A star member of the Group of 88 has departed Duke. Cornell’s English Department website reveals that Grant Farred (shown here in his Williams lecture) “will be joining Cornell in the Fall of 2007 from the Literature Program at Duke University. He will have a joint appointment in Africana and English.”
He’ll be teaching “Writing the African Diaspora” and “African-American Cultural Theory.”
Cornell’s loss is Duke’s gain. This is, after all, the same Grant Farred who spent most of the 2006-2007 academic year leveling public assaults against the integrity of Duke students.
In a September 2006 Duke forum, he asserted—without providing any evidence—that the lacrosse players had “a tendency toward misogyny and arrogant sexual prowess.”
Farred didn't confine his attacks to just the lacrosse players. In the clip below at the September forum, linking the hundreds of Duke students who registered to vote with the legacy of “privilege, oppression, slavery, racism, utter contempt for black and native bodies” for the sole offense of wishing to defeat Mike Nifong at the polls. (That is the same Mike Nifong, of course, who the DHC would find guilty on 27 of 32 counts of ethical violations, leading to his disbarment.)
Indeed, proclaimed Farred, any Duke student who dared to vote against Nifong would be casting his or her vote, “whether it is acknowledged as such or not, against women, and, more specifically, against black female bodies.”
He took that argument public in an October 2006 op-ed, he accused Duke students of “secret racism” for having the audacity to register to vote in Durham. Then, in an April 2007 address at Williams College, Farred wildly claimed—without providing any evidence—that one or more of the lacrosse players committed “perjury.”
In several recent comment threads, Group sympathizers have argued that outsiders must defer to the concept of peer review, and refrain from criticizing personnel, curricular, or publication-related decisions made by professors. Farred’s hiring provides an example of peer review in action.
Members of the Cornell English and Africana Studies Department evaluated Farred’s scholarship, and decided to extend an offer of a tenured professorship to someone whose most recent book argued that Houston Rockets center Yao Ming(!) represents “the most profound threat to American empire.”
Moroever, even though the most rudimentary search would have revealed Farred’s apparent belief that he is not bound by the terms of the Faculty Handbook in how he deals with students, the Cornell professors appeared either not to care, or to approve of Farred’s actions.
Checks and balances guard against abuses of power or poor decisions. Where was the Cornell administration in the decision to offer Farred lifetime employment? As we saw with Brodhead and Duke, most administrators will defer to faculty extremists, lest they be deemed racist.
Yet as does Duke and most universities, Cornell has a faculty handbook. Among other things, it lays out the appropriate relationship between professors and Cornell students. The Handbook requires professors to contribute to a “climate of understanding, good will, and toleration of diverse views.” It states that professors must “uphold the conditions of free enquiry both for their students and their colleagues.” And it asserts that as “students also have a legitimate concern” in the structure of the university, “it is the obligation of the faculty to remain sensitive and responsive to their needs.”
It would seem, therefore, that Cornell’s Faculty Handbook, just like Duke’s, does not permit faculty members to publicly attack, without supplying evidence, the character and integrity of the institution’s students.
Beyond leaving Duke with one fewer professor who seems to believe it’s OK to slander Duke students, the move could have another positive outcome: perhaps Cornell student Josh Perlin can find in Farred a faculty mentor who shares his unusual conception of due process.
----------
[Update, 9.15: A perceptive comment from the thread, noting that the Farred appointment
reveals how deep the problems are facing academia.
English departments are usually quite large because so many students are required to take writing courses. [In fact, the Cornell department has 48 tenured or tenure-track professors.] Farred is not an identity studies appointment. Though he might be hired in part to increase the percentage of black faculty, he is being appointed by the department of English. They wouldn’t appoint him unless a majority of professors in that department wanted him.
There is a great deal of competition for academic positions. It would be difficult to underestimate how desirable a tenured position at Cornell is. There must be hundreds of talented poets and novelists who would jump at a chance for such a position.
Cornell is certainly a school that is infected with political correctness. It is one of the worst in this respect. But it still has many distinguished faculty members and it has a very talented student body.
This hire suggests that one of the most important departments in the school, the one that impacts the largest number of students, has a majority that wants to feature someone with a racial agenda who has demonstrated a lack of respect for the most basic tenets of human rights. It’s not that he is a great English scholar or writer who happens to be something of a racist. It would appear that his hostility to whites is his scholarship.
The humanities in many universities has become a swamp of political correctness. It is filled with bigots and enablers, people who are ever alert to the slightest criticism of racial or gender preferences, but are completely indifferent to hate filled attacks on people for being white or male.
A lot of academics can’t see that the situation is really this bad. They believe that criticism of the academy is the work of some right wing conspiracy perpetuated by David Horowitz, ACTA, Paul Wolfowitz, etc., orchestrated by Karl Rove to impose a gun-toting, abortion denying, Israel promoting, white racist, women subjugating, anti-gay, fundamentalist Christian theocracy. This view is wrong. In fact, many of the academy’s biggest critics are liberals who are appalled by what is happening to universities.
The story of the Duke lacrosse case is “Political Correctness for Dummies.” The behavior of faculty like the gang of 88 reveal how virulent some professors are and more important, how cowardly the rest are in their reluctance to stand up to them.
What does it say about Cornell if it wants to hire one of the worst of them?]
174 comments:
Should Cornell students be warned? What about the Cornell board of trustees? Do the trustees know of Farred's true track record?
Good riddance.
I listened to his words, and those were the words of a troubled mind. No thinking person can justify Farrad's apparent belief in the assumption of white guilt.
This man is a menace both to reasoned absolution of racial divides and to commonality among all men. His words only spark the anger of marginal extremists and rally the faithful among true haters.
Thank God he is now at Cornell. But in fairness, I suggest that Cornell's outstanding lacrosse team take notice. The Cornell administration has given sanctuary to a vicious and agenda driven personality.
Hooboy
Now the US Office of Homeland Security will need to add the G88 to their registry of bio-terrorism agents and follow them as they move around the free world.
Josh Perlin, a G88 Lite, will need to be tracked also.
When does it end?
::
GP
KC
last para, change less to fewer
Good post, as usual. Cornell is an ideal place for an incompetent.
Can Duke find someone even stupider than Farred and give him/her a tenure-track position?
You bet.
People need to get on this immediately - notify the trusties and warn the Students and Yao Ming.
I was compelled to listen to Farrad's comments again. I assume that these comments are representative of his demeanor and philosophy. If not, please ... anyone ... tell me otherwise and I will listen.
But what I heard was the voice of a pure racist who has, as a cloak of protection, tenure.
Nathan Bedford Forrest, rest easy ... and please do not roll over in your grave, for surely this person is an aberration. God willing, ... an abberation.
Will Farred be automatically replaced?
Who makes that decision at Duke?
Can the alumni ask that the position not be filled?
::
GP
Farred will not be automatically replaced, though it's likely he would be--and, given their common interests, the Literature search committee would likely include Wahneema Lubiano.
The administration, however, makes the decision to assign lines: it could make a quiet statement by giving the line to Economics.
What happened to Baker's line?
Some housekeeping:
1. Yes, Farred is a Calumnist!
2. Correct, there is no evidence that Levicy violated laws, but she did violate her oath, lie, and inserte herself into the role of "lyncher, second class."
3. No, we are not racists just because we think Farred and the others are charlatans and hypocrites. Moreover, your "R" word bullets will not pierce our super-strong skin.
4. Stop complaining about K.C. Johnson's work product, silly! This is not his work product; on the contrary, this is his research. His work product will take the shape of a N.Y. Times best-selling book.
5. Was Farred in the movie "Galaxy Quest" or was that Tony Shalhoub?
6. Oh, and yes, Debrah is hot. Inman, R. Phelan and One Spook are genies, and mac should be played by Robin Williams. Duh.
_______________
Forty-seven Chinese wordsmiths have been working night and day to develop a character to adequately describe the essence of K.C. Johnson before the 2008 Beijing Olympics. To fail would be a national disgrace. From - Internet rumor. MOO! Gregory
Is there still anyone who doesn't believe that government mandates drive these decisions? Has anyone noticed that the % of black professors and students at top-shelf universities all huddle around the same percentage? They all stay close to the minimum necessary to keep the government bureaucrats satisfied. Cornell needs a melanin-privileged professor to keep the government contract dollars flowing in -- why not Farred?
Anticipating that someone will call me "racist" for saying what I just said, let me challenge them: What's your alternative explanation for a top-shelf university like Cornell hiring a demonstrated loon like Farred? You want to say it was a concern for quality regardless of race? :)
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AS RELIGION
(Part 1 of 3)
If I had to describe what a religion is to a six-year-old or an alien, I would include the phrase "usually well-intentioned set of rules." Then, I would mention that most religions have some grand story about how things got started, a set of "holy words" and sacred beliefs, as well as some type of person to construe the doctrine for the masses.
Then, of course, there has to be a method to keep the believer invested, either using the fear of death, the fear of losing one's freedom or head or both, or, in the case of paganism and satanism, the promise of really hot chicks dancing nude around something or other. By now, I suspect the alien would be fascinated for purely zoological or sociological reasons. The six-year-old, on the other hand, would already be back on the couch playing Nintendo.
A SET OF RULES
Political Correctology-Diversity has a set of rules. These include the requirement that firemen, policemen, pilots and students not be judged on any natural ability to fight fires or crime, fly planes or learn things; rather, they are judged on the color of their skin or what they do with their genitalia.
Another rule is that Political Correctology-Diversity favors the rarest of skin colors or the least popular uses of one's genitalia (within reason).
A third rule of Political Correctology-Diversity is that fire and police departments, airline companies and schools must place more emphasis on their employees' and students' skin color or genitalia usage than on whatever it is that the employer does. For example, according to this religion, a school would be prouder of an appropriate ratio of skin colors than the actual transmission of knowledge to students. The former is a divine act; the latter is just "Joe Punchclock" doing what he's supposed to do.
Still another rule provides that only the chosen races or genders shall have the inherent power to prohibit the use of words. The chosen people are also granted liberal power to identify or "create" twisted definitions of words, phrases or ideas so that they can claim the speaker of that word or phrase is a "racist," "misogynist" or "homophobe."
HOW IT ALL BEGAN
Every religion, even the silly ones, has some type of creation theory. And so it goes with Political Correctology-Diversity. In the long, long ago time, before the television and the telephone, before the invention of barbed wire or the Nintendo gaming system, some men treated women and other men pretty badly. This is the foundation upon which this particular religion is based.
It is not explained how the passage of laws and time, or the death of everyone involved, as well as the deaths of their great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren, has not solved the problem. Moreover, because it is a religion, and it would be socially and politically unacceptable to question another's religious beliefs, there is no rigorous debate about the faith's fundamental tenets.
TO BE CONTINUED...
[Note: An end-of-term paper in K.C. Johnson's class can be selected in lieu of taking the final exam]
_____________
"On a subatomic level, K.C. Johnson is still right!" From - TALES OF THE ELECTRON MICROSCOPE (Marvel Comics, vol. 17, 1964). My Opinions ONLY! Gregory
I hate to judge a book by it's cover, but Farred looks scary and rather insane in those pictures. The look on his face and the jacket he has on make him look like he is a cult leader.
Do not drink his cool-aid!
I rarely say this about anyone but, what a despicable human being.
Why is Farrad dressed like Doctor Evil in the picture?
Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears students have NO power in the hiring of a professor. The students' tuition pays the professor's salary, they listen to the professor's lecture and, of course, they submit to the professor's power to pass or fail them. Yet, as far as I can tell, not once in any of this do the students have the slightest power.
This is wrong.
Students of Farred might want to fill out one of these just to cleanse themselves of his diatribes:
http://www.radical-conservative.org/certificate.html
(I am not affiliated with this website at large, although I do find it funny.) Anybody heard from Ken Hamblin lately anyway? I think he would have an interesting commentary on the case.
This has nothing to do with anything, but every time I read the title of the blog I see "Wonderlund." From my days riding the Blue Line in Boston in the vicinity of the airport, I remember the thick accented voice saying "next stohwp Wonderlund..."
Wonderland was the greyhound race track if I remember correctly, there was a film of the same title.
now he can bring the same intollerance of athletics that he instilled at duke
just proves how dumb ivy league colleges are
Farred, like the rest of the G88, would call himself a "progressive" and claim to stand for "equality" and "diversity".
George Orwell you were right.
KC,
Given that Nartey was honored, Duke'll probably just order up another whacko with a side order of sleaze.
The psychology dept. shoud be happy, however, especially if there are any Feudian theorists around: they can study, up-close, a person who suffers from "prowess envy." He kinda proves Freud's point, although he's the wrong gender according to Freud purists.
There's also a lot of woodland up there in Ithaca, where Farred can enjoy himself in a natural state, perhaps swimming naked (ugh) in the "Res," where his vernacular intellectualism can roam and perhaps even howl at the moon at phantasms. Notalgie de la boue!
I hear they have a good Asian Studies Dept. at Cornell, and I wonder how they'll like Farred's comments about Yao Ming, the "danger to the empire?"
Perhaps he can develop his X-ian scholarship (after all, he was obsessed with X!)
Perhaps he can continue to inspire youth to put together overwrought, out-of-sync words, as well: it's a suspicion of mine that he made his reputation as a student in HS and college on his piles of verbage, and continues to make hay.
I'm sure that Cornell students will be delighted to have their "secret racism" exposed just like Duke students; wonder if he'll discourage them from voting, too?
Listening to his words - again - it's easy to see how he uses his accent to his advantage. However, if he knows anything of substance, he must be keeping it a secret - (he likes "secrets.")
I especially like his comment:
"They are, after all, white boys."
Imagine someone saying:
"They are, after all, black boys."
They'd be tied to the 3rd rail.
It's funny that Farred thinks that students vote "to defeat the law." Too funny to comment on: it stands alone.
All an eastern European absurdist novelist would have to do is to report Farred's words. Wouldn't have to use any imagination at all.
Ultimately it was possible to stop Nifong and bring him down; it doesn't look like that will be the case for the portion of the faculty and administration at Duke that espouses poisonous points of view, engages in laughable scholarship and is, likely,more of a menace to society than Nifong.
The blog continues to provide a service by exposing these folks to the light of day.
Let's hope that Cornell put a clause in his contract that gives them an out for student abuse and "racialist" rants.
Frankly, if he lived in my working-class neighborhood, he'd probably get his butt beat. They can see through pretenders and silly-boys.
He is sort of pretty, though, in a John Edwards kind of way.
I am not surprised by this at all. The so-called "diversity hires" tend to make the circuit at the elite places, as all of those institutions wish to be known as "cutting edge." Of course, in hiring this clown, Cornell is acknowledging that it has low academic standards, at least in some areas. (I can assure you that to be hired in physics at Cornell, one needs a CV that is a bit more accomplished in REAL peer review than what Farred owns.)
One Duke faculty member told me that he took part in a debate at Duke, and his job was to debate something defending the Iraq war. (The prof did not support the war, and it was made clear from the start that his position was for purposes of debate, not actual support.)
Anyway, a minute after he began to speak, Farred started yelling that he was a "war criminal" and the like. Other faculty members with whom I have spoken have similar tales, and I cannot find one who either likes OR respects him.
As for academic work, like Lubiano, he is a fraud. One cannot be tenured in other areas for the dearth of scholarship like they can in the Identity Studies divisions. It is almost as though the worse the material one produces, the greater the esteem laid at that individual.
It really is tragic that the elite institutions like Duke and Cornell, which have highly accomplished scholars in other areas, have decided to prostitute themselves in the name of "diversity." They are operating to a racist set of premises that people of "minority" races simply cannot be expected to hold to high academic standards.
Unfortunately, people like Farred, academically speaking, are like the Snopes family in William Faulkner's novel, The Hamlet. They slowly take over, despite their mediocrity, and ultimately infect the entire community.
While the Snopeses were white, nonetheless they were a kindred spirit to the Grant Farreds of the academic world.
Since he thought voter intimidation was acceptable, it's probably a very good thing for Farred that he moved north: he might've found himself in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
For those in a previous thread that think these are harmless, goofy profs that don't matter in the real world, look at the first entry in the time line of WWII.
1933: Students of the University of Berlin burn thousands of books by Jewish authors
One year later...
President of Harvard, James Conant, welcomed the Nazi warship Karlsruhe when it visited Boston in 1934, flying the swastika. That year, the Harvard administration welcomed a top Nazi official, Ernst Hanfstangl, who was Hitler's foreign press chief as well as a virulent antisemite, to the campus for his 25th class reunion. The Crimson editorialized that he should be awarded an honorary degree.
Who could doubt that Dr. Brodhead would be far behind?
From Duke website:
"On Oct. 15-17, 2004, the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM) held its national conference at Duke University, sparking extensive discussion on campus and more widely."
AJ
"Go Big Red"...well done KC, that is funny.
I'm reminded of the Iraqi "Most Wanted" playing cards.
Wouldn't it be nice to walk into Duke gift shop and see pictures of 54 of the biggest Duke frauds with their most outrageous comment/quote on the back? One would almost certainly need to have Brodhead and Nifong as the Jokers. Precious, Lubiano, Levicy, and Gottlieb as Aces.
On nice days one would walk through the quad and see students playing bridge and poker. On inclimate days one could walk through the student union and see students playing gin and Solitaire. In between one could walk the dorm halls and see students tossing the cards across their room into a bowl on the floor.
One could buy the cards as gift items for graduating seniors who planned to attend Duke.
They could be much like the University Monopoly games and branded per each University...the 54 worst faculty and administrators.
Why right now some capitalist students are raising money to produce t-shirts to sell prior to spring break. They should consider playing cards.
I guess I'm old fashion, but I still prefer a good card game to the video alternatives.
Wouldn't it also be nice to take a campus tour and pass by the Women's Studies building and see that as part of the settlement it had been re-named for the Duke 3?
Farred's accent is of what origin? People coming to this country play the race card. He makes assumptions and cloaks these assumptions in academic language. He is an opportunistic racist talking about race. This fool and fools like him, and that is what they are, are doing such damage to race relations. The black community, i.e. black and white Southeners and Americans need to help each other, and we have mean spirited divisive idiots like this. In making themselves able to vote, the student body at Duke had "inside" information about the "something" that didn't happened. In the same way, some in the black community had inside information about the unstable nature of the accuser. I am certain this information was passed on to Jackson and Sharton. They had the good sense to get out of town. I don't think either of these action was rascist. It is too bad no one in the Duke Group88 had the common sense and wisdom to bring the two communities together to the truth of the matter or to withhold judgement until they knew something other than gossip. Good citizenship, respect for the law, and common sense would have gone a long way toward bringing a divided Durham community together. All academics can't be that stupid as to not have some sense of this and the role that their behavior had in the debacle that was Duke. Nothing in the behavior of these academics reflects any sense of this. God knows these communities needed to be brought together. The black community is especially stressed by a street culture that threatens to over come it. Have the killings at North Carolina Central University been resolved? Neither the black or white communities are "bad" people, but Farred and the Duke Group88 are really at bottom ignorant, narrow minded, bigots. Oh, the humanity of it all.
KC said:"In several recent comment threads, Group sympathizers have argued that outsiders must defer to the concept of peer review, and refrain from criticizing personnel, curricular, or publication-related decisions made by professors."
That's akin to arguing that only the members of the Jonestown cult should have been able to criticize Jim Jones' writings, speeches and actions at Jonestown. The G88 ganstas seem to think that we're all just a bunch dumb hicks who can't recognize a racist academic fraud when they see one.
Heh.
Since the grade inflation scandal and Summers affair at Harvard, I've been of the mind that the Ivy League is barreling towards mediocrity, and now I'm more convinced than ever.
“The errors in ethics, judgment and sheer writing ability in Perlin’s column prove to be one of the worst cases of journalism that I have ever had the misfortune of reading.”
The quote above is from Andrew Webb, a Cornell LAX player and member of the Cornell newspaper staff. It pretty well sums up Josh Perlin.
The errors in ethics, judgment and sheer thinking ability in Farred’s "thoughts" prove to be one of the worst cases of reasoning that I have ever had the misfortune of hearing.
All we need to do is rework Webb's statement a touch and apply it to another pathetic loser.
What was the position for which GF was hired at Duke? Job descriptions are often broad enough that a variety of research agendas can be considered.
It isn't clear to me that WL will necessarily be on any Duke search committee, although she might as well do something, since she's not publishing much.
And just why would we expect the administration NOT to fill the position with another racist, agenda-driven loon. The Duke administration has shown great restraint in exhibiting anything close to common sense or reason. Do we truly believe that they have suddenly seen the light? I think not.
The real question is whether or not the BOT has seen the light or if they have an affinity for darkness. Duke has shown it's dark side for the better part of the last year and a half. Sunlight only serves to expose things which the administration would rather keep in the shadows. Let the sun shine!
It just occured to me that every time miriam cooke types "miriam" using MS Word the default "smart" feature automatically capitalizes the "m". She must manually capitalize it herself every time she types her own name. Now that is a statement!
We already know she hates white males. Consider how much more she must hate Bill Gates.
Too damn funny.
2 down, 86 more to go.
Is Farred a Communist?
This is one of the most important posts that has been made on DIW. It reveals how deep the problems are facing academia.
English departments are usually quite large because so many students are required to take writing courses. Farred is not an identity studies appointment. Though he might be hired in part to increase the percentage of black faculty, he is being appointed by the department of English. They wouldn't appoint him unless a majority of professors in that department wanted him.
There is a great deal of competition for academic positions. It would be difficult to underestimate how desirable a tenured position at Cornell is. There must be hundreds of talented poets and novelists who would jump at a chance for such a position.
Cornell is certainly a school that is infected with political correctness. It is one of the worst in this respect. But it still has many distinguished faculty members and it has a very talented student body.
This hire suggests that one of the most important departments in the school, the one that impacts the largest number of students, has a majority that wants to feature someone with a racial agenda who has demonstrated a lack of respect for the most basic tenets of human rights. It's not that he is a great English scholar or writer who happens to be something of a racist. It would appear that his hostility to whites is his scholarship.
The humanities in many universities has become a swamp of political correctness. It is filled with bigots and enablers, people who are ever alert to the slightest criticism of racial or gender preferences, but are completely indifferent to hate filled attacks on people for being white or male.
A lot of academics can't see that the situation is really this bad. They believe that criticism of the academy is the work of some right wing conspiracy perpetuated by David Horowitz, ACTA, Paul Wolfowitz, etc., orchestrated by Karl Rove to impose a gun-toting, abortion denying, Israel promoting, white racist, women subjugating, anti-gay, fundamentalist Christian theocracy. This view is wrong. In fact, many of the academy's biggest critics are liberals who are appalled by what is happening to universities.
The story of the Duke lacrosse case is "Political Correctness for Dumbies". The behavior of faculty like the gang of 88 reveal how virulent some professors are and more important, how cowardly the rest are in their reluctance to stand up to them.
What does it say about Cornell if it wants to hire one of the worst of them?
Unless I'm incorrect, the book burning wasn't limited to books by Jewish authors. The targets were degenerate works, yes? Some of the voices here, those that want to shut up dissenting opinions, should pay attention!!!
Farred Lacrosse "Crime Scene" Poster
This is the reason for the original photo. Check out the balance of the photo's in the slide rack.
One wonders if this violates the terms of the settlement with Duke. The Internet is forever and here we find a faculty member slide show, within the Multicultural Center, with a Duke Lacrosse "Crime Scene" poster, advertising "Dr. Evil" as an authority on the Duke lacrosse "Crime".
One wonders if the girl's parents in the audience are aware of where their tuition dollars are going.
To KC: There are no "lines" in Arts and Sciences. All money is "owned" by the Dean, and the Dean (with the Provost) authorizes searches for new hires based on a large number of criteria -- course enrollments, grad student supervision needs, etc.
To Carolyn: Undergrad students do play a role in hiring, through course evaluations. In a hire from another school, evaluations by students from that school are read and taken very very seriously.
All these rules are set out on the at the link on the website
http://www.provost.duke.edu
Was Farred hired in a general search or was this a "special opportunity" [or whatever name it goes by at Cornell] hire? I'm interested in the competition he beat...
FWIW, I think it is a bad idea to suggest that that the position Farred occupied in the English Department be given to Econ or any other department. Why punish the English majors and other students taking English? The position didn't BELONG to Farred. He just filled it.
How much of this case revolves around GF being half white and WL's bizarre appearance.
9:06 "Unless I'm incorrect..."
You are incorrect. I don't recall any denying these loons and their abettors from saying, or writing, anything. Though it is quite tough to find anything they've written.
What should be loud and clear is that these frauds have no place on an elite, or otherwise, college campus. They are free to bark at the moon from a street corner.
They are not self-critical, they do not have true peer reviewed critiques, and they do not provide their "work" in any transparent fashion. Duke, Cornell, and most every other school abets these frauds in not demanding a higher standard.
These progressives are attempting to silence voices through the Fairness Doctrine.
These progressive are attempting to silence voices through their "Shut Up and Teach" ramblings.
These progressives are attempting to silent speech by coming to blogs and threaten litigation.
These progressives consistenly fail to defend their positions and immediately through the race, gender, class warfare, homophobe, victim-of-the-day card.
They are frauds, they do no raise the human considition, they are deconstructionists, they are evil, and they need to be stopped from using scare and expensive academic resources.
Again, let them go shout from the street corners.
By the way, I saw a bum with a sign this morning that said "Will work for food*" below the footnote stated, "*Manuscript forthcoming"
Good riddance to Farred!
The Department of English at Cornell may not even log the largest number of undergraduate majors. That honor, I believe, belongs to the Department of Government, which this past spring shrugged when Jeremy Rabkin, Cornell's most prominent critic of affirmative action and a member of the faculty for twenty-seven years, accepted an offer from George Mason University to grace the faculty of its law school; Cornell never made a counter-offer. Conservatives on campus are still in shock at losing one of Cornell's most notable professors. What would it say of Frostburg State if the same "indifference" were shown to Bill Anderson's leaving or of Harvard if Harvey Mansfield were to decamp? Well, no imagination is required in these matters, and hasn't been for decades, now.
For years, I've been engaging the diversity apparat at Cornell (my alma mater and that of my elder daughter) in e-mail exchanges that sometimes end in my saying: "Now you should better understand why I've asked your confreres to stop sending me solicitations for the annual fund." But why should the Cornells of the world pay attention when the Sandy Weills among their alumni write checks to them for $300,000,000? The University of Chicago recently acknowledged, in response to a gift of $100,000,000, that it pays particular attention to targeting the "big money" crowd in its alumni base. We little guys no longer seem to make a difference.
Still, it gives me perverse pleasure to ask the various diversity commissars at Cornell to explain what it means to say that various minority groups are "under-represented" among the students and the faculty. To this question I have yet to receive an answer: "If some groups are under-represented at Cornell, then clearly others are over-represented. So what are your plans for reducing the percentages of, say, Jews and Asian-Americans at Cornell?" Even the ideologues at Cornell must suspect that they cannot publicly answer this question. And to this second question no one among my correspondents at Cornell has even hinted at an answer: "What do you propose doing about the under-representation of whites in the NBA?"
When soon after becoming Cornell's president David Skorton wrote in the student newspaper the usual schlock about the importance of pursuing diversity, I offered to send him a copy of Peter Wood's "Diversity: the Invention of a Concept"--a thorough debunking of what passes for deep thinking in the big-name universities. Skorton, to his credit, did thank me for the offer, but begged off by saying he'd get the book on his own. I've never heard from him since about what he might have learned from reading it.
NP, NJ, Again, your mouth works faster than your brain, which is increasingly appearing to be SOP.
9:06 is a response to AJ's earlier (7:06?!!!) post precisely about 1933. DUH....
10:06,
You appear to be calling for the same kind of censorship that 9:06 raised concerns about. You have placed all of the 88ers in one publication basket, as "progressives," and attacked them. Shades of 1933? Perhaps, your statement is a good example of what to fear...
Correction: 10:28.
And, what is a true peer-reviewed critique as opposed to a false one?
in re "Good riddance to Farred"
You people don't listen well, do you?
Did you read what Johnson said about who'd be on the committee to replace the incompetent?
A bigger incompetent, Miss Wahneema herself.
A few quick points:
1. Some schools include students on the search committees for faculty appointments, though much more often teaching-oriented ones than research heavy schools. The earlier point about teaching evals is well-taken too, though I can't imagine those count for much at a place like Duke where scholarship still seems to be the overriding criterion for tenure/promotion.
2. The Duke BOT isn't gonna touch ANY of this stuff. University BOTs defer to administrators as a matter of course, unless something HUGE comes up where the faculty is completely fed up with some element of the administration, or alumni are SO fired up that there are clear drops in giving. Even then, no remotely sane BOT would insert itself into hiring processes. At best, they'd move against higher administrators.
3. Sorry rr, but the argument that colleges are diversifying by race to keep their government contracts simply doesn't fly. Aside from the fact that such contracts only specify non-discrimination not "quotas," there are lots of other reasons colleges want to diversify (some reasonable, some not). In almost 20 years at my school, I've *never* heard your rationale used for why we should be working harder to hire faculty from traditionally underrepresented groups (and yes we do have some federal grants).
4. One explanation for why large departments hire mediocrities of any race who are doing "cutting edge" work is that they can afford to. If your department is large enough, you can gamble on a hire who might please a particular constituency even if he or she doesn't produce much elsewise. Smaller departments have much less ability to try to please narrow constituencies.
5. As self-serving as it sounds, I think one of the lessons for parents and high school kids from this whole thing is that the supposedly top-tier schools are more affected/infected by faculty like the G88, and especially ones who have no respect for their students. In all honesty, if you or your child values a college experience where close and mutually respectful student-faculty mentoring relationships are key, you should be looking at smaller schools, such as good liberal arts colleges (though not necessarily the very top ones) and mid level state schools with strong teaching records.
One datapoint: liberal arts colleges are especially good at producing talented students in the sciences because of the opportunities they get to work one-on-one with faculty in the labs or on other research projects. Many publish with faculty as well. Those opportunities are *extremely* rare for undergraduates at top schools where the best faculty don't interact very much with undergraduates.
Farred's position should go to a scholar teaching the Beowulf poet and Chaucer. This corse should also be mandatory for English majors.
Mr. Inman had a brilliant idea on a recent thread. He wisely suggested that Duke alumni finance a flier to be sent to new students and their parents about boycotting the ghetto courses taught by the 88 et al. Let's take a 3d down play from Jesse Jackson's playbook.
Inman, get off your ass and do it.
We'll support you all the way.
Lawyers
Any chance Duke alumni could file a class action against Duke re incompetence and not punishing their in-house racists? Isn't financing racism a major tort?
Grant may have bitten off more than he can chew.
Cornell has a fine reputation as a university that actually works with poor people rather than talking about ...working with poor people.
Cornell's Weill Medical Center is part of the NYC - Presbyterian Hospital system which is one of the most comprehensive university hospitals in the world.They have leading specialists in every field of medicine. They also have a partnership relationship with the Methodist Health Care system here in Houston, Texas.
Grant should look up soon and find his class full of students from NYC and Houston who are asking for practical solutions to poverty and crime within...African-American Cultural Theory.
We would welcome suggestions for solving our crime and poverty challenges. Suppose Grant has anything to offer us here on the Gulf Coast of Texas?
::
GP
My old school had permanently-open university-wide minority-hire positions available in any department just in case someone applied. I would not be surprised if he got one of these. These typically circumvent the usual hiring process. That's not to say that he won't fit in.
Maybe someone should warn the Cornell lax team.
So Farred succeeds in the marketplace of ideas and y'all don't ... therefore you scream about ideology and bias, the very categories that you claim corrupt the analysis of the folks you rail against. Too ironic.
Yes, do tell--what does it say about the Department of English at Cornell that it wants to hire Farred? But unlike your past work, with its drive-by quotes, I suggest you read all of his work and cite his conclusions in the context of his analysis. You still may not like it, but at least you won't be claiming that the color of his skin accounts for his phenomenal success instead of his ideas and arguments, and your explanation for his success would come from a legitimate analysis instead of masking your ignorance with ad hominem vitriol.
But that's hard work, all of that reading, writing, and thoughtful analysis. And blog-commenting really isn't the genre that fosters serious analysis.
I'm just sayin'--the more y'all scream and hand-wring, the more those you attack chuckle at you for being screaming, culture-war loons.
Is Farred the son of Marshall Applewhite? You know, the Heaven's Gate cultist? Does Farred wear white Nike shoes? Has he been castrated? (If he's worked alongside some of the man-haters at Duke, he's been ritually emasculated, anyway!)
Anyway, if you merge a picture of Applewhite with Farred's, you'll have a pictoral composite of a balding, 1950's style version of a space alien.
Not too late to find an asteroid of your own, Grant! All the seats on the ship hidden behind the comet are taken, but you might find a space rock on it's way to the outer-galaxy planet named "Hemor," (AKA the "blood planet.) You know what, GF? You do seem a bit like you're from there, a space alien, a Hemorrhoid!
Nanunanu.
So long Baker. See ya later Farred. 2 down, 86 to go...
Extract from the second leaflet published by White Rose (1942)
"It is impossible to engage in intellectual discourse with National Socialism because it is not an intellectually defensible program. It is false to speak of a National Socialist philosophy, for if there were such an entity, one would have to try by means of analysis and discussion either to prove its validity or to combat it. In actuality, however, we face a totally different situation. At its very inception this movement depended on the deception and betrayal of one's fellow man; even at that time it was inwardly corrupt and could support itself only by constant lies. After all, Hitler states in an early edition of "his" book (a book written in the worst German I have ever read, in spite of the fact that it has been elevated to the position of the Bible in this nation of poets and thinkers); "It is unbelievable, to what extent one must betray a people in order to rule...."
The White Rose was a group of German Students that stood up to the Nazis. Many were executed.
Starting with burning books at the Universities, intolerance became more acceptable.
Note: I am not comparing anyone w/Hitler, I am only discussing how the Universities played a role in the beginnings of intolerance and how students reacted. Although it is curious they accuse Hitler of bad writing.
AJ
More brilliance from KC.
He simply has to begin work immediately on another book. There is no end in sight for this subject matter.
And Gregory, you are at your best this balmy Sunday!
Debrah
I think you have that right 11:44. He is going to Cornell - not Frostburg U. He looks and sounds wacky but he did succeed in the market places of ideas. this must drive the out of control bloggers crazy.
Again, my question: was Farred hired in an open search? If yes, he must have something to offer Cornell. It would be worthwhile to know what.
Cornell really is a good school. It's an interesting combination of private and public, I believe. And, an earlier contribution had it correct: Cornell Downstate is an excellent teaching hospital. As good as Columbia Pres? Dunno.
KC's update of the (8:38AM) post includes one sentence--among a multitude--which capsulizes much of what exists at Duke and the Gritty Gang of 88:
It would appear that his hostility to whites is his scholarship.
Along with Grant Farred's affected Michael Jordan two-earring look, and the Nehru-esque jackets, I suppose his prosaic little foreign accent mesmerizes those who get paid to install fraudulent mutts on university faculties to make the place diverse.
Debrah
Re: AJ's post
Yes, the Germans have made a film/s about the small Munich-based student group.
As far as I can tell, no one in the 88 has called for burning/banning books. Some posters on this blog, however, have made comments that I find chilling about the right to research a variety of topics in a variety of ways. They especially attack women's/African-American/Gender Studies.
Indeed, the shrillness/intolerance of some of the voices that post here reminds me of the Germans in the 1930s. (If your German is good, you can watch all kinds of Nazi propaganda, complete with the singing of the Horst Wessellied.)
To the 11.44/1.07:
Indeed, this issue has been one purpose of my Group profile series--to give those outside the academy some sense of how "quality" is defined in the fields from which the Group of 88 sprang--primarily Af-Am Studies, Women's Studies, History, English, Anthropology, Romance Languages. I have no doubt that Cornell's English Department considered Farred the most "qualified" candidate, and that the department's members considered his scholarship and conduct to be admirable.
For a more comprehensive summary of Farred's Yao Ming book, see here.
To give a sense of what kind of interests the department has been looking for in recent years, here are the self-described interests of all of its 17 newest hires (assoc. and ass't profs):
-- interdisciplinary study of Victorian Britain; gender and sexuality;
--U.S. Latino and Latina literatures and cultures; cultural studies; American multi-ethnic literatures;
--Renaissance cultural texts; gender, post-structualist theory; film; cultural studies; lesbian, bisexual, and gay literary studies;
--Literatures of the Caribbean and Pacific; feminist theory and women's writing; post-colonial literature and theory;
--Romanticism and modernity; romantic and modern poetry; the psychological novel and novel of manners; aesthetic and critical theory; ecocritcism;
--Nineteenth- and twentieth-century American poetry; history of the lyric; linguistic approaches to poetry; poetic form, prosody and interpretation; linguistic approaches to the novel; American film;
--16th- and 17th-century poetry and prose; poetics and technology; visual studies; the labor and craft of writing in the early modern period;
--Renaissance Drama, Political Theology, Sovereignty, Poetics and Theory, Literature and Philosophy;
--Late nineteenth-, twentieth- and twenty-first-century British and American poetry and fiction; interdisciplinary study of modernism; literary theory; gay, lesbian, and bisexual studies;
--American literature after 1865; women's literature; feminist literary criticism and theory; lesbian/queer theory;
--Creative writing; Latino/a fiction; protest literature; magic realism;
Middle English literature, allegory theory, medieval philosophy and rhetoric, contemporary critical theory, feminist and queer studies;
--Medieval Latin and Old English language and literature; narrative and historiography; history of grammar and language pedagogy; history of the book;
--print culture; poststructuralist theory;
--Nineteenth- and twentieth-cenury African American and American literature and expressive culture; African American and American cultural criticism; race and gender theory; immigration law; critical race theories; postmodern geography;
--African American Literature; Ethiopian Poesis; Queer Studies; AIDS and Narratives of Loss; 1980s; Contemporary African and African-American Visual Culture;
--Old English literature (with a special interest in prose homilies and biblical poetry); Middle English literature; manuscript studies; rhetoric; studies in orality and literacy; history of the English language.
And then, of course, Farred.
Some people might consider those interests rather top-heavy along the race/class/gender and postmodernist axes.
11:44
I have read some of Farred's crap.
It's just jargon, piled with more jargon.
His commentaries on the accused students, and on Duke students in general, betray a deep hatred of his charges and a deep hatred of white people in general. For example:
"They are, after all, white boys."
His paranod rants about "secrets," "secret racism" and the "sexual prowess of white male athletes" are perhaps your idea of scholarly discourse, but I would suggest that my previous post - (the one riddled with infantile characterizations) - is an equal to his oratory and odd assertions.
It didn't take a lot of reading of Farred's "scholarly" work to dismiss it: the work was, in essence, a narcissistic love-affair with self-produced nonsense. In other words, he's in love with his own ideas (which barely original), no matter how shallow, insipid, droolling or paranoid.
Best of luck, Grant!
KC--
Quite frankly, that list of junior faculty/recent associates looked just fine. There was a great deal of variety. Lucky is the student who is an English major at Cornell!
TO 11:44AM and 1:07PM---
"....but he did succeed in the marketplace of ideas."
(Shaking head) You guys still are so out in the ozone that you don't get it, do you?
I have heard from....and I have read....what Farred has to offer. This is not a smart man.
Others in his profession like KC Johnson would demolish him within 5 minutes if a clear, open debate were ever to take place.
Let me reprise my favorite from Seal to say that Grant Farred is totally CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debrah
1:18 While they are listening to the voices, they can be writing letters to the editor at the Ithica times to protest the hire and inform the people of the viper in their town.
I get the fact that Grant is smart enough to be making a six figure salary at Cornell. That is my idea of marketplace success.
1:21
On the assertion that the new hires and their interests represent "variety," are "just fine," and that the English majors are "lucky":
As a former English major, I would have prefered to go to a school where my race and genitalia - (and genitalia in general) - were not the subject of so much fascination.
Y'know what? Everybody has sex organs (almost everybody, that is, except President Brodhead) - and most people are a blend races.
With these newly hired distinguished academic-types - (including Grant Farred, of course)- seems like Benny Hill could be considered an academic stalwart, and Walter Ashby Plecker, M.D. too!
1:33: I guess if they want anyone to listen to them, they better spell IthAca correctly, yeah?
MAC, I don't know if you're really not right bright, ie, one short of a six-pack or what, but gender/gender studies do not now and never have been the same as fascination with your genitalia or anyone else's.
Please, pick up a clue phone.
TO 1:36PM--
You do remember Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker from days of old, eh?
There's a market for idiots everywhere.
Just so happens that the last 40 years or so have bred an over-abundance in academia.
Nothing fraudulent lasts forever, though.....(think Jim and Tammy Faye....LOL!!!)
Debrah
I let the last comment in, because I hadn't issued a warning in this thread, but would urge people to refrain from insulting other commenters.
1:46
Um....Vagina Monologues, anyone?
Bloggers do not lister - just post in writing their thoughts - or lack there of.
KC - I love you man but compared to the "insults" written on this board - this is nothing.
TO 1:46PM--
"six-pack"?
Oh, yes.
Here we are dealing with a refugee from the camp of the Gang of 88.
Tsk!
Debrah
Although I have followed the blog pretty regularly, I have not commented frequently. I do so now, probably for a final time, to express my admiration for an enterprise that played a major part in checking a gross miscarriage of justice. That was its main achievement, but there are others. “Durham in Wonderland” appears to have brought to the notice of an enlarged audience a number of disturbing features of the intellectual and political cultures of many of our universities. Some of these are merely risible, but others are actually sinister. They threaten the democratic and pluralist values with which many of the worst offenders often noisily identify themselves.
But I would now respectfully suggest to Professor Johnson that it is time to close the blog down. My suggestion is pragmatic. To put the matter in Churchillian terms—and here I refer to Winston, not Ward--the Battle of the Blog is over. The Battle of the Book will now begin.
You won the Battle of the Blog hands down. You won, of course, on the strength of clear facts clearly presented. But you were greatly aided by the self-destructive hauteur of the 88-ers. The strategy was adumbrated long ago in the phrase “hooligan bloggers”. As I recall, that was Cathy Davidson’s phrase. At any rate it had to be directed primarily against your blog, and it explicitly echoed Mike Nifong’s characterization of the lacrosse players as “hooligans”. (He has since repented, but then, as it turned out, he didn’t enjoy the benefits of continuing tenure. Don’t expect as much from the Duke faculty.) The implication was that it would be infra dig for these distinguished professors to take seriously, let alone actually engage with, a bunch of uncouth, ignorant, and intemperate loudmouths, aka hooligan bloggers. So Professor Lubiano, the great exponent of “dialogue” and of “listening,” could cast you into the outer darkness of her e-mail filter! So far as I know it was only in the comments to a fairly recent post (“Hruska”) that you have begun to get any intelligent “push back” at all. But you can be sure that you will hear howls of outrage when a book appears.
The opposition today in the comment of 11:44 (the one with the pseudo-folksy dialect, seconded by 1:07) probably suggests what you will face in the Battle of the Book. Since the Rape Hoax is a lost cause, they will have to change the subject. The subject will now be you: an embittered and intemperate right-wing kook, a Rush Limbaugh with a Ph.D., an Ann Coulter with a sideline in diplomatic history. The first step in making this case will be to attempt to associate you with the opinions of the various Polanskis who have inhabited your comment threads. (Given the nature of some of the comments you leave up, I can hardly imagine what the ones you delete must look like!) This is the drift of a few negative comments in recent threads. But if your book is as careful and probing as your own daily postings have been, it will be very hard for the opposition to turn you into a slapdash David Horowitz.
It is obvious that the “Group Profiles” in particular have been very grating to the profiled and to their admirers. What I find so powerful about the profiles is that they are mainly self-representations, not misrepresentations, as your critics hope to suggest. Two like-minded professors train an intellectual clone and then hire him. (Amusingly, this is called a “diversity” appointment.) You then excerpt substantial and fairly representative parts of this man’s prize-winning book. The writing is so appalling that nobody, friend or foe, can tell you what it is about. Yet it is not the author of the execrable prose who is at fault, but you for anthologizing it.
Several recent comments have mentioned the Ward Churchill affair. Most of the comparisons are not particularly apposite. It is true that Churchill and some of the 88ers share a world in which certain groups (bond salesmen, Long Island preppies, etc.) have been corrupted at birth by a kind of political original sin that justifies their persecution or, when possible, incineration. Still, several of the comments, it seems to me, fail to distinguish between what is immoral and what is merely incompetent or absurd. Ward Churchill is at times a good, strong writer. Nobody reading his most famous paragraph is left in doubt as to what he meant to say. The workers killed in the attacks on the Trade Towers deserved their fate because they, like Adolph Eichmann, were bureaucratic criminals implementing a monstrous enterprise of genocide. I do not agree with that opinion, but I have a clear understanding of its meaning. If Churchill were to be fired because of what he said, all civil libertarians should be concerned. Conveniently, Ward Churchill is a fraudulent person and a fraudulent scholar, and the action taken against him is at least ostensibly based on those considerations. But he writes pretty well. And to give him his due his bibliography (even excluding possible plagiarisms) is actual rather than eternally “forthcoming”. That is more than can be said of one of the prime movers among the 88ers. Maurice Wallace, recently profiled, is not a fraud. So far as I know he has not claimed that he is an American Indian. I entertain no suspicion that he plagiarized his book, or that he cooked his footnotes. My criticism of Professor Wallace is that he cannot write his way out of a wet paper bag. His book is a verbal swamp of academic jargon, modish but mostly meaningless, deployed in faulty and often incomprehensible sentences. It is disturbing that a flagrant demonstration of incapacity in the basic skills of literacy wins an appointment in an English department and prizes from the MLA; but this is professional fatuity, not moral turpitude. Perhaps President Brodhead, who is himself a professor of English and a competent writer, can explain the matter to a curious Internet constituency.
For what it is worth, my suggestion concerning strategy for the upcoming Battle of the Book is to keep the focus on what certain Duke faculty did wrong (prejudicial expressions, contempt for their own students, prevarications, incitements) rather than what they did merely atrociously (writing and scholarship). Since the two things have been inextricably intertwined in Durham, the latter is bound to come out of its own accord.
KC--
Were you referring to post (1:46PM)?
That one insulted "mac".
My post was directed toward the illustrious Farred.
:>)
Debrah
To the 2.06:
Advice well-taken.
I had originally planned to close the blog on June 30, and kept it open only because there were still case-related items (release of the depositions, Nifong's criminal contempt hearing, the (seemingly invisible) Whichard Committee inquiry were still going on.
Regular posting on the blog will end with the contempt hearing on 8-30/31 (which I'll be live-blogging from Durham) and then I'll have some sporadic tie-ups in September.
Yes, I have reason to believe that some of the 88 are very concerned about the book.
No, Debbie,
The six-pack, as in beer, not abs, comment does not make me a refugee from the G88 camp. But, given your comments, I'd rather be from theirs than yours.
FWIW: I'm thinking a Bette David look alike. You know, from "Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte."
Devorah - Jim and Tammy were bringing in twenty million a year -back in the 80s - they got a percentage of that. Smarter than most of us, for sure. And they were not even posting on a blog.
KC,
Why do you think some of the 88 are very concerned about the book?
To 2"06PM--
I'm sure everyone appreciates your studied warnings; however, along with glowing praise from you, I sense a subtle agenda.
Even the most dictatorial among us would not presume to suggest to another when he/she should discontinue something as subjective as this blog.
In any case, I see that KC has answered your quite--in my opinion--bizarre questions.
Debrah
11:44 here. As a child of the south, I really do talk that way, so whatever it may be, grating or otherwise, it ain't "pseudo." I drink sweet tea, and I say y'all and yonder (as my grandparents and parents did), and I chuckle at the culture-war loons.
But as for your comments--
"The subject will now be [KC]: an embittered and intemperate right-wing kook, a Rush Limbaugh with a Ph.D., an Ann Coulter with a sideline in diplomatic history."
That sounds about right. Thanks for pointing it out. But I think the blog should remain going ... I enjoy seeing the comments of the folks who follow KC's work.
To the 2.20:
That, I'm afraid, is a question only they can answer. To this point, through varying channels, at least four of the 88 have expressed their concern.
It's good to know that the book will at least have that market cornered.
Correction to 2:17:
Davis, not David.
Gosh KC - Looks like I will make it to the end. Is that enough time for Inman to get in the whole story of his life?
KC - I think the book will be on the best seller list within a week. I have bought ten copies - nine for Xmas presents to the lawyers in the family. 1:07
Possibly OT, but I think Inman's more interested in telling us the whole history of his family...
1:36
Yes, the size of one's wallet or the speed at which it is being filled can surely be interpreted as a measure of success in the market for ideas.
Using that as the sole litmus test, then others who were/are successful include:
(1)Pablo Escobar -- Escobar became so wealthy in the drug trade that in 1989 Forbes magazine had listed him as the seventh richest man in the world. He is widely considered to be one of the most brutally ruthless, ambitious, and powerful drug dealers in history. (Source: Wikipedia on-line)
Using your standard, Escobar was the pharmaceutical equivalent of an intellectual giant and an equal of Newton or Geothe,...
(2)Alphonse Capone -- Another example of the marketplace for ideas worthy of University tenure?
Capone would surely rank in the accounting profession or the distilling industry alongside the intellectual equivalence of Plato or Aristotle.
(3)Larry Flint -- Just look at the stack of literature written or published by this monumental genius, literature that made him extremely wealthy.
Flint surely stands as an intellectual with published ideas that rank with the likes of Kant or Locke.
_______________
I submit that using money as the measure for evaluating scholarship or the worth of one's mind is so shallow as to not be worthy of consideration. Using that measure, Van Gogh was as bad an artist as the worst who has ever lined. Henry David Thoreau was another with contributions to literature that would be considered worthless. And yes, that polymathic icon of education and Father of the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson was an extraordinary failure for he died deeply in debt.
_______________
So, I further submit that your measure obscures the truth of Farred's worth as a scholar and purveyor of ideas.
But then, its a simple measure.
That must be its appeal to you.
"Ward Churchill is at times a good, strong writer."
You see, poster (2:06PM).....this suggests that perhaps you are the one needing the curtain to fall. You revealed too much.
Let me offer a bit of advice to you, if I may.
No one is able to write something like that and not have your value system, as well as your intellectual veracity, questioned.
You know what? This blog has put some fear in you. Not even the preface of KC praise can eclipse your true objective.
And yes, I'd bet my number at the bank on that.
Debrah
Jim and Tanny saved their millions and spent their lives in luxury. Jin spent his jail time in the country club. Like Grant, they came out alright.
Geez, Deborah - offering unsolicited advice is hardly "dictatorial."
To 2:26 --
Which life?
Nurse Kertha's "insider" information is that Ward will be collecting millions from CU. That the problem is the violation of his first amendment rights and not academic fraud.
Grant, if you take Lubiano with you all will be forgiven!
It's amazing to think that Cornell's English Department was responsible for "The Elements of Style," back in the day when English professors were expected to write clearly and intelligently. Strunk and White must be spinning in their graves.
Deborah, at 239 writes to the defender of Ward Churchill's writing:
Let me offer a bit of advice to you, if I may.
Ah, it's dictatorial when others do it, but it's okay for you, eh?
More seriously, is it possible for him to be a good, strong writer at times and still be a plagiarizer and a jerk? I think so. He's certainly more lucid and clear about what he means (as odious as it is) than others we've talked about here.
10:57 "true peer reviewed" would be from objective third parties.
But there is no objectivety among their peer group so one comes to the conclusion there could be no objective peer review.
They remain stuck in an elevator smelling each other's bad gas and comment about how nice it smells inside.
How can there be anti-intellectualism where there are no intellects?
Better than making bread in the monastary.
"....but he did succeed in the marketplace of ideas."
A very narrowly defined "marketplace" consisting solely of self-reinforcing English departments which is not a free market since the customers (i.e. the students) have very little say in the product being served to them. The politburo similarly survived in the marketplace of the USSR.
Those of us in the larger actual free marketplace of ideas are laughing at him and not buying.
Anonymous 2:06 said...
...It is true that Churchill and some of the 88ers share a world in which certain groups (bond salesmen, Long Island preppies, etc.) have been corrupted at birth by a kind of political original sin that justifies their persecution or, when possible, incineration.
::
Your own observation is sufficient justification for keeping this blog open.
Persecution or, when possible, incineration of students by their professors and friends of their professors is just wrong.
Those professors need to have a regular (daily) dose of sunlight pointed towards their caves.
You appear to support sunlight in the form of a book without a blog.
I support a blog with a sun flair occasionally, from a book.
::
GP
To one Steven Horwitz--
I know manipulation when I see it.
Let me spell it out for you.
It's very easy for KC to ignore my postings---even though so many of them have had as much, or MORE, gravitas woven inside as those of the supposed scholars---because my personality is such that I use everything from scat...to affected fashion news....to pop culture trivia...to music....to convey my opinions.
I don't try to engage him directly.
Those like poster 2:06PM dryly and matter-of-factly question KC.....mano a mano.
Who can brush over such commenters? They come here to give their advice...and appear to think of themselves as experts in how others should go about their various enterprises.
People like that are scared beyond measure when their insular life syllabus has been knocked off the table.
Perhaps KC has much more in common with those. I'm sure I do not know; however, if 2:06PM and his ilk had been the only types of commenters coming here to opine daily, Wonderland would have gone under.
And I would bet my life on that.
A short, crass, but sweet illumination of my point that even you might appreciate:
If a married man is looking for some outside action, he doesn't take his wife along on the ride.
You don't take sand to a beach.
Consequently, why? If anyone is trying to unearth and do something substantive about the world of academia and what goes on in so many areas, would they take the advice of those who, fundamentally, (while giving calculated praise when necessary to shield true intentions), support the squalor or the status quo, as so many 88-ists love to say?
Debrah
9;27
Why should we believe that the Dukies will follow the rules set forth by the Provost? They didn't follow the faculty handbook?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!
With respect to the "only faculty can critique faculty" defense, one wonders how many times the argument "only native born southerners can understand the institution of slavery, and therefore only their critiques are of value" was advanced between 1800 and 1861 before people saw right through it.
With respect to what might be happening behind the scenes, do you think Brodhead, in lieu of having to publicly excuse some of his wayward pets, had decided to break out the Ivy League Administration Rolodex and has started calling in old favors to rid Durham of the pestilence that was GF?
I cannot wait to see how Dook backfills this position. I hope they will, to borrow a phrase, "move on" from past practices and revert to hiring a faculty at least as qualified and mature as its incoming class of 2011.
W/R/To Dook's fundraising, I wonder if the numbers were so good (and by extension, Brodhead's performance in the eyes of the Trustees) out of an artificial response to some mass of Dook alumni coming to the aid of their institution during its time of need--despite the performance of its administration; or perhaps if a flood of such donations rushed in at some point closer in time to March 2006 and before the Brodhead admin stumbled ingloriously before the eyes of the observant world this past year. I have to admit, I am confounded by the reported boost in alumni donations. I cannot see his/their handling of this sad affair as in any way tied to the surge in donations. While I am sure Brodhead leaps to point to it as a vote of confidence by his alumni base, I honestly wonder how many Dook alumni actually believe that important life events are "not about the truth anymore", or that "whatever [demonstrably innocent people] did was bad enough"? Brodhead can point to the surge in donations and applications (anyone checked on what the medians/means are for this year's baby-boom of freshman?), but I will never believe that either is tied to his precipituous rush to judgment of his students, or his reluctance to discipline his faculty. Is it possible the admissions dept. dropped standards and flooded the pool with admission letters to keep the numbers up? It must sound like I am searching for facts to support my interpretation of these events. I would concede that I probably am at least subconsciously, because I am utterly confused about how the President of Dook University can get away with rushing to judgment, letting his faculty run wild while denying that they did anything wrong and personally saying "whatever they did was bad enough", while blatantly lying that he advanced the presumption of innocence? I just don't get it. I know KC is fighting the good fight, but how does ANYONE let him get away with that, when he denies wrongdoing at the same time he is signing deca-million dollar settlements? If, according to Brodhead, they didn't do anything wrong, then why settle with a pool of money so deep in constitutes wealth? If they did do something wrong, which clearly he believes given his willingness to fork over wealth to these five families, then why continue to tolerate the underlying conduct and/or continue to knowingly carry the liability risk posed by these imbeciles?
I think before he even begins to mount the defense of what qualified them in the first place for being hired [not that I am holding my breath for an admission of the real reason they were hired mind you, I'm just curious what fraudulent reason he would try to pass off], I would love to hear his argument about why to RETAIN them at this point, after they have clearly cost the University dearly in hard-earned treasure and credibility? Not only does he retain them, but he continues to elevate them to influential positions. WTF????
This whole thing reminds me of the Clinton impeachment hearings, and how all of the talking heads let their personal beliefs split the indivisible hair of what is lying and what is not lying. Both the Clinton, ahem, affair and this mess have an Emperor's New Clothes feel about them. In each case, the media refused to press the real issue (what is the proper redress for what we all know happened?), and instead broke each down into pointless and harmless hair-splitting about whether the obvious underlying event actually happened.
Did Clinton deserved to be removed from office for lying to the American people? As a conservative, I can tell you NO, he did not. It was not a high crime that rose to the level meriting impeachment. But we never even got to that question, because the so-called fourth estate completely ducked the question with an intellectually insincere debate about the existence of the underlying offense, rather than an honest debate about the proper punishment.
In the Clinton scandal, the lefties were so fixated on standing by their man ["'till the last dawg dieyed.."], that they would look into the camera and burn THEIR (!) last shred of PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL credibility by saying "he didn't lie." OF COURSE HE LIED, and YOU ARE DOING IT NOW BY LYING TO ME! At least have the courage to frame and debate the real issue: whether that lie rose to the leve of impeachment.
Same thing here: OF COURSE BRODHEAD AND THE 88 rushed to judgment. I HAVE EARS AND EYES, why are you lying to me Brodhead when you tell me you advanced the presumption of innocence? Who honestly can reconcile kicking these kids out of school, cancelling the season and firing the coach, and tolerating the conviction of these kids by your own faculty in your own newspaper squares with the presumption of innocence? PLEASE, JUST STOP LYING. Please do not insult my intelligence by telling me things that are so illogicial I don't even believe that YOU believe. I never understood why the people allowed the media to avoid the real debate in the Clinton affair, and I do not understand now how alumni of a University that at one time had high standards would vote with their dollars IN FAVOR of Brodhead's handling. I just don't get it.
If I ever need to learn about the Holocaust, the last person I would ask is the President of Iran. On the same level ("that is the context through which this affair sbould be analyzed"...okay, I'll stop), the LAST person I would ever ask for an honest accounting of what went on in how the Dook faculty handled itself in the wake of this lying hooker's fraudulent accusations, is Dick Brodhead.
The real difference is, no one has ever asked Ahmeniijad to run the Holocaust Museum, BUT WHY ON EARTH IS THE ENABLER-IN-CHIEF STILL AT THE HELM OF THIS ONCE PROUD INSTITUTION?
Why not honestly debate what went on here, so we can ACTUALLY FIX THE PROBLEM before we "Move on"?
Yes, do tell--what does it say about the Department of English at Cornell that it wants to hire Farred?
What it says to me is that everyone is entitled to make a mistake. That, supposedly, is how you learn. As for drive-by quotes, is your name Mr. or Ms. Anonymous? I didn't quite catch that.
1:07
Why would it drive us crazy????? We are rid of him in North Carolina. That's one fewer nut case to deal with in this state. Duh-rum has a few more to go. If Cornell is that desperate for a warm body, let them have him.
Which of the remaining 86 Communists are you????????
1:18 et al
Judging from Grant's problem with the "sexual prowess of white male athletes" , the inordinately large number of queer studies classes fits his modus operandi.
Those who support Grant and were former colleagues, please consider applying to Cornell (or anywhere else for that matter). Take yourself to new heights (take up skydiving). Get a clue (you may have to buy one, but they shouldn't be that expensive). Leave us alone, please.
Grant is laughing with you - all the way to the bank. Why is it driving you crazy? You are trying to grind these people into dust and it is not happening. And it won't happen. They are going on with their lives - with or without your approval. That makes you crazy. "It is not about the case anymore.."
We would welcome suggestions for solving our crime and poverty challenges.
End prohibition. It worked before.
It worked? Never mind.
4:46 is correct. The LAXers are putting the case behind them and getting on with their lives, why can't you?
You can't make other adults do what you want them to do, just because you want them to. The more you bellyache and screech, the less likely it is that the G88 will pay any attention to you.
Anonymous 4:46
Exactly right. He conned Duke, he conned Cornell, and he continues to con True Believers like you. Why shouldn't he laugh? It beats working for a living. He wins the Barnum Prize for this week.
all the way to the bank
I could cite plenty of other snake oil salesmen who made money by being frauds. They too often had to leave town when the jig was up.
The only thing that was driving me crazy was that Duke was paying this guy. Duke is rid of him and that's a good thing. Let the suckers at Cornell pay him.
To 2:06
Why should the blog be shut down? Why shouldn't Professor Johnson continue to shine the light of truth into all the dark fetid recesses where the gang of 88 and their supporters gather? Perhaps you are uncomfortable with your world being exposed as the fraud that it is. We owe a great debt to Prof. Johnson and I hope that he continues to expose your cohorts until we show the entire world what parasites your kind are.
"Leave us alone" This is a discussion board. What are you writing? KC wrote "The 88 can post here everyday,if they want, as long as they are not vile and stay on topic." did he not get your approval for that statement?
Yeah 506, all of academia is one big fraud full of parasites. And all the academics who post here are part of that "world."
And you wonder why no one pays any attention to you.
Like 2:06 making note of Grant's achievement in getting a job at an Ivy League school with a six figure salary, does not make me a true believer. I will stack my support of the team and defendents against anybody. Need any blue braclets? I have about 100 left - after distributing them to my known world. What is - is and what ain't - ain't.
For those suggesting that there is a rigorous competition for plum academic jobs, they are right. Where they go wrong is that the competition is all about KEEPING desirable faculty. Duke has much deeper pockets than Cornell and has a long standing policy of upping the ante to keep desirable incumbents. It is well know among Duke facutly and staff that the one way to get more money is to come in with a competing job offer.
When a faculty member leaves, it means there is no matching offer (or, if there is one, it is not big enough. The loser in the Mr. Farred case, as Mr. Johnson points out, is Cornell. The winner is Duke.
5:06 KC is teaching in Israel for a year. Funny, you do not know that.
What worries me is that when "Until Proven Innocence" hits the book stores, other universities will learn in more detail about the Gang of 88, and wise administrators (there are some) may be less willing to offer the more notorious of these offenders permanent teaching positions. Then Duke will be stuck with them until they retire or enter the real world marketplace, supporting themselves on their talents and writings, not the teat of Mother Duke.
How Duke fills the positions of Houston Baker and Grant Farred will say a lot about whether the administration has learned anything about the culture of its faculty.
5:21 Well stated.
Further, let's consider the possibility, however remote, that a Duke supporter (or even Duke itself as an institution of higher "burning") made a substantial contribution to the Cornell English department's research budget with the condition that they hire at least 2 of Duke's Gang of 88, or if they could snag Farred, cooke or Lubiano, just one.
Free market economics at its best.
5:34PM is spot on. The quality of those appointments - if they are ever made - will speak volumes about Duke's wanting to get right with its dominant clientele.
While most faculty would say they are Duke's clientele, they are not. The clientele are employers, trustees, accrediting agencies, alumni, parents, and students.
4:18 I am a Sociatist - not a Communist. The 88 are Marxist and not Communist.
Running away to an Ivy League school can not be all bad. Who would not leave Durham if they could? Both Durham and Ithaca are nowhere, USA.
Re 5:52. If the 88 and their followers ever get coercive power, believe me, they would be totally Communist in their zeal to "eliminate" non believers. Their behaviour would be just as pathological as Mr. Stalin's.
All, of course, for the betterment of society.
We won - the communist lost.
5:38 I am sure Bob Steele will be delivering the check or cash himself to Cornell President.
5:58pm, Cornell consistently has ranked below Duke in the ranking tables. Ithaca and Durham probably is a push, however. Although have you been up to Ithaca in January?
I'd be very interested to learn what pressures went into Farred's decision to change schools. Since he should counted as one of the more egregious members of the G88, one might suppose that a significant percentage of the student body and alumni were dissatisfied with his continued presence on the faculty. The timing of the move is certainly eyebrow raising.
Let's hope similar fates await Kim Curtis and Waheema Lubiano, but without the cushy landing at a tenured position at an Ivy League institution.
beckett
I do not get it. What is "eyebrow raising " about the timing of the move? What am I missing. People change jobs, locations and even religions. This is still America.
Everyone take notice that poster @ 2:06PM along with a thoughtful academic compadre, Steven Horwitz, threw out their advice and slapped a few wrists.....
....only to scurry back to their cushy take-no-responsibility-for-comments spider holes.
And these two people would even think that's the way it works out here in the real world. Ha! They know better. That's why they slink away.
The (anonymous 2:06PM) comes in to give a little lecture after everything (the lacrosse case) is over...as to how everyone should proceed.
Ignore this unproductive and dull mindset.
Take the last words from Jim Valvano and "Never give up.".
These kinds of superfluous people will be held responsible for themselves sooner or later......or be out on the street.
Debrah
"It’s not that he is a great English scholar or writer who happens to be something of a racist. It would appear that his hostility to whites is his scholarship."
This, unfortunately, is undeniable. There seems to be a demand among elite universities for professors known for what one poster called "cutting edge anti-white racism."
If Fared wasn't such a racist, there is no way he would have been hired by Cornell. There would have been nothing else about him of interest to them. Thats all he had. And that is sick.
You know, if Lubiano went to teach at a junior college, she could raise the intellectual level at both the junior college and Duke, all at the same time.
Perfect arbitrage.
________________________
rod allison @ 8:05
I wonder if the David Duke Endowed Chair in Applied Race Relations, Cajun Saute Dishes and Exotic Voodoo Technique (Louisiana State University) would be of interest to any of the '88.
Surely, one of that group likes crawdads.
Slink away? I'm still here Debrah. You don't scare me. :)
Deborah - I do not think "side walk psych profiles" has a place on blogs. Disagree with what folk write on the issues is what blogging is about. Except for a few bloggers, none of us know anything about each others personal lives. I did see those peoople "slithering" anywhere. They gave their opinions - probably expected an informed discussion. Most of us have been in the "real world" for a long time. Thats Hot!!!!!
Try to keep the discussions on point :)
Debrah--no, earlier in the day, I wasn't referring to you; was referring to the commenter who insulted Mac.
I think I concur with those who believe this was Duke's way of getting rid of one of the most offensive g88. My only surprise is why Cornell accepted him.
Either way, hopefully his new home has some gutsy memembers ready to respond appropriately to his racist crazy comments. I'm not too hopeful though as Williams College, a school that up to now I admired and respected had him on campus to speak.
Courage is needed, though he can't be stopped. He needs to be confronted.
Further, poster (2:06PM)...let me say that I wish so very much that you would make yourself heard...so that I could thank you for not waiting. LIS!
Please reread--for I know you have already read this on-the-mark post from (8:38AM).
The story of the Duke lacrosse case is "Political Correctness for Dumbies". The behavior of faculty like the gang of 88 reveal how virulent some professors are and more important, how cowardly the rest are in their reluctance to stand up to them.
And, well......if they weren't reluctant to stand up to them....whatever they did do was bad enough.
Debrah
Thanks for telling me KC.
Debrah
TO 8:32PM--
Don't be coy.
There's no place here for obfuscation when you come to a blog and give a mini-lecture.
The poster disappeared...after subtlely flaming.
No one--least of all me--had any interest in his psyche.
It's a structural question. Where's the follow-through?
Debrah
One should only say good things about people after they are gone.
Grant Farred has gone.
Good.
2:06
You make some very persuasive points.
However, as one of those you mention who you likely would regard as a "Polanski," I would ask you if you thought some of our more pungent satire would be readily received if it were written about President Bush?
I suspect that all the sophomoric,
silly, sometimes peurile stuff I've written would be well received by many of the 88, if it were about, say, Rush Limbaugh or George W. Bush or Ann Coulter. I suspect they would be very happy to see the same sophomoric, silly, peurile crap. Especially since some of them engaged in the very same style of writing.
The difference is, they were dead serious, and many of us are lampooning them in the fashion made popular by Juvenal (hence, Jevenalian satire) and not the more gentle Horatian satire.
However, the blog is about more than the writers (who represent many kinds of writing styles and reasons for writing.) It is also about justice. The attorneys for the accused (and innocent) young men have commented - (as have the young men themselves) - on the importance of the blogs. Mostly they have thanked KC, but they have also tossed some praise on the posters of the blogs.
On the other hand, I agree with you on the issue of the profiles being cast from "self-representations, not misrepresentations."
Maybe there will be no continued need for DIW after the book is published, but I don't agree: there are still too many people out there who believe that "something happened." You might look at Topher's article that KC alluded to, and see for yourself. The battle stays on, with or without DIW, as long as the young men still have to fight to claim their mantle of public respectability. Indeed they are respectable, but until the stain is removed from their names and others continue to maintain that "something happened," it is not finished.
I hope KC's book will be like Appomattox: the beginning of the end.
KC I respect you but Mac has been one of the worst offenders insulting people. You might want to reread some of his posts. His pals are insulters also.
Cornell... ha ha
Prof. Horwitz says, inter alia:
3. Sorry rr, but the argument that colleges are diversifying by race to keep their government contracts simply doesn't fly. Aside from the fact that such contracts only specify non-discrimination not "quotas," there are lots of other reasons colleges want to diversify (some reasonable, some not). In almost 20 years at my school, I've *never* heard your rationale used for why we should be working harder to hire faculty from traditionally underrepresented groups (and yes we do have some federal grants).
Professor, I ask you to read the text of Executive Order 11,246 very carefully. http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/fs11246.htm If you know someone with a background in the law, it might be helpful if you went over this EO together with that person.
In fact, you know what? This might be a good project for a graduate student: Find out just how EO 11,246 works in actual practice. I believe that at bottom, you fill learn that EO 11,246 means, "We must hire X number (a number similar to our competitors) of preferred-minorities or we will face at best an expensive "compliance investigation" that will crawl into every aspect of our hiring policies and at worst, a termination of our government contracts."
I agree with Steve on this point:
The threat of losing federal finds might be a factor if there were not strong support for a "diversity" agenda in the academy.
But even if federal policy had no role, I suspect the "diversity" advocates would support the same agenda. This is an issue of ideology and educational vision, not money.
1:18 PM
Perhaps you have been unaware of the shrill voices coming out of the Duke Group88. Voices filled with the shrillness of those who have no use for the Constitution or the presumption of law . . . let's castrate or maime or kill reputations and smear character without regard to trial . . . the courtroom scene . . . the bringing of guns . . . the inability to reason or understand . . . the rush to judgement . . . these are the methods of Nazis . . . these are the race baiters of the first order . . . these were young kids who were taken to the cleaners in their naive understanding of the new world order that has been created at universities around the country in the name of politically correct dogma. What do you think was going on . . . what a corrupt fraud this whole thing has been, and for you to be upset that others are upset is beyoind the pale of things. The point is that if some will be lawless all will be lawless.
rrh:
Show me the language in 11246 that demands anything like a quota. The language (and you are quite right to ask about enforcement) simply says that gov't contractors with more than 50 employees must show that they are both not engaging in discrimination and taking "affirmative" steps to recruit minorities. E.g.:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS
Each Government contractor with 50 or more employees and $50,000 or more in government contracts is required to develop a written affirmative action program (AAP) for each of its establishments.
A written affirmative action program helps the contractor identify and analyze potential problems in the participation and utilization of women and minorities in the contractor's workforce.
If there are problems, the contractor will specify in its AAP the specific procedures it will follow and the good faith efforts it will make to provide equal employment opportunity.
Expanded efforts in outreach, recruitment, training and other areas are some of the affirmative steps contractors can take to help members of the protected groups compete for jobs on equal footing with other applicants and employees.
The language is about equal *opportunity* and competing "on equal footing." Find me where the language says anything explicit about outcomes.
Again, 20 years in academia and I've never even heard of this particular EO in the context of federal grants.
You know non-academics on this blog love to talk about how academics don't live in the supposed "real world." Still, the non-academics think they know how academia works, despite their limited to non-existent experience in that very real world.
8:49
Wahhh?
Well, it appears that I've hit a target or two. Mostly by using the armamentarium of the 88, turned back at their own lairs and dens. Most of the time, when people post using decent, clearly stated arguments, I engage the argument without vitriol (such as my 8:47 post.) At other times, when people have resorted to stuff that is basically retarded, I've usually whipped their hineys without having to resort to their tactics. As I've said before: it keeps me in shape!
I know KC doesn't like posters attacking posters, but I rather enjoy being the object of derision, especially when it demonstrates the inanity of the argument being posed.
If KC were to delete all of my posts, I would not be unhappy - (I was seriously considering asking him to do this anyway, but I figured this would take up a lot of his time.) The offer is there, if he thinks the stuff I've written is unworthy of appearing on DIW. This is his blog, not mine.
So far, no critic has answered any of my more studied posts with any kind of serious response - (they usually just show up to throw monkey crap and then disappear into their anonymity, as a dog does when it barks and thinks it's accomplished something once the mailman leave the premises.)
Again, if I were to use the same language ("Prowess Envy Farred") on targets that the left would normally choose to lampoon, they wouldn't complain a bit.
Frankly, the more attacks I've had on my person, the more I know I've been effective: I've been attacked by Polanski and 88ers alike. Couldn't have written myself a better resume!
I care more about what KC thinks, as well as Inman, MOO Gregory, Topher, RR Hamilton, GP, Debrah (and many others) have to say, being the reliable posters on DIW that they are. If they get tired of me, all they have to do is email KC, and he can email me and ask me to stop posting: I'm not a cyberstalker like Polanski, and don't go where I'm not wanted.
As for trolls: the more you cry, the merrier I become.
anonymous [of course] says ...
I get the fact that Grant is smart enough to be making a six figure salary at Cornell. That is my idea of marketplace success.
8/12/07 1:36 PM
So, since you also "get the fact" that Bush is smart enough to be President, that must also be your "idea of marketplace success."
Bush is President of the United States; Brodhead is President of Duke. Which is more prestigious? Well, clearly then, Bush is smarter than Brodhead by your logic. Or at a minimum, smarter than either Gore or Kerry.
Some here have tried to claim that Farred is between really intelligent but he's sometimes misunderstood by people. However, whenever the writings or other communications of a truly intelligent person are misunderstood, there are those who can explain his point such that its brilliance can be seen by the average audience member. Why don't one of you Farred defenders try this?
I strongly doubt that Duke had anything to do with Farred's going to Cornell. Duke simply got lucky when a highly paid academic joke got a higher paying appointment at another University. Farred was a visiting professor at Williams last academic year. Maybe he was looking for another venue. Some people with clout at Cornell probably wanted him and ushered him through the search and hiring process.
anonymous erudite said at 2:07 pm ...
The opposition today in the comment of 11:44 (the one with the pseudo-folksy dialect, seconded by 1:07) probably suggests what [KC] will face in the Battle of the Book. Since the Rape Hoax is a lost cause, they will have to change the subject. The subject will now be [KC]: an embittered and intemperate right-wing kook, a Rush Limbaugh with a Ph.D., an Ann Coulter with a sideline in diplomatic history. The first step in making this case will be to attempt to associate [KC] with the opinions of the various Polanskis who have inhabited [KC's] comment threads.
First, I resemble that remark.
Second, I agree with your overall analysis. I have likened the grip of the leftwing pseudo-intelligensia on American academy to The Matrix of movie fame. Many of the professors and administrators that KC writes about are the "Agent Andersons" of it. It is probably best that KC, like Neo, enter the bodies of the individual Agent Andersons (via, as you say, an analysis of their individual actions in the Hoax), so that they will explode from within.
R.R. Hamilton
Mac 10:37 said...
...So far, no critic has answered any of my more studied posts with any kind of serious response - (they usually just show up to throw monkey crap and then disappear into their anonymity, as a dog does when it barks and thinks it's accomplished something once the mailman leave the premises.)
::
That's funny and true. Drive through commenter...or something similar.
You can delete your own comments if you register. See the little trash receptacle below?
::
GP
Steven Horwitz said...
rrh:
Show me the language in 11246 that demands anything like a quota. The language (and you are quite right to ask about enforcement) simply says that gov't contractors with more than 50 employees must show that they are both not engaging in discrimination and taking "affirmative" steps to recruit minorities. E.g.:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS
Each Government contractor with 50 or more employees and $50,000 or more in government contracts is required to develop a written affirmative action program (AAP) for each of its establishments.
A written affirmative action program helps the contractor identify and analyze potential problems in the participation and utilization of women and minorities in the contractor's workforce.
If there are problems...
As I said earlier, Prof. Horwitz, I think you should read this EO along with an attorney or human resources director. Ask him or her: "If, say, our faculty is 4% protected-status persons while those of our similarly-situated competitors is 11% protected-status persons, even if there is not a shred of evidence we discriminate and even if we have jumped through every AA hoop ... would we have a 'problem'?"
Well, let's read further into the order and find the answer.
"ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
"Compliance Reviews
"OFCCP conducts compliance reviews to investigate the employment practices of Government contractors. During a compliance review, a compliance officer examines the contractor's affirmative action program; checks personnel, payroll, and other employment records; interviews employees and company officials; and investigates virtually all aspects of employment in the company. [Good question for you to ask the HR director: What does "virtually all aspects of employment mean"? What aspects are still confidential?]
"The investigator also checks to see whether the contractor is making special efforts to achieve equal opportunity through affirmative action. If problems are discovered, OFCCP will recommend corrective action and suggest ways to achieve equal employment opportunity. [Question for the HR director or attorney: What does "special" mean? Who decides if there are "problems"?]"
You might also wonder, What happens if "problems are discovered"? Well, here the EO explains for us:
"Enforcing Contract Compliance
When a compliance review discloses problems, OFCCP attempts to work with the contractor, often entering into a conciliation agreement. A conciliation agreement may include back pay, job offers, seniority credit, promotions or other forms of relief for victims of discrimination. [Note: This is disingenuous as the "victim" needs only show that s/he was "victim" of an insufficiently aggressive affirmative action program. And how do we know it was insufficiently aggressive? Why, because it failed to produce a sufficient number of hires of protected-status persons!] It may also involve new training programs, special recruitment efforts, or other affirmative action measures. [What do you think "other affirmative action measures" means? Another good question for the HR director or attorney. And by the way, regarding the "new training programs": How can you argue that you are conducting a legally sufficient "training program" if you fail to hire the trainees at the end of the program?]
"When conciliation efforts are unsuccessful, OFCCP refers the case to the Office of the Solicitor for enforcement through administrative enforcement proceedings. [This sounds expensive, doesn't it?] A contractor cited for violating EEO and affirmative action requirements may have a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. [Don't ask for due process, much less a jury!]
"If conciliation is not reached before or after the hearing, sanctions may be imposed. For example, a contractor could lose its government contracts or subcontracts or be debarred, i.e., declared ineligible for any future government contracts."
Ask your HR director or university legal counsel this simple question: Given the reality of affirmative action law today, would it be in the best interest of the university to hire (or admit as students) protected-status persons in a proportion roughly the same as other universities similar in size and character -- even if that means a reduction in the absolute quality of the hires or admittances?
Btw, a shout out to mac for the kind mention. :)
R.R. Hamilton
Anonymous said...
11:44 here. As a child of the south, I really do talk that way, so whatever it may be, grating or otherwise, it ain't "pseudo." I drink sweet tea, and I say y'all and yonder (as my grandparents and parents did), and I chuckle at the culture-war loons.
Why do I suddenly smell Tyson chicken ... er, make that chicken Tyson..
RRH
Some people are dissing 2:06 (my mistake in referring to him/her as 2:07 earlier).
People, check your egos at the door. This guy is right: Leave the thinking to KC. He's the only one here with (1) the brains, (2) the experience, (3) the energy, and (4) the sustained interest in directing this battle. Yes, 2:06 called us "Polanskis", but so what? He's right. No, we're not barnacles on KC's boat, but we're not much more than (on our best days) pilot fish.
Reade did post on this blog. Thanked people for their interest and help in the case. He then asked bloggers to "help other people ", which is a polite way to say "time to move on." Doctors have medicine for delusional and grand thoughts of power, etc.
There are no Grant defenders on this blog. Just people pointing out that he got a good job with good pay. That he has not been killed off by bloggers.He is not the only one and will not be the last. That is what is so hard for some of you to accept. It is true and you can not change the facts.
8:37 Will we be seeing you on the news? While you are confronting Grant as he moves his stuff into his house in Itaca? Perhaps in his classroom?
Hamilton - Your 12:30AM post is so true. Not sure I agree about the pilot fish. Maybe the Barnacles.
Why do the universities keep recycling these wackos? There are alot of talented Professors who can actually teach, give inspiration and make students think how to better serve the world. These Duke 88 leftovers teach hate, intolerance and racism.
The conspiracy theorists posturing that Duke paid off Cornell (or someone within the Duke 'community' furthered along Cornell's hiring of Farred with some monetary benefit or otherwise) are outrageously out-of-touch with academia. If an academic department was ever forced to hire someone in a tenured or tenure-track position no less (not an adjunct/spousal type hire) by an outside administrator, trustee, (etc etc), you better believe there would be a massive firestorm, immediate announcements of controversy in publications like the Chronicle (of Higher Ed), and so forth.
As it is, extensions of appointments can be very politically rocky already. A few years back there were a handful of articles in the Chronicle of Higher Ed about a department at the Univ. of Georgia that was split over a faculty hire and, ultimately because of one vote, offered the candidate the job. The gist of the articles were that if the department is that fractured over whether to bring in the new professor, they are better off in the long run interviewing/discussing other candidates and not even considering the person that sparked the contentious fissure.
The point of my post above (sorry, forgot to add this) is that Cornell must have wanted Farred. For what reasons - who knows - but the English department there must have genuinely wanted him and his scholarship in their dept.
KC. I hope your book makes life difficult for the G88 and some of them change their ways.
My sense is it won't happen. Their clients are students who need to take some of the courses' they teach to graduate. Everyone has had bad teachers or crazy teachers or idealogues they don't agree with. This blog and your book won't change the fact that they are all moving on with their lives at Duke.
If it serves to put them on the hot seat, that is good enough. Best of luck with it, I can't wait to read it.
Thank you again for being balanced and keeping the light shining where it did a great service to three innocent young men.
Anonymous said...
Hamilton - Your 12:30AM post is so true. Not sure I agree about the pilot fish. Maybe the Barnacles.
8/13/07 1:48 AM
KC, is that you? :)
Well sure 9:24 - "Duke paying Cornell to hire Grant" DUMC "buying Levicy's house and suggesting she leave the state" is the stuff of science fiction. All this to stay in denial that many of these folk are escaping and did not get ground to dust. Talk about fanasty - one blogger quit because she did not get special treatment. It is a new adventure everyday.
rrh -
The Matrix metaphor is quite apt.
(I offer a correction to your reference of 'Agent Smith'. 'Mr. An-der-son' was his bete blanc.)
TombZ
I know algorithms for splitting lightwaves, but for the life of me, I can't figure out a darned thing GF or his supporters are saying! Quite frankly, I can explain how light works to a group of 8th graders, but GF's supporters say the only people who can understand him are those who support him??? Give me a break! Even Forrest Gump could recognize this BS.
cmf
1:17
Point well-said.
I know of an outpatient procedure that might help Mr. Farred: an oculorectotomy, for oculorectitis.
That's where the distal end of the digestive lumen, the epithelial tissue, that is, migrates to the region of the superior rectus and superior oblique and causes one to have a very poor outlook on life.
It's only life-threatening to those who come in contact with the carrier.
Thanks for the correction, TombZ. You're right, it was Agent Smith. I'm glad you liked the "Matrix" analogy for the leftwing "metanarrative" that holds American academia in suspended animation.
RRH
9:23 They are outrageously out of touch with reality.
1:17 Where did you read that quote from GF supporters? Not on this blog.
KC - no one ever heard of the word "metanarrative" or"probative" or "non probative" before you and Brad came on the scene.
mac @ 1:50....
Is that the same thing as a cranial rectal inversion?
Post a Comment