A first-rate editorial from the Chronicle on John Burness’ retirement; as usual, the editorial page hits all the right points. Elliot Wolf offers his personal reflections on the op-ed page. Both columns are worth reading in full.
Several Group of 88 members are back in the news, providing concrete examples what Group defender Prasad Kasibhatla has termed the “mainstream voices of reason” on Duke’s campus.
In a column criticizing Bill Cosby’s critique of black parental culture, Karla Holloway seems to exhibit a belief in “free speech for me, not for thee”: “Instead of addressing how racial biases have hindered our children’s potential,” she writes, “Cosby’s exhortations solidify the association between race and achievement. I think it is time for us to hear less from
(Holloway also classifies Cosby as “a very angry man.” Based on her conduct in the last 18 months, it’s a little hypocritical for her to be dismissing anyone else as “angry.”)
Meanwhile, in a Duke News Service press release noticed by Jon Ham at Right Angles, AAAS professor Anne-Marie Makhulu speaks about her area of scholarly expertise—witchcraft:
“When people say they believe in magical forces, they believe in magic that can make the world equal and just in circumstances where it’s not,” Makhulu said. For some, “witchcraft is about recuperating what is ethical, just and moral.”
“We need enchantment in our lives because our world has become disenchanted,” Makhulu said. “We need faith that promises something bigger and better than what we have.”
Of course, Makhulu has every right to her political belief that “our world has become disenchanted.” But professors need to be wary of allowing their political agenda to shape how they approach their area of scholarly expertise.
And, from the archives, a DIW reader noted a 2001 profile of Houston Baker—a figure who, wrote Emily Eakin of the New York Times, had “a full-time assistant, a plush office and the ear of deans and administrators. And yet, as Mr. Baker sees it, in some ways he has more in common with the black inmates in
Finally, some interesting comments from And Smith provided a poignant, if accurate, summary: “I think a small part of the public understands (the seriousness of what happened) and those closest to the university know. But most people don’t understand the impact. Those guys had to leave school. They had to postpone their educations and not play sports. Reade Seligmann’s a good friend of mine. His girlfriend was at school, but he wasn’t allowed to be around campus. Anytime somebody’s accused of something there’s always going to be some doubt, regardless of what the outcome is. They’re always going to be known as the accused lacrosse players, and it’s something they’ll have to carry around a long time.
214 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 214 of 214To Debrah at 6:52 and anonymous at 7:05, thank you. I was afraid my 4:44 posting was too "stream of consciousness".
Duke Prof said...
Why is everyone afraid to name the obvious?
Let's never stop asking that question.
RRH
[re: 7:05 PM - "Anything is possible in DIW, even Holloway as president of Duke. I'm hoping, however, she'll politic her way to a permanent appointment at Harvard, and Duke will be rid of one more of the most egregious of the 88."
-----------------------------------
After what Harvard did to Lawrence Summers, they richly deserve what they would get with the likes of Holloway.
Holloway is out of her league at Duke. That much is clear. At Harvard she would be so far out of her league (both inside and outside the confines of the AAAS Dept.) that it wouldn't even be funny. Then, again, upon further thought, it would be hilarious.
[DukeProf at 8:38 noted:"You could throw darts at almost any faculty directory at Duke and hit the names of academics whose credentials, intelligence, and powers of articulation make them more qualified for an appointment at the law school...She got the law school *annointment* because she is a black female who keeps playing the race/gender card. That, and she's buoyed by administrators who keep falling over themselves to prove how race/gender sensitive they are."]
-----------------------------------
I have a hunch, also, that she serves as the 'poster girl' for the M[aster of] L[egal] S[tudies] degree. Such terminal degrees are sort of "Gilligan's Island" degrees that provide a [three-hour] tour through various topics in law, allowing non-specialists in law to acquire enough of a working-knowledge of law to apply it within their own fields of inquiry. However, if Holloway's legal thought on the lacrosse fiasco is any indication of what she gained in pursuing the M.L.S., then Duke Law School needs to dismantle the program immediately (or at least consider applying far stricter standards in conferring the degree).
Why is everyone afraid to name the obvious? (That's a real question.)
Duke Prof
Phelan:
"We're not afraid to name it here. You're the "Duke Prof," you tell us. I really am curious about the detailed mechanisms and mindset involved in faculty self-censorship."
Sorry. I should have been more specific. By "everyone," I didn't mean those here who have the ability and courage to "name it." I meant those at Duke, and other universities, who should have the ability and backbone to "name it."
From my experience, there are two types of "faculty self-censorship:" Those who refuse to see -- the willfully blind, and those who see but are afraid to speak -- the cowards.
I often wonder whether there is a third type. This is not really self-censorship, as much as self-inflicted "brain shrinking." There seem to be faculty who are intellectually incapable of seeing what's happening in the academic world around them because they have spent their careers dealing with minutiae -- e.g., a career spent writing the equivalent of 1500-page tracts on a clause in the 14th amendment. A second version of this "brain shrinking" seems to be those who flee to fields that they consider "safe" from such debates because those fields are regarded as "value free." Some consider economics such a field.
Duke Prof
"...it's the professional life that seems a reasonable issue here. If KC had any integrity at all he would have barred those comments about [Holloway's] personal life."
-----------------------------------
With Holloway (not mention almost every single one of the rest of the 88) it is difficult to separate a discussion of her personal life from a discussion of her professional life, inasmuch as, in Holloway's case (to cite but one example), she has managed to marshall the contents of what appears to be a severe personality disorder into a career goldmine. Stupidity, by itself, is bad enough; craziness, by itself, is even worse. Combine 'stupid' and 'nuts', and you have a deadly (albeit apparently lucrative) combination.
[re: "I wouldn't be surprised if, at this very moment, [Holloway] is busy ENGINEERING Broadhead's departure behind the scenes..."]
-----------------------------------
BREAKING NEWS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:
KFC Holloway has just been 'elevated' to the 'distinguished' William R. Kenan Professorship in Engineering at Duke University.
"...in Holloway's case (to cite but one example), she has managed to marshall the contents of what appears to be a severe personality disorder into a career goldmine. Stupidity, by itself, is bad enough; craziness, by itself, is even worse. Combine 'stupid' and 'nuts', and you have a deadly (albeit apparently lucrative) combination."
------------------------------------
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."
David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap vocalist
Duke Prof:
I think your third kind is better described as "denial." They can't make themselves believe the bs, they don't have the courage to fight it, they're unable to admit to themselves that they are intimidated, so they pretent things aren't really as bad as they are to justify their inaction.
A second version of this "brain shrinking" seems to be those who flee to fields that they consider "safe" from such debates
That seems to me more like "running away," and not very different in kind from leaving academia for saner pastures. It strikes me as a reasonable response to a nasty situation you don't think you can fix.
So - the intimidated and the deniers, who I consider a variant of the intimidated. What exactly are they afraid of? How many of them are there? Are they a majority? If they all woke up and found their gonads simultaneously would there be enough of them to protect each others' careers?
phelan wrote
"So - the intimidated and the deniers, who I consider a variant of the intimidated. What exactly are they afraid of?"
Sticking their necks out. Same type of psychology that makes possible a Vichy regime.
"How many of them are there?"
The vast majority. After all, there were *only* 88.
"If they all woke up and found their gonads simultaneously would there be enough of them to protect each others' careers?"
Sure. But even "gonads" can wither and die from disuse.
Duke Prof
KC of Harvard and University of Chicago is above reproach. Glad he won his tenure fight - none of this is news to those of us, who haave been here from the beginning. KC is a hero and the force that helped exonerate the defendents. I still disagree with him over Levicy. Notice Jim Cooney did not mention investigating her.
For Duke Prof and Ralph Phelan --
The prerequisite struggle is against the Metanarrative -- the historical lies that people are told about race relations which undergird the notion that black behavior is a result of white attitudes, rather than the other way around.
As I've said before, the Lax Hoax should properly be called the Micronarrative -- when Prof. Holloway talked about "perfect" victims and offenders, this is what she had in mind: The Lax Case as a microcosm of the history of race relations in America. (Actually, she turned out to be right as black lies combined with the perfidy of some powerful whites to create an inhuman hoax. That really is a microcosm of American race history.)
RRH
(Response to hearing Holloway was the ONLY person to be awarded a suspicious "Master of Legal Studies" degree in 2005):
"I'm surprised she hasn't proclaimed herself valedictorian."
_______________
Anonymous at 2:10 - you made me laugh so hard I snorted Diet Coke through my nose!
Seems like Holloway wants to indict everyone who she considers "privileged," but won't admit into evidence her own children's obvious privilege.
Since "privilege" is her game, and other people's children are her target, her own history - and that of her children - are not off the table for discussion.
Her children were the children of privilege.
"So - the intimidated and the deniers, who I consider a variant of the intimidated. What exactly are they afraid of?"
Sticking their necks out. Same type of psychology that makes possible a Vichy regime.
Sigh. The French were afraid to stick their necks out because if they did some German guy with a uniform - a colleague of the guys who had just destroyed the French army - would take him outside and shoot him in the head. [This happened to a second cousin once-removed in the Netherlands who had a "Welcome home Queen Wilhelmina" banner rolled up in his house a couple of days earlier than prudence would have recommended.]
What are the faculty afraid will happen to them if they stick their necks out?
Post a Comment