In 1970, Richard Nixon nominated an undistinguished Florida judge named G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. The appointment was part of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”: Carswell billed himself as a “strict constructionist,” code at the time for opposing civil rights and supporting tough-on-crime rulings.
The nomination quickly encountered trouble, in part because of Carswell’s earlier unabashed defenses of segregationism. But it also became increasingly clear that Carswell just wasn’t that smart.
In a bid to salvage the nomination, Nebraska senator Roman Hruska, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, informed the press, “There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos and stuff like that there.”
The damning praise from the judge’s most prominent supporter effectively killed the nomination.
----------
As with defending a figure like Carswell, defending the Group of 88 is no easy task. In the last few days, a few have given it a try. It appears, however, as if they’ve been channeling the spirit of Roman Hruska.
In a recent DIW comment thread, an anonymous commenter—who was clearly familiar with and sympathetic to Group members’ scholarship and the pedagogical approaches of at least a few Group members—criticized the “Group profile” series.
To date, the series has profiled 11 members of the Group. That total is unrepresentative of the professors’ accomplishments, since Group members with few or no publications can’t be profiled.
The commenter, however, criticized the series for focusing on “marginal academics rather than folks who have had long careers with stellar pedigrees.”
The eleven profiled members, it’s worth noting, include:
- The chairperson of Duke’s Academic Council;
- The dean of social sciences for Trinity College;
- A research professor who was listed as one of the University’s top recruits in 2005;
- The director of the University Writing Program.
And coming Monday is a profile of a tenured full professor and two-term department chairperson.
If “marginal academics rather than folks who have had long careers with stellar pedigrees” occupy such positions at Duke, the University has some serious problems.
Moreover, of the 11 faculty members thus far profiled, all but one (Jocelyn Olcott) have tenure. In effect, then, this anonymous commenter is defending the Group of 88 by suggesting that Duke has tenured at least ten professors who are “marginal academics” who lack “long careers with stellar pedigrees.”
Roman Hruska might be persuaded, but that doesn’t strike me as the most effective defense of the Group.
----------
While the anonymous commenter relied on the Roman Hruska approach to defend the Group, a longtime Group enabler has employed the irrelevance defense.
Writing at Devil’s Den, Michael Corey reasoned that the Group of 88 “did not have any impact whatsoever on the pseudo-biography that the media disseminated in besmirching the lacrosse team, and specifically the Triumvirate of the indicted.”
This, in and of itself, is a remarkable line of argument: 88 arts and sciences faculty members, at one of the nation’s most prestigious universities, take out a full-page ad (“in the most easily seen venue on campus”) suggesting that their own school’s students have contributed to a “social disaster.” Despite the high media interest in all Duke-related matters at the time, and despite the virtually unprecedented nature of such an act in the history of American higher education, the professors’ effort . . . had no effect.
Defense attorneys, of course, disagreed, and the Group’s statement received a prominent place in the change of venue motion. For what is, to my knowledge, the first time in American history, the statements and actions of students’ own professors were cited as one of the main reasons they could not receive a fair trial in the college town.
Corey’s counter: “As to the defense’s disagreement with me, I believe the defense attorneys are flatly very wrong.”
So, the choice is between accepting the interpretation of Jim Cooney, Joe Cheshire, and Brad Bannon or siding with the author of article #6 on the “March Madness” list of the ten worst articles on the case.
Roman Hruska might struggle to make this selection, but for most it’s not a difficult choice.
Corey also challenged the “Group profile” series on grounds of bias, noting (of me) that “every utterance he makes is rooted in his own opinion, which is GREAT for his purposes, and great for his audience, but must be considered with an opposing interpretation (of which, of course, there is none in the blogosphere).”
These claims, too, are peculiar. I fully concede that all of my posts are rooted in my opinion: that’s the nature of any blog in which the author has identified himself or herself publicly. But the blogosphere, if nothing else, is home to a diversity of opinion on almost every issue. Nothing prevents Group members or their defenders from starting their own blog celebrating the Group’s achievements or pointing out errors of fact or interpretation in portrayals of the Group. (Available URLs include we-don’t-follow-the-faculty-handbook.blogspot.com.)
Corey subsequently clarified himself, noting that pro-Group websites “are hardly on par with Johnson’s in terms of impact and notoriety . . . There is no equivalent to K.C. Johnson’s blog from an opposing point of view regarding the professors, and that’s a fact.”
So: the quality of DIW should be diminished to allow pro-Group blogs to better compete in the marketplace of ideas? Roman Hruska might be persuaded, but that doesn’t strike me as the most effective defense of the Group.
In his previous article, Corey had denounced the “seething” and “shrieking” blog attacks against the Group of 88, who he portrayed as victims of the blogs in the same way that the three indicted players were victims of Mike Nifong. It now appears that he didn’t read too closely the blog posts criticizing the Group, perhaps explaining why his article cited not even one blog post that he considered “seething” or “shrieking.”
A Devil’s Den commenter asked Corey about his opinion of Houston Baker’s March 29, 2006 letter, probably the second-most notorious lacrosse-related document (after the Group’s statement) produced by the Duke faculty. Corey’s response? “I haven’t read Houston Baker’s letter.” What about the Kim Curtis grade retaliation against Kyle Dowd? “I’m unfamiliar with the details of the case.” How about Peter Wood’s apparent slandering of Reade Seligmann? “Again, I’m not familiar with specific remarks Professor Wood might have made against Reade.”
Oh.
Roman Hruska might be persuaded by the willful ignorance approach, but that doesn’t strike me as the most effective defense of the Group. Or, on second thought, perhaps it is the most effective defense of the Group.
As with the anonymous Group defender, Corey’s comments effectively proved the critics’ case. Take, for instance, his assertion that Maurice Wallace “is one of the great young English professors in the country.” Indeed, as the profile of Wallace pointed out, the Group of 88’er received a major award from the MLA.
As the post also noted, Wallace’s writing style features excruciatingly long and virtually incomprehensible sentences that wouldn’t pass muster in most introductory composition classes, much less from a tenured faculty member at an elite institution. How many people outside the academy would be comfortable with such a figure being “one of the great young English professors in the country”? [emphasis added]
Most Group members said they wanted “dialogue” but thereafter refused to speak, despite the protections of tenure and academic freedom. Corey and the anonymous commenter deserve credit for at least trying to provide a public defense of the Group. But, as Roman Hruska discovered during the Carswell fight, defending the indefensible can sometimes lead the defender to make intellectually torturous arguments.
249 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 249 of 249mac @ 10:08
I'd be careful adopting an animal-like persona, especially given the specieists' interest in studying the relationship between man and the rest of life. You may in fact be addressing K. Rudy.
rakph phelan said: "C'mon folks, are there any other words that should be added to that list?"
Sure:
misogynist
homophobe
To those who argue that because KC et al. are not experts on such things as "queer theory," the race/class/gender Trinity, etc., they have no right to criticize the G88 and their fellow travelers, I say: If this is true then surely you also believe that anyone who isn't a Civil Engineer has no business arguing that something went horribly wrong vis-a-vis the recent bridge collapse in Minnesota, right?
[crickets chirping]
Right?
Dear Crickets,
I'd want to hear from civil/structural engineers before I formed an opinion, wouldn't you?
I rather think there are plenty of attempts on this blog to intimidate those who disagree with KC and/or the anti-88 tenor of most postings. I guess that intimidation doesn't count? If you read backwards on this blog, there is a great deal of name calling, starting with "troll" applied to those with whom one disagrees.
12:27
And so you're concluding that something DIDN'T
"go horribly wrong" in the bridge collapse?
Chorus of "Everything's beautiful...,"
sung by 12:27 while on strong antipscyhotic medication.
The commenters making the argument that KC's criticism of the G88's scholarship remind me of the callers to sports radio talk shows who claim the hosts can't make a criticism because they "never played the game".
I never played DI basketball but I know that John Beilien is a much better coach than Tommy Amaker (sorry Dukies).
I also don't need to be an expert to realize that Sigal's theory that “it is the desire for the phallus that will allow access to political power” has no merit
***It used to be that I could trust that a Harvard (for example) professor was a serious scholar. Now I know he might be real or he might be a posuer. If he's from chemistry he's probably a real scholar. If he's from African American Studies he's probably a poseur. Sociology has been infected, so if he's from there there's a strong possibility he's a politicized hack. What if he's from French Literature? Is that still a serious departement? I don't know and that's the problem. I now have to do research to determine if a professor from a "reputable" university is really a good-faith scholar or not.***
I think that is a ridiculous blanket statement. Many who aren't in lock-step with KC's thoughts are accused of making arguments that aren't based in fact. This statement is utterly lacking in any meaningful factual basis. Once again, you state:
***If he's from chemistry he's probably a real scholar. If he's from African American Studies he's probably a poseur. Sociology has been infected, so if he's from there there's a strong possibility he's a politicized hack.***
How, might I ask, would one approach the subject of African American studies so as not to be a "poseur"? I took some black politics classes in college, and quite frankly, with the exception of the past 40+ years, the ENTIRE history of black/racial politics in this country has been one of slavery, then share-cropping, then segregation, poll taxes, discrimination, etc. (obviously, there are those who would disagree with the theory that seems to be prevalent there that Affirmative Action and Affirmative Action alone means that today, whites are discriminated against moreso than blacks, because blacks get a heads-up in the application process... that'll land a defensive lineman falsely accused of rape from the University of Miami who has a B+ average a job at a top company like one of the falsely accused laxers got, right?!?!?).
I mean, would you propose that African American studies shift moreso to the presumption that blacks have it better in society today? That it is better to grow up in South Central or Bridgeport CT than it is to grow up where these boys did, because if you are black and from Compton, and happen to have excelled in school, you could have an easier time getting into Duke with an A average and a 1250 on your SATs than a white kid with an A+ and a 1400? Are you serious?
From my perspective, SATs scores are not really based on merit. "Merit" is something I see moreso as the quality of work produced and the effort put forth by a person. I consider SAT scores more of a representation of one's capacity as opposed to whether or not they deserve to go to an elite college. Sure, its relevant, but you are basically rewarding someone not solely for an outstanding academic track record and work product, but moreso for their capacity as measured by a test.
Nonetheless, to argue that a slight advantage for diligent black students in the recruiting process somehow puts blacks from destitute areas on the same playing field as the Duke 3 is kind of ridiculous.
But back to the main point of my post: your assertion was a blanket one, and is utterly inconsistent with my experience with what you call "angry studies" professors. I mean, maybe you believe that our history of slavery, sharecropping, segregation, poll taxes, etc., is irrelevant to our nation's history... but I think it is essential to understand our nation's history and our present society.
Furthermore, my memories of these "angry studies" classes included learning about whites who participated in the Civil Rights movement, some of whom were killed for doing so by good old boys from the South, and who were even treated as outsiders by their black contemporaries for not knowing what it was like. Mind you, I learned about the black distrust of their white civil rights contemporaries from a black "angry studies" professor who had the gall to be teaching about such unpleasant topics and lynchings (which Polanski apparently believed happened more often to whites by blacks than vice versa, what a maniac!), and politics in the George Wallace South.
A few quick replies:
To the 11.27pm:
"My concern is a different one--namely, that the academy seems to consider an increasing number of questions and pedagogical approaches off-limits, thereby limiting the number of topics about which students can learn."
To put not too fine a point on it, this is risible. This is nonsense on stilts and you know it. No one is making off-limits an increasing number of questions and pedagogical approaches, least of all those at Duke you've clumped together under the name 'Gang of 88.'"
First of all, I've never used the term "Gang of 88." Second, the Group members--as far as I know--"clumped" themselves together by signing the ad--unless you're now claiming that some Group members, like the academic depts. listed as signing the ad, did not in fact sign the ad.
On the broader issue: intellectual diversity is the default position in the academy--we add new types of knowledge, but rarely (especially in the humanities and soc. sciences) eliminate fields. That's why, for most of American history, colleges and universities in the US featured broadened intellectual horizons.
In the last 10-15 years, we have witnessed something unprecedented in American higher education--conscious attempts, through staffing and curricular decisions, to eliminate or "revision" subfields perceived as "politically incorrect." (I testified on this matter in 2003, before the Senate Labor and Education Committee.) In history, the targets most often have been political, diplomatic, legal, and military history--fields perceived as focused on "dead white males." Comparable targeting has occurred in other fields, such as English, Literature, Sociology, and Anthropology.
The result is the sort of thing we see in the Duke History Department this fall--a specialist in LA gender history teaching a course on US foreign policy in the Congo. That's the sort of thing you'd expect from a 4th-tier public university, which, short of funds, has to have profs teaching outside of their research or even regional expertise.
To the 10.13:
"The group may well have indicated willingness to talk. And may well have done so. Just not to you. Why would any of them? You spend a great deal of your time attacking them singling and as a group. People don't like to talk/"dialogue" to people who don't appear to listen well or to be v. tolerant. That would describe you in my humble opinion.
With all the time you spend trying to force these people to do what you want them to do, you could maybe write a good book."
My CV is here. As you can see, I've stayed reasonably productive.
Over the last 17 months, I've developed quite a few contacts among the Duke faculty, and so have a pretty good sense of what Group members are and are not doing on campus. As for dialogue with me, I don't believe I've ever demanded such a thing.
It does seem to me that the first people with whom the Group should "dialogue" are the three falsely accused players and their families. No such dialogue has occurred--the Group members apparently preferred to let Duke's money do their talking for them. Ditto (with a couple of exceptions) in their treatment of the rest of the lacrosse team, with whom they also don't seem much interested in "dialogue."
The Group's general approach to dialogue was captured well in a Feb. Chronicle of Higher Ed story. After Michael Gustafson expressed concerns about Anne Allison's class, the two met.
Here's Allison: "The very query seemed hostile," she says. "I mean, I'm not asking him about his class." She wondered whether she had been singled out because she had signed the Group of 88 ad . . . "He heard me," she says, "but did he really hear me? I don't know." She is teaching the course as planned."
In other words: "dialogue" means perhaps listening to the Group's critics, complaining about not being understood, and then charging ahead without changing.
Finally, one point on the complaint--which ostensibly is coming from academics--criticizing the Group profile series on the grounds that I lack the academic credentials to describe Group members' work.
I say that these complaints ostensibly come from academics because I can only assume genuine academics wouldn't make them. In the academy, not only do professors describe work from outside their fields--they regular pass judgment on it, with careers on the line. Departments make hires--so in large departments, professors will frequently be casting votes on candidates outside their areas of expertise. And most universities (including Duke) has a general tenure review committee, which consists of profs from different departments passing judgment on the work of untenured professors at the school.
Such systems might be good, they might be bad. But the idea that it's unprecedented to conduct fairly generic descriptions of other professors' writings is, to put it mildly, odd.
10:13 am,
Any attacks KC may have done are richly deserved considering the actions of the G88 faculty. They not only signed on to a public ad which was inflammatory and attempt to deflect blame when called out, but also seem oblivious to the fact that while they may not be privileged in some ways, they are greatly privileged in others....especially as faculty members with the POWER TO GRADE STUDENTS. The fact that there are indications of such grade retaliation against Duke students merely for affiliation with the Lacrosse team is highly troubling, indeed. It is something I can believe since I've seen it happen to myself and friends at other universities throughout my college career.
Hell, the worst case I've witnessed happened to a high school friend who was a straight-A mechanical engineering major at an Ivy-level institution. Even though he averaged -As in an advanced calculus course throughout the semester in his frosh year, the tenured asshat calc prof chose to give him an F as the final grade because he had some animus against the engineering students at the university. Despite this being a slam dunk case with my friend's advisor and the Deans of the engineering and the arts & sciences schools working on his behalf, it took two full years of bureaucratic wrangling before that F was finally changed to the -A he deserved. Unfortunately, the vast majority of grade disputes that I knew about from friends and my own experience tended to favor the Profs. However, all these experiences happened about a decade ago. From Haskell's mentioning of the Duke mom who posted, not much has changed.
Unfortunately, I've found similar crap also happens in the professional world if the supervisor happens to be an asshat the institution likes due to his/her being good at playing office politics and/or valued for other reasons. While I've been lucky in not having to experience this myself, I've witnessed highly productive colleagues who got poor reviews and/or canned due to the same unprofessional biased animus from their supervisors. From talking with friends and acquaintances who work in the private or public sectors, this seems to be a common experience. Though these asshat supervisors are a minority like the G88s and Profs of their ilk, their actions tend to bring ill-repute by association to everyone else in their respective positions.
I don't know that diplomatic, economic, military, and political history (I disagree with you about legal history) have been "targeted" as more space has been made for other kinds of history: cultural, gender,social, etc., so the lock that the other, older subfields had on history departments has been broken. And, a good thing, too. History is way more fun to read and study now than it was, say, 20 to 30 years ago, when it was so overwhelmingly top down.
10:14
Maybe you can ask Senator Obama why he thought a
federal investigation was warranted?
Oh, right: Obama is part of that "vast right-wing conspiracy,"
is anti-academic and kills puppies who won't fight.
Ralph 10:32
You're right: NPD is virtually uncorrectable.
Larry D (Aug 2) 1:18 pm is right, too.
Inman 11:24
Rudy's too busy singing the Bloodhound Gang's
"Aint Nothing But Mammals"
to pay any attention to straights.
(The lyrics are self-explanatory if you look 'em up.)
12:27 I'd prefer to hear from licensed/qualified engineers myself.
12:29 Agree. Can't let those folk stop your posting. Actually, Mac is the "Troll" king. THe rest - not so much.
Rudy is my candidate and a proven warrier,
12:45
You make a few good points.
However, some of us have posed the concept of a REAL African Studies Dept.,
not just the Kwaanza-ized shit that makes everybody
in the department look stupid. Real African History,
on a par with Asian Studies etc,
warts and all, not "racialist" fantasies, promulgated by cannabis
aficianodos who are, in fact, delusional, as evidenced by their
various scribblings (see Houston Baker; Grant Farred etc..)
Not the "colonialist" crap -
(though that certainly is part of a larger, much larger reality) -
including the present Darfur crisis, the Congo wars and the
decimation of the gorilla population by the Congolese
and so forth.
Few academics would be brave enough to go there, I'll predict in advance.
Another proposal:
Let's have a racial Title IX.
You can cogitate the outcome.
Actually, 1:35, I have agreeably
disagreed with quite a few posters.
That's when they pose intelligent, well-stated remarks,
like Soc. Sc. Prof and S. Horwitz, who've bothered to give themselves
a handle.
Generally speaking, someone who
identifies SOMETHING about themselves, (name, pseudoname etc)
is not a troll.
And you?
Mac:
There are courses about AFRICAN history. We were discussing AFRICAN-AMERICAN history, were we not?
As it relates to blacks, American history is kind of one big wart, is it not? I mean, the current remedial measures that try to correct societal conditions that formed over hundreds of years are viciously attacked by those who say it is unfair to let the Compton kid with a 1250 and an outstanding academic background and work product into a Duke over a white kid with a 1400 and a similar academic background.
In either case, their SAT score relates to their aptitude rather than their quality as persons and as students. In my opinion, SAT scores speak nothing of merit, but moreso of natural capabilities and perhaps the resources to take fancy SAT prep courses which cost a ton of money but can actually produce great results (which, by the way, are more likely to be available to the white kid than the black one, to say nothing of the other advantages of growing up in suburbia and attended elite public or private schools paid for not by the students themselves, but their parents).
So, insofar as lazy kids with poor work product are being let into school over diligent students, I agree it is unfair. Not so with SAT scores. With the exception of SAT prep courses being available to the wealthy kids, SAT scores aren't earned, its natural.
FDNY,
I agree with some of what you've said, but
hesitate when you offer the opinion that SATs
aren't earned: if you haven't taken math courses, you won't do
well on that portion. If you haven't been reading and writing,
you will likely do poorly on the verbal portion.
(I sucked at the math portion, BTW,
not because I don't have the raw ability -
but because I was lazy and didn't
earn a good score.)
I would also argue that African History is a big
part of American History,
and of African-American History,
just as European History is a big
part of American History.
"I rather think there are plenty of attempts on this blog to intimidate those who disagree with KC and/or the anti-88 tenor of most postings. I guess that intimidation doesn't count?"
I was going to patiently explain the difference in significance between "you'll never post on this blog again" and "you'll never work in this field again" but I decided not to on the grounds that nobody could make an argument this stupid in good faith.
No Justice No Peace 1:14:
I'd prefer to hear from licensed/qualified engineers myself.
Regarding what topic? That something went "horribly wrong?"
I want to hear from qualified engineers to learn precislely how the obvious horrible wrongness occurred - I do not need a deconstructive analysis to inform me that a disaster in fact occured.
Have I misunderstood you? Has academe become so blinded by meta-analysis that they quite literally cannot even accept as given that "multiple deaths in bridge collapse" is equivalent to something being "horribly wrong?"
Or is this just your inability to cede even the smallest point to those you consider opponents in this blog discussion?
That's about the answer I expected ANON 1:59. Thanks for your contribution....nothing.
"How, might I ask, would one approach the subject of African American studies so as not to be a "poseur"?"
I don't know. Not being a civil engineer I can't say why the bridge in Minneapolis fell down and what to do to fix it. But I don't have to be one to note that it fell down. Not being a professional academic I don't know how to fix AAAS, but I don't need to be one to observe that "If the author of Black Studies, Rap, and the Academy [Houston Baker] is truly representative of the best black studies has to offer, then it necessarily follows that black studies is a joke, a pitiful and preposterous burlesque of scholarship foisted on the academy in the holy name of diversity."
"I took some black politics classes in college, and quite frankly, with the exception of the past 40+ years, the ENTIRE history of black/racial politics in this country has been one of slavery, then share-cropping, then segregation, poll taxes, discrimination, etc. "
So? This country has Japanese-Americans whose grandparents were put in concentration camps by FDR, Vietnamese-Americans whose parents fled "reeducation camps", Jews whose grandparents fled the Holocaust, Cuban-Americans whose parents fled poverty and oppression on inner tubes, Irish-Americans whose ancestors fled a deadly famine engineered by the British, etc., etc. When they go to college they major in chemistry, computer science, accounting, pre-med, pre-law, English literature, Chinese history, linguistics, music ... not the oppression of their ancestors. They may take a course or two that mentions it in passing, but there aren't whole departments of "what the Turks did to the Armenians."
Students should be looking to the future ... in which case studying Africa is a lot less urgent than studying India and China. As of 2007 we may be the world's only superpower, but that situation isn't going to last for long.
Regarding KC's response to his critics at 12:48 PM.....more softballs quickly leaving the park.
Please keep tossing them..... I love to watch KC hit!!!!
" I mean, the current remedial measures that try to correct societal conditions that formed over hundreds of years ..."
Read a little Thomas Sowell (and if you haven't already, your "Black Politics" classes were sadly incomplete and biased.) Many indicators of black well-being rose too-slowly but still steadily from the Civil War up to about 1965, then plummetted with the onset of the Great Society.
For example, if you believe the current social crisis of black families is a "legacy of slavery" then the Motown hit "Love Child" should never have existed - it's about a world in which a black girl being born out of wedlock is unusual and a source of shame. But if you explain the current situation as a side-effect of a badly designed welfare system, the existence of that song in that era makes perfect sense, as does the increase in illegitimacy among poor white people in the same timeframe.
That you don't already know this speaks to the poor quality of what currently passes for "Black Studies."
"SAT scores speak nothing of merit, but moreso of natural capabilities and perhaps the resources to take fancy SAT prep courses which cost a ton of money but can actually produce great results"
I'm not sure what you mean by "merit." SATs are not designed to measure a person's worth as a human being, they're designed to measure the likelihood of them getting through a given college without flunking out. So long as they measure that effectively, which so far as anyone can tell they do, then no hard-luck story and no amount of sympathy justify admitting someone to a school where they won't be able to keep up. It certainly is no favor to the student in question.
12:27 and 1:14, you're creating a false dilemma. I specifically stated that one doesn't have to be a Civil Engineer to know that "something went horribly wrong" with that bridge. Just like I don't need to be a cardiologist to know that if I fall down writhing in pain from crushing chest pains there might be something wrong with my heart.
And just like we don't have to be experts in "queer theory," "feminist 'jurisprudence,'" etc., to understand that something is horribly wrong with Angry Studies.
Nice try though.
'In the last 10-15 years, we have witnessed something unprecedented in American higher education--conscious attempts, through staffing and curricular decisions, to eliminate or "revision" subfields perceived as "politically incorrect."'
Oddly, that time frame pretty much matches your working adult life rather than the age of the field formations that you critque. African American studies, Women's Studies, and other fields in the humanties are 30 plus years old and counting. Could this actually be about something else? It reads as if you are complaining that you aren't at an Ivy or first tier public and that, in fact, your field is denigrated and mysteriously shut out of the running for jobs at places like Duke.
It must have all started with Duke's hiring John Hope Franklin, I would imagine. Quality has been going downhill since then.
Ralph Phelan @ 3:02,
Then several college classmates of mine were probably great exceptions to the rule. All of them had a combined SAT score of around < 1200 placing them in the bottom 25% of the admissions pool at my alma mater. From the points you've made about how SATs effectively judge someone's likelihood of getting through a given college without flunking out, their SATs should have placed them near the bottom of our graduating class. That's assuming, of course, they even made it to graduation.
Oddly enough, they not only graduated, but also performed well enough to graduate respectably. A few even graduated in the top 10% with double majors in fields such as Pre-med biology and East Asian history. How would you explain this?
The core complaint seems to be that there has been no apology by the 88. Why is it that no one points out the obvious: in a toxic emotional and political environment--stoked intentionally and made all the worse by the rhetoric of this blog--any such statement would be read as an invitation to sue Duke and/or individual signers of the apology and evidence for such a lawsuit.
I wouldn't sign that kind of statement, either, no matter what I now felt about the environment at Duke and in Durham just after the false rape charge, and as an attorney I would insist that my client not issue such a statement.
Of course, that means that this blog keeps to beat this particular drum ad nauseum. The legal environent allows Johnson and others to work themselves up into a fever-pitch about the 88, and to keep alive all of the bad will, anger, and mistrust. That, in turn, allows Johnson to continue to link the scholarship of some faculty at Duke to the debacle on Buchanan.
I can't see how he or any of the other angry posters on this blog have any real interest in having it any other way, quite frankly. "Angry studies"? This place is a study in anger if there ever was one, and I'm sure that the emotions will be used by those who align themselves against Johnson as Johnson has used it and will continue to use it against them.
To the 4.12:
As you might know, one component of the settlement with the three families was an agreement not to sue the faculty for statements/actions before the settlement. Whatever legal liability the Group might have had for apologizing no longer seems present.
In any event, one signatory of the Group statement, Arlie Petters, did apologize--months ago. None of the lacrosse players or their families went after Petters legally after he apologized.
Indeed, it was my sense, from speaking with some of the lacrosse players and their families, that Petters' apology was very much appreciated.
To the 3.59:
Actually, the time frame I made was quite deliberate. It's only in the last 10-15 years that devotees of the race/class/gender trinity have assumed working control in many social sciences and humanities departments, and therefore the ability to shape job descriptions and control hires.
As I've stated on many occasions in op-eds and blog postings, I have no objection at all to a pedagogically diverse academy, and would consider a History Department, say, lacking a specialist in women's history or African-American history to be not properly staffed--just as I would consider a department lacking in a political historian, or a diplomatic historian to be poorly staffed. Unfortunately, the broad-mindedness shown by the supposedly narrow "old guard" of historians in 1970s and 1980s hiring patterns hasn't been matched in recent years.
As for my personal academic career, I spent four years at Williams--generally considered academically either the #1 or #2 liberal arts college in the country. I left largely because I didn't like living in Williamstown and wanted to be in New York; I turned down a promise of being brought up for tenure immediately to stay.
I know Williams well, it is an elite college. All of my football buddies from Williams were FAR below the SAT average (which is on par if not exceeding that of the Ivy League Schools and which certainly beats if not equals Duke).
Those kids, probably with anywhere from an 1100-1250 on their SATs were FAR below the average SAT score, yet -- similar to Obie's experience -- finished much higher in their class rank than their SAT score would dictate.
I do believe, also, Ralph Phelan, that the Duke lax kids are often cited as having been rather high-quality students. These were D-I student-athletes, even if it is a lower-tier sport... they are still recruited like most other D-I sports. Therefore, it is safe to say that these high-quality students who play lax probably do average significantly lower on their SATs than does the rest of the Duke student body.
Once again, I reiterate my belief that the SATs might be useful as a measure of capacity... but I don't believe that in the pursuit of getting an "A", that there is really any huge advantage for a kid with a 1450 rather than a kid wiht an 1100. Getting A's and being a great student, researcher, memorizer-of-facts-for-a-test is more of a matter of due diligence rather than aptitude.
If you attended college, you'd realize that most students have tha ability to get straight A's, particularly in fields that don't rely exclusively on sciece or math.
Fact of the matter is in my opinion -- which we are all entitled to -- a great student from a rough inner city is far more impressive than his performance equal from a rich town and private school with higher SAT scores. Both deserve to do extremely well and deserve to get into great colleges... but in my opinion I'm not giving the slam dunk to the kid with higher SAT scores.
Of course, if the real world experience dictated that kids with higher SAT scores made for better students who worked harder and consistently outperformed and outworke their contemporaries with lower scores, then I'd agree with you. I find it, however, a rather poor measure of academic success.
I challenge you to do something that will bolster BOTH our arguments (mine re: SAT scores and yours about the lax kids being good students). Compare the Duke lax kids (sports recruits who probably helped themselves get in with an entirely NON-ACADEMIC skill) and their acholastic performance with Duke as a whole. I'm willing to bet that (1) their SATs are FAR lower on average; but that (2) Their performance is the rough equivalent of the student body as a whole.
Unless, of course, you don't believe they belong there. Because if Affirmative Action is an illegitimate way to get into college, what the HELL is a third-tier, non-income producing sport?
obie98 3:39
"How would you explain this? "
SATs only claim to be pretty good on the average, not perfect in every case. It can make sense for an experienced admissions officer to make a human judgement that he sees something in a student that makes him think the test is underestimating that particular student's potential and let them in anyway (I know of no college that just uses SAT scores and nothing else.) That's very different from letting in people with lower-than-average test scores solely because of their race or class background in the total absence of any reason to think they'll do better than their SAT score would predict. On the average that will give you a high dropout rate for poor & minority students so admitted, which is what we see.
I'm approaching this all with a manufacturing-statistics mindset. When you get a high scrap-rate/dropout-rate with parts/students that share a certain characteristic there's a problem that needs to be fixed.
4:12
"It's your fault we can't apologize because you keep asking us to."
Yeah right.
"Damn, I wish I'd never signed that. I feel like such a jerk." admits no liability.
Obie98
Just looked at your post more closely. Bottom quartile is not that low - it's still part of the main pack (though just barely).
Asserting that it's so doesn't make it so. Those jobs teaching Shakespeare and introduction to American History still need to be taught. Studies in the Novel and Nineteenth-Century French Poetry are still being taught--and now at the top schools those courses are taught by folks who teach, say, Jewish diaspora literature as their specialty and American Literature as their general field. They are trained in both.
There are three things about this. Firstly, from the tenor of most of the comments of your readers, one would think that women's studies professors are pushing Shakespeare scholars out of their jobs. That a Shakespeare scholar could also be a women's studies professor seems not to have occurred to them--but, again, even given that, it's just not true. More students than ever take core courses such as Shakespeare or Milton or American History, and those courses are taught by qualified faculty, both generalists and research Ph.D.s. Secondly, in this funding environment most scholars are called upon to teach outside their core area of expertise or training, no matter what the school. Tenure-track positions are not being expanded and it just isn't at the "fourth tier" institutions either. Thirdly, a discussion about, say, the crisis in publishing that relies on a market model where, for example, military histories are not being published at the same volume as are "sexy" topics such as culture and blogging (for example), or what it means to have small faculties where older field-coverage models of expertise are being displaced by speciality and fiel-coverage models of faculty hiring--none of those difficult topics are being covered by your "exposes" of Duke faculty. What's more, the harranguing of Duke faculty is down-right Quixotic given how far off it is from what I see to be the real purpose of this blog: to document what really happened on the night of party on Buchanan and its aftermath.
Let's take one example of harranguing: Pete Sigal. Though I have not read Sigal's work, I am assuming that it is psychoanalytic in nature if it discusses power relations in terms of "the phallus." Since phalluses (representations of penises) are important to many ancient cultures--Greek, Roman, Mayan, etc.--and were prominent in their fine arts and representations of religious and political cremonies, it would all the more make sense that Sigal would discuss masculinty, sexuality, and power (political or otherwise) in terms of phalluses. Your Beavis-and-Butthead crowd seems to think that the use of the word is itself indicative of "unserious" scholarship. That's a lie, and you are too smart not to know it is 1) a lie, and 2) wrong to intimate there is something substandard with Sigal's scholarship just because he talks Mayan sexuality and its relationship to power. I would offer a defense of others who have met your bloggered derision, but I won't. In fact, I would offer a withering critique of the sociologist who used the appelation "Amerikkka," but again I think it would fall on deaf ears. Your readers for the most part already seem to know what they want to read: snide descriptions of scholarship that somehow proves the modern academy is degenerate.
No wonder no one wants to engage your ideas, KC. You have let this blog become a toxic place for such discussions. Most people will ignore whatever good is in your critiques because they don't want to wade through the rivers of rhetorical shit that flow out of this place.
Will sure - and some folk wanted you to move to Durham.
To the 5.08:
I urge you to re-read the Sigal post. It makes no judgment one way or the other about his scholarship: it simply describes it.
The post does make a judgment about the History Department having three historians of Mexico, C.A., and Hispanic South America who are gender specialists. Somehow, I suspect that if the three were all specialists in Latin American political or military history, supporters of the Group on campus would be more than displeased.
One other point: the subtitle of this blog is "comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case." The blog's central argument, from its inception, has been that "events on Buchanan" exposed twin scandals--a rush-to-judgment prosecutor who violated ethics rules; and faculty members willing to abandon the academy's traditional fidelity to due process so they could advance their curricular, pedagogical, and ideological agendas. My initial posts on the case (April 2006), in fact, were all about the faculty. Since I had no connection to any lacrosse players and no real knowledge of the specifics of the case, I couldn't comment on those issues until more facts became clear--in early May 2006.
@ 5:08
Gee, just what every student needs: a course in 19th century French poetry taught by, who else, someone with "Jewish diaspora literature as their specialty and American Literature as their general field." That will be a real help in parsing Mallarme.
A minor point, re the 5.08:
It's a little ironic to be lectured on appropriate etiquette for "engaging ideas" from someone who terms those who disagree with him/her a "Beavis and Butthead" crowd . . .
Ralph Phelan 3:59 pm & 4:53,
You've made good points on the general utility of the SAT. Thankfully most schools don't use the SAT as the sole criterion for admission. Judging by the stories I hear about college admissions processes in many East Asian countries, basing admissions solely on a single score would make the college admissions process into a hellish experience for the parents and students involved.
To the 5:08
Nice try, but it's not always the name of the course that's
important,
but the tone and texture of the instructor and his/her manual,
whether they're advertising the course properly and honestly,
and whether or not the syllabus is available for the edification of the student.
One poster recently stated that their youngster was enrolled in a course
on the history of the homefront
in WWII (pardon me if I've mis-stated the specific description)
and the student had assumed it
was a course about the industrial
growth/military buildup
that was occuring as the U.S. was
fighting the Axis powers.
Instead, the course was about the
home-alone homosexual class.
Some might have found that interesting,
but it wasn't how the course was advertised.
It was apparently an exercise in false advertising.
I took a course in kinesthiology
at a small local college: the
instructor didn't even have the
proper books for this course,
and didn't know his subject.
(later on, he also didn't get tenure.)
Problem was, the course was an exercise in
false advertising: it was not a
course in Kinesthiology.
I withdrew while I could get a refund, but other students were
too late, and they were mightily pissed,
especially those adults who were
using the course for professional enhancement.
(That was the point where I began to trust
my intuition about such things.)
The "scholarship" of some
of the 88 is - (like the published
works of Lubianno) - nonexistent,
just like the scholarship
of the instructor in the course in Kinesthiology.
"and to keep alive all of the bad will, anger, and mistrust."
That is rich, coming from an 88 defender.
KC, that "Beavis and Butthead" reference was appropriate there. Are you telling me that those who for whatever reason keep bringing up the "floating phallus" thing (perhaps you included? I didn't catch it on your blog) are being mature or are adding to the discussion?
It is akin to someone trying to mock a mechanic who must use in his trade a "dip stick" or a worker at a nuclear power plant who handles "rods". Yes, it is funny, actually its pretty hilarious... but I also found Beavis and Butthead hilarious. I kind of find that whole area of scholarship hilarious in general. But that does not a mature conversation make, now does it?
Particularly in light of the way its used... the "Beavis and Butthead crowd" references that over and over it seems, without context and solely for the purpose of being knuckleheads, no?
I don't know how many of the contributors here belong to an ethnic minority. I am 1/2 white, but look 100% white, and let me tell you some of these ethnic studies are such a farce. Many of the histories come from oral histories and how much credance can you give to that?? Just look at 911. Even though there have been volumes written about the event, you still have people like Rosie O'Donnell who think the Prez was in on it.
Oral histories are very suspect. My mom is Chinese. What my mom liked about her family was the committment to hard work, respect for elders, and the importance of education. It was also important not to bring any disgrace to the family name. Life was that simple.
It would never have occured to her to credit communist China and all the history of all the oppresors there for the success our family has had in America. It was all about family and dedication to hard work if you wanted to make it.
If my sisters and I had wanted to major in Asians studies, her first question whould have been, "How are you going to make a living?"
Everything was practical and not materialistic. Get a college education, buy a house, save money.
Simple. I'm not sure the real value for all these degrees. For many students, it's not "putting food on the table."
She and her side of the family was so ashamed when a Chinese family successfully sued the state of CA to have bilingual education for their child. Our family and thousands of others had done just fine for the previous 150 years. That sure opened up a can of worms for education.
Anon 5:08pm --
Thanks for commenting. It would be worth exploring some of your thoughts. Unfortunately for the conversation, there are a few points you haven't thought of, or worse, that you have.
1. People don't like to be patronized. Part of learning to have a dialog is to keep your knowledge of your innate superiority under cover. This also opens up the possibility of being surprised.
2. It's a negative that you blog as you do, anonymously. Pious in your condemnation of the less-schooled and the anti-intellectual alike, yet you won't post under a pseudonym so that interested parties can get a sense of your thinking. Drop in, slag, drop in again later, disguised among the other anons. Hey, everyone does it. But then you get treated the same way as the rest of the anons.
3. If you actually want a conversation in blog comments, try this: pick the best arguments opposed to yours to discuss. Not the worst ones. If you don't like KC's threads as a forum, do as others have done and start your own blog. At opportune times, drop in to D-i-W and leave a link to your own post. Host a lively party, and it's likely that interesting folks will show up. You're obviously in the academics biz, and well read, and you write a mean paragraph (no sarcasm--you do write well). So put your talents to work to call forward what you say you find lacking here.
--AMac
Anon 8:29:00 PM,
You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with your implied assertion that the purpose of a college education is a form of glorified job training for a lucrative profession.
I've known too many classmates, especially Asian-Americans who had that mentality. As a result, they ended up expending so much effort on training for a particular industry such as computer science/software engineering that they neglected everything else. When the industry they trained for left them behind in the wake of the tech bubble bust in 2000-2001, most of those classmates with degrees from places like Carnegie Mellon and MIT were left unemployed. They struggled to find other forms of employment due to their overly narrow skillset. During the last high school reunion, all I kept hearing from them was how they were considered "overqualified" or their skillsets were irrelevant for other positions.
In the midst of these lamentations, they also expressed bitterness at how their major's supposed promises of "steady employment" was shattered by the market correction for the "irrational exuberance" of the late 90's tech driven economy. Understandably, they were not thrilled when they found I was still gainfully employed.
Though I graduated with a history major (Concentrations in US and modern China), I had no problems finding gainful employment in the private sector. Moreover, I've used self-taught computer skills to moonlight as a freelance computer consultant. After several years, I am debt free and have sizable savings. I know of many others with "impractical" degrees in the humanities, social sciences, and even the fine art fields who have done well for themselves in professions such as medicine, software engineering, law, finance, organizational consulting, etc.
While one's majors can dictate the choices one has in certain fields, majoring in an "impractical field" like East Asian Studies does not necessarily mean a life of abject destitution. It does, however, require a higher degree of initiative on the student's part to identify and build skillsets from both their academic and non-academic experiences along with aggressively seeking out potential career opportunities. Then again, this is something ALL college students should be doing so they don't end up like my overly narrowly educated high school classmates with serious employment difficulties.
anon @ 5:08
You assert that teachers of exotic theory and courses on the margin of scholarship are unfairly judged because their education included main-stream curricula. Well, no. They are perhaps students of both main stream and the exotic, but to say that they are “trained” implies a pre-existing acknowledgement of the extent of knowledge. With respect to the exotic, one cannot, by definition, be “trained” in something that no one else has discovered.
Then you assert that bloggers have suggested that “women's studies professors are pushing Shakespeare scholars out of their jobs.” No one has suggested this. My opinion only is that bloggers have suggested that much of the subject matter of women’s studies is frivolous and not worthy of a major research university’s sponsorship. Further, to the extent that a scarce resource, i.e. funding, is allocated to frivolous research, more serious pursuits are by definition harmed.
The notion that teaching outside of one’s field is required provides little defense to your position. In fact, it weakens the argument that the teacher is qualified within their field. A pre-eminent scholar in any field would not have to stray beyond their specialty.
Your comments on publishing are also specious. A brilliant re-examination of a previously well-researched subject would receive accolades of all who have preceded. For example, a critical examination of the mind of Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg under a new microscope would be praised by many esteemed historians. The “market model” that you refer to as being in a crisis is simply Occam’s razor applied to scholarship. All to often, what is presented as worthy in the eyes of the writer, just is not so.
So ...rather than continue in my critique of your view … let me say …
I agree to disagree.
"fdny engine said... "
Re: Beavis & Butthead -
"Dipstick" and "Rod" are moderately amusing names for real tools. "Floating Phallus" is a hilariousname for a hilariously stupid idea.
Go to any modern psychology department and ask about Freaud and you'll get a belly-laugh. (Track down Glora Steinem's take-down and you'll be producing your own belly-laughs.) Modern economics gives Marx about as much respect - he had some good observations of his own time, made some predictions as to what he thought would happen next which all turned out wrong, and gave some suggestions as to how society should be arranged that have resulted in the deaths of millions.
For researchers in the Liberal Arts to be basing their work on the ideas of Freud and Marx is as bad as basing it on the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard and Adolf Hitler. Mockery, dismissal and contempt are approriate responses.
Obie98 11:43
Your study of of Chinese and American history has turned out to be "practical." A genuine liberal arts education is indeed good for something even if though not narrowly focused on a specific end. See my 2:47 - your particular combination is of obvious value in coming times.
Could you have had a similar success with a major in Womens' Studies and a minor in Marxist analysis?
Ralph Phelan@1:07 pm,
Not sure about myself as I was not so strongly inclined to focus on those two fields. My study of modern Chinese history did require some working knowledge of Marxist/Maoist theory as it had a great influence on Chinese politics and society from 1949 till Deng Xiaoping started the reforms in 1979.
However, I did work with several colleagues in the private sector who did focus their poli-sci major on studying Marxist theory. I also had one occasion when I worked for a bit with a 5th year corporate litigation associate from a prominent Manhattan law firm who was a Womans' Study major. Though her undergrad major did raise some eyebrows among my group at first, she did not make a big deal about it.
From my personal observation, those who have the intellect, mental adaptiveness, initiative, and the drive to gain knowledge and skillsets from as many areas of their life tend to do well, regardless of one's major. Those who lack those three attributes, especially the latter three tend to fall flat on their faces and struggle. Some of those who fell were the overly narrowly educated/unflexible high school classmates who majored in "practical majors" that I mentioned in previous posts.
As an aside, if I had a nickel for every person who referred to my majoring in history as "impractical" and "a road to penury", I would be a multi-millionaire by now.
Post a Comment