><BR/>The 88ers' rush to claim that their odious writings were taken "out of context" remimds me of a great quote from Pedro Guerrero when he was with the Cardinals: "The problem [with reporters] is that sometimes they write what I say and not what I mean."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39356840419004927402007-08-14T10:41:00.000-04:002007-08-14T10:41:00.000-04:00steven horowitz said: "But I will continue to flat...steven horowitz said: <I>"But I will continue to flatly deny rrh's assertion that it's some sort of quota hiring involving gov't contracts. As KC noted, that's not the main factor driving the diversification of the faculty and the corresponding diversification of the curriculum that has followed."</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with this statement: I believe that the Federal Government, while being cravenly-PC in many matters, is not about to engage in blatant unconstitutional acts vis-a-vis affirmative action quotas. If I recall correctly, in the <I>Bakke</I> decision, the SCOTUS ruled that hard quotas are unconstitutional, thus, I doubt that they are mandated by any Federal contracts, etc. Indeed, in some states, e.g., California, Washington, and Michigan, such quotas are also in violation of State constitutions. Still, I'm not so naive as to believe that there is no end to the amount of shenanigans that colleges and universities with administrators who have drunk generously of the diversity/affirmative action Koolaid will go to in order to circumvent constitutional restrictions re. affirmative action/so-called "diversity" initiatives. Therefore, I certainly believe that much like the Klan of 88 threw the white Duke LAX team members under the bus, so do most all administrators and other people in positions of power vis-a-vis hiring and promotion of faculty similarly toss beneath the bus the spirit, if not letter, of the law as it pertains to so-called "diversity" quotas. <BR/><BR/>It may not be enshrined in the fine print of the government contracts, but IMHO it most certainly is enshrined in the philosophy and practice of the decision-makers in the vast majority of academic institutions in the U.S. and elsewhere in the Western world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-23704417151864815982007-08-14T10:03:00.000-04:002007-08-14T10:03:00.000-04:00"But I will continue to flatly deny rrh's assertio..."But I will continue to flatly deny rrh's assertion that it's some sort of quota hiring involving gov't contracts."<BR/><BR/>It seems to me to have a lot of explanatory power - not total of course, but it fills in what was for me an ampty piece of the puzzle, which is why administrators and trustees put up with people and departments that regualrly cause embarrassment and harm to the university. Do you have an alternate hypothesis?<BR/><BR/>It's not necessarily just the "government contractor" issue directly. <BR/><BR/>There's also the fact that the DOJ is currently taking action against the NYC fire department for using a test that blacks pass at 80% while whites pass at 90%. Whatever the black-letter law, the practical effect of what the DOJ is doing in this and other cases is to demand "equality of result" which is in effect to demand quotas. So long as the mindset that drove the DOJ to spend resources on this action is in force, it's prudent for an institution to keeps its numbers looking good.<BR/><BR/>And then of course there's the fear of being publicaly attacked by Jesse and Al, who can count on the press taking their side unquestioningly.<BR/><BR/>All in all, you're going to need more evidence than just your flat assertion to convince me that academia doesn't currently have a de-facto quota system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-12739167080530582822007-08-14T09:13:00.000-04:002007-08-14T09:13:00.000-04:00NJNP:Farther from Saratoga than I wish. About 3 h...NJNP:<BR/><BR/>Farther from Saratoga than I wish. About 3 hours of beautiful Adirondack driving.<BR/><BR/>And for Ralph Phelan:<BR/><BR/>You are absolutely correct that gov't intervention can either/both slow the self-correction processes of science or push it into directions that have far less value to the scientific community. How much that has played a role in the "Angry Studies" scholarship so decried here is an interesting question. But I will continue to flatly deny rrh's assertion that it's some sort of quota hiring involving gov't contracts. As KC noted, that's not the main factor driving the diversification of the faculty and the corresponding diversification of the curriculum that has followed.<BR/><BR/>And, yes, sometimes patience is necessary too.Steven Horwitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470758334242360804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-64549356275660911502007-08-14T07:53:00.000-04:002007-08-14T07:53:00.000-04:00"Also, your mother wears army boots."Army Boots ar..."Also, your mother wears army boots."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Army Boots are actually quite comfortable. most people would be surprised. I speak from experience as a active duty LtCol.<BR/><BR/>I must ask though, can anyone explain to me exactly what the scholars in the AAS or gender studies departments produce? Is there some kind of measurable, tangible product? For the life of me I cant figure out why I would want my children to sit through such drivel.<BR/><BR/>Dear Sirs and madams of the G88. how could you possibly suck that hard, I mean that's some serious jackassery right there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-19150231310131872452007-08-14T06:35:00.000-04:002007-08-14T06:35:00.000-04:0011:17: I'm with the others here who politely ask "...11:17: I'm with the others here who politely ask "put up or shut up." <BR/><BR/>Please show us where KC has taken a G88 member's quote out of context and/or described their 'scholarship' inaccurately. It's one thing to repeatedly claim that his analyses are "very, very bad," but quite another to substantiate the argument with specific examples. <BR/><BR/>You say his summaries are "bad" - I say 'prove it.' <BR/><BR/>Oh, and since you seem to wish to go toe-to-toe with KC, it would add much to your credibility if you would sign your posts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88742331521286854782007-08-14T02:53:00.000-04:002007-08-14T02:53:00.000-04:00I know why ordinary people cannot understand the ...I know why ordinary people cannot understand the scholarly efforts of the gang of 88.<BR/><BR/>It is heavy on the math. Plus the plasma physics is a bitch. And the electron transport equations just lose me.<BR/><BR/>Oh? That is not it? No math?<BR/><BR/>OK I'll try again. Ordinary people do not understand English. That's it. You see when the gang write, English words have special meaning.<BR/><BR/>Let me give you the general idea. Up means down. Except when it means up. Perfectly clear. How do you tell which is which? In the context of the narrative. However, not just any narrative. It must be in the context of supporting the victim class against the victimizers.<BR/><BR/>Let us say you buy an air conditioner. Who sold it to you? An evil corporation. Who sells you the electricity to run it? Another evil corporation. All you want to do is chill and immediately you must be involved with evil. To remove this taint the government should own everything in order to eliminate victimization by the evil corporations. Cool, huh?M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-7530696190668615822007-08-14T02:40:00.000-04:002007-08-14T02:40:00.000-04:00The KC-bashers and the Duke University bashers hav...The KC-bashers and the Duke University bashers have been commenting in droves today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-86247093658203280042007-08-14T02:30:00.000-04:002007-08-14T02:30:00.000-04:00To anon at 11:17"...It is also true that it needs ...To anon at 11:17<BR/><BR/>"...It is also true that it needs an argument...tenure stream faculty...small fry...big folk...No college that I can think of in their right mind put you on an APT committee...the work of scholars who you're gunning for..."<BR/><BR/>Did you learn to write at Duke?<BR/><BR/>-RDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-79100234551001835142007-08-14T01:01:00.000-04:002007-08-14T01:01:00.000-04:00locomotive breath - nice to see you on DiW, I like...locomotive breath - <BR/><BR/>nice to see you on DiW, I liked your comments on the Stanford Daily story.<BR/><BR/>[/gratuitous shoutout]Topherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13341013670537662616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-20058936135199929562007-08-14T00:56:00.000-04:002007-08-14T00:56:00.000-04:00...people today are so accustomed to pretentious n......people today are so accustomed to pretentious nonsense that they see nothing amiss in reading without understanding, and many of them at length discover that they can without difficulty write in like manner themselves and win applause for it. And so it perpetuates itself. <BR/>G. A. Wells, 1991Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41530614420475838302007-08-14T00:46:00.000-04:002007-08-14T00:46:00.000-04:00When a "scholarly" passage or "argument" cannot pa...When a "scholarly" passage or "argument" cannot pass the <I>smell test</I> of a causal observer then something is awry.<BR/><BR/>j.nc<BR/>- - - - - -<BR/>Science is simply <B>common sense</B> at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. <BR/><I>Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion? <BR/><I>Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Some things need to be believed to be seen. <BR/><I>Guy Kawasaki</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>...people today are so accustomed to pretentious nonsense that they see nothing amiss in reading without understanding, and many of them at length discover that they can without difficulty <B><I>write in like manner themselves and win applause for it. And so it perpetuates itself. </B></I><BR/><I>G. A. Wells, 1991</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88429291557850907892007-08-14T00:35:00.000-04:002007-08-14T00:35:00.000-04:00Anon 11:17pm --Your comment was a great first draf...Anon 11:17pm --<BR/><BR/>Your comment was a great first draft! You've set out a thesis (<I>the truth of the assertion that Johnson's summaries are badly done</I>) and taken the first steps towards a more detailed outline (<I>a. Johnson smears and obfuscates non-tenure and tenure stream faculty / b. Johnson focuses on the small fry / c. Johnson badly and baldly misrepresents the work of scholars who he's gunning for / d.,e.,f. Johnson's characterizations are incomplete, incorrect, or untrustworthy</I>).<BR/><BR/>Now, think more about your intended audience! If it's Group of 88 apologists, your work is done--A+! But if you are trying to persuade skeptical people who have read the Listening Statement and clicked on the links within the D-i-W profiles, you have farther to go. And be careful--many in this latter audience will see <A HREF="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4c610569be.htm" REL="nofollow">Antonio Gramsci's</A> "Long March Through The Institutions" as a <I>corruption</I> of Liberal ideals, rather than as the deserving triumph of the Vanguard.<BR/><BR/>In other words, you will have to frame your case in the hegemonistic language of logic, evidence, and citation. But don't be discouraged! Here are three hints to help you to a stronger second draft:<BR/><BR/>(1) Use the "cut" and "paste" functions of your computer to take actual examples of your outlined points (a. through f., above), and present them to your readers. Sometimes "show" is more persuasive than "tell."<BR/><BR/>(2) Web-log posts and comments often use something called a "hyperlink" to allow readers to access text and materials that strengthens the writer's case. <A HREF="http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_links.asp" REL="nofollow">Here</A> is a tutorial on how to use the "anchor" tag. Or, consider using <A HREF="http://www.tinyurl.com" REL="nofollow">TinyURL.com</A> links as a simpler alternative.<BR/><BR/>(3) If the blog comment seems like a paltry vessel for containing your finished essay, you can turn it into a full fledged blog post instead! Start a blog (how about anon1117showsKC.blogspot.com?). Then, use your new HTML skills (see 2, above) to leave a pointer to your post in D-i-W's comments! While Johnson's core readership may seem like <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak" REL="nofollow">kulaks</A>, they are starved for intelligent, documented defenses of the actions and scholarship of the Group of 88. No worries--midwife that essay, and it'll get read and commented on.<BR/><BR/>Anon 11:17pm (and other Group apologists), I hope this perky critique helps you leave a few of those excess sneers on the cutting-room floor, and get that first-rate essay out the door. Your readership's waiting!AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-38382274205581714192007-08-14T00:19:00.000-04:002007-08-14T00:19:00.000-04:00To Anon at 11:17I have to agree that your comments...To Anon at 11:17<BR/><BR/>I have to agree that your comments, such as your now-tired "incomplete, incorrect, untrustworthy, badly, baldly" litnay could really use some examples.<BR/><BR/>For example, you could write something like, "Bill Clinton gave Monica Lewinsky a copy of Wahneema Lubiano's seminal collection of writings, <I>"Pieces of Ass"</I> ... that's how GOOD it was!"<BR/><BR/>One SpookOne Spookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592774438681904368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-63685217192160887072007-08-14T00:15:00.000-04:002007-08-14T00:15:00.000-04:00Steven Horwitz said:"All complex systems of discov...Steven Horwitz said:<BR/><BR/>"All complex systems of discovery such as science and markets work through polycentric coordination (to use the scientist Michael Polanyi's term) and their whole reason for being is that we do not know a priori what choices are best. Same, LAXers, with athletic competition - the reason we play the game is to find out who's the best. Trying to say some lines of inquiry aren't worth pursuing ahead of time is like trying to declare one team the winner before the game is played."<BR/><BR/>For such systems to work failures must eventually be reduced in influence and eventually eliminated. That doesn't seem to be happening. In some cases such as the "angry studies" it's due to direct government intervention via affirmative action requirements distorting the "market of ideas". <BR/><BR/>But it looks to me like maybe there's something else going on: The Sokal hoax should have killed postmodernism and deconstructionism, yet they're still around. Is the system failing in this case too, or am I just too impatient?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-30721841856654554082007-08-14T00:08:00.000-04:002007-08-14T00:08:00.000-04:00Anonymous 11:17 said... ...you (KC) so badly and b...Anonymous 11:17 said... <BR/><BR/>...you (KC) so badly and baldly misrepresent the work of scholars who you're gunning for. Several comments over the last few entries have pointed out that once people go to your links they find that your characterizations are incomplete, incorrect, or untrustworthy.<BR/>::<BR/>I read the works referenced by KC and I agree with his analysis. <BR/><BR/>I don't see that KC and that I am gunning for any scholar but rather I find myself watching what happens when such scholars gun themselves.<BR/><BR/>Scholars at Duke shoot themselves in the foot? Durham Diesel Tech perhaps but Duke? Who Knew? <BR/>::<BR/>GPGary Packwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05177986821224068759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-34715534247839271952007-08-14T00:02:00.000-04:002007-08-14T00:02:00.000-04:00inre: 11:17 "...not because you hold certain cultu...inre: 11:17 "...not because you hold certain cultural or political beliefs but rather because you so badly and baldly misrepresent the work of scholars who you're gunning for..."<BR/><BR/>I'm again reminded of the church with the black congregation. The preacher rose and announced that he had a special surprise this beautiful Sunday morning. Instead of the gospel singing and clapping, he introduced a piccolo player for the weekly entertainment.<BR/><BR/>Not to long after the piccolo player began to play, someone in the audience yelled out, "the piccolo player is a mother- %$)$)@#".<BR/><BR/>Shocked everyone became silent and the preacher eyed the congregation. After noticing one man fidgeting, he asked, "Luther, are you the man who called my piccolo player a mother - $%$%@%?"<BR/><BR/>Luther reponded, "No Preacher, I am not the man who called your piccolo player a mother- $#%$#".<BR/><BR/>The preacher repeated this a couple of more times and then asked Larry, if he were the man who called his piccolo player a mother - @#$!%$%.<BR/><BR/>Larry stood, and said, "Preacher, I'm not the man who called your piccolo player a mother - $%@$%@. And, I'm not the man next to the man who called your piccolo player a mother - @$#%$%. And, I'm not the man next to the man, next to the man, who called your piccolo player a mother - #$%$%.<BR/><BR/>What I want to know is who called that mother - $%@$% a piccolo player?"<BR/><BR/>What I'd like to know is who calls these frauds Scholars?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-51969902091032533422007-08-13T23:55:00.000-04:002007-08-13T23:55:00.000-04:00" Normally at least two members will come from the..." Normally at least two members will come from the Arts and Sciences Division of Humanities, two from the Division of Social Sciences, two from the Division of Natural Sciences, one from the Pratt School of Engineering, one from the Fuqua School of Business, one from the basic medical sciences, and three from these or other units, subject to review."<BR/><BR/>You'd think this would be the 'adult supervision" needed to keep a department from going completely off the rails into some kind of groupthink nonsense. So why doesn't it work?<BR/><BR/>" In the event the AP&T Committee's recommendation is negative, the provost will review the dossier (prior to notification of the candidate or department) to determine whether all factors relating to the merit and value of the candidate, <B>including ethnic, racial, and gender diversity</B>, have been fully and adequately considered....<BR/>Should the provost choose not to accept the recommendation made by the AP&T Committee...."<BR/><BR/>Oh, that's why it doesn't work.<BR/><BR/>Who's Duke's provost again? How is the provost chosen?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-32604044380924860242007-08-13T23:51:00.000-04:002007-08-13T23:51:00.000-04:00Walldancer 8:11 said... ...I disagree that the "li...Walldancer 8:11 said... <BR/><BR/>...I disagree that the "listening statement" specifically condemned the lacrosse players. It certainly implied guilt and assumed facts not in evidence, but it was hardly alone in doing so, and was not the worst. Rather, it took advantage of a flashpoint to promote an agenda of victimhood for minorities on campus, analogous to a speaker at an open mike standing up and going off topic to promote their own agenda rather than addressing the issue at hand. It was offensive and juvenile, but not very persuasive.<BR/>::<BR/>It certainly implied guilt and assumed facts not in evidence and ...it was written and posted by members of the FACULTY. <BR/><BR/>The people who are there to protect and support...students. All students. <BR/><BR/>And it was not the worst? <BR/><BR/>What possibly could be 'worst' than such a statement from the FACULTY...for goodness sake?<BR/>::<BR/>GPGary Packwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05177986821224068759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-40876444395139047042007-08-13T23:50:00.000-04:002007-08-13T23:50:00.000-04:00Thank you for the suggestion Steven Horwitz. Upsta...Thank you for the suggestion Steven Horwitz. Upstate is actually beautiful and I spent a week in Lake Ontairo and a few days in Rome last summer.<BR/><BR/>At this point her search appears to be wide opened so maybe she will have an interest. <BR/><BR/>Let's get down to brass tacks. How far are you from Saratoga?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com