A reader tracked down for me what Group of 88 leader Wahneema Lubiano lists on her Duke webpage as her most recent scholarly “publication”—an interview in an obscure journal called e3w.
And what is it that passes for “scholarship” among this Group of 88’er?
Information about Lubiano’s drinking habits, among other items: “There are so many half-remembered stories and pieces of stories that they jostle each other in my mind into a kind of rich but incoherent mass that’s hard to untangle—late night discussions at each others’ houses over food and drink.”
A good chunk of this scholarly article—one of three “interviews” that Lubiano lists as official publications (she double-lists one interview), and one of a mere five brief pieces, including the “interviews,” that Lubiano has produced in the last decade—consists of Lubiano reminiscing about her time at the University of Texas. It was an era, she recalled, when “we had worn ourselves out over various permutations of what came to be Ethnic and Third World Literature program.”
This process culminated in establishing e3w, which Lubiano woodenly described as “an assertion of the importance of particularities even as the rubrics themselves might change, be superseded, or be revised with regard to what those rubrics seek to name or explain.” The Group of 88’er further related, “I find myself smiling even as I think about those moments.” (It’s not clear whether Lubiano considers her smiling habits to be of scholarly significance.)
Another good chunk of this scholarly “publication” featured Lubiano telling stories about an early-1990s conference that she organized at Princeton. The event was designed “to talk about race and racism with the languages and work of a set of scholars who we thought had something to say from different disciplinary apparatuses,” and to see “what left-oriented politically-engaged academics had to say about topical issues.” These words could describe the e-mail list-serv that formed the Group of 88.
As for herself, Lubiano shared the following insight: “I describe myself as a Black Studies intellectual.” This field “has never lost sight of the political practices of elites that make use of racialization and ethnicity as formidable weapons in the work of social control.”
And the issues? Lubiano went after the Democratic Party, in predictable rhetoric from the academic fringe. “Political liberalism,” she maintained, “is of massive assistance to the oligarchy that runs the country and that includes the consistent failures of US democracy across its interests.” (This level of analytical sophistication regarding American politics mirrors that at the average Tea Bag protest.) In Lubiano’s mind, she is part of “the small segment of folks” engaged in a “consistent calling out of liberalism as the management of race to the benefit of our corporate plutocracy.” That “small segment” would be a majority in many humanities and some social sciences departments nationally.
Her interviewer asked the Group of 88’er whether the racial situation in the United States had improved in the last 15 years. Given that we have elected an African-American president, it would be hard to answer no to this question—but Lubiano nonetheless found a way to do so. “Sometimes,” she mused, “I think it’s worse especially insofar as the racialization and ethnicization of the world as the popularity of Muslim and Arab demonization proceeds apace.”
And asked what comes to her mind when the Duke lacrosse team is mentioned, Lubiano pointed to . . . her apologia for the Group of 88 (another of her scarce “publications”), co-authored with clarifying professor Robyn Wiegman and fellow Group member Michael Hardt. In that essay, which was riddled with factual errors and creative revisions of events at Duke, Lubiano listed herself and her fellow race/class/gender faculty as the true victims of the lacrosse case—victimized, that is, by “the blogs.”
But, Lubiano concluded, she shouldn’t be considered anti-student. This professor, the very same figure who chose to exploit her own institution’s students to advance her pedagogical agenda, reflected that she reminds herself, “Why do I think young people matter?”
Of course she does.
Lubiano is hardly the only Group member with a peculiar definition of how to treat the students whose tuition helps pay her salary. A chilling comment posted the other day by Bill Anderson about Lubiano’s Group colleague, Karla Holloway.
I had a conversation with a prominent Duke faculty member the other day, and he told me that in his conversations with Karla Holloway, she continued to insist that RCD were "guilty." However, her reasoning was that "guilt is a social construct," which meant that because of their race and economic status, that alone made them guilty.
When I say guilty, I don't mean in a figurative sense, but in the sense of the law. She believed that they should have been tried, convicted, and imprisoned solely because of their race and economic and social backgrounds. Those inferred guilt upon them.
Keep in mind that Karla Holloway is a faculty member at the Duke law school. Here is someone who teaches law, but believes that the law is simply a club by which people seize power and do whatever they want.
This is the same mentality that was used by the various totalitarian governments of the 20th Century that committed murder on an incomprehensible scale. To them, right was power, period.
This person was not exaggerating, and he is an accomplished academic and not given to loose talk. And I would guarantee you that Holloway is not the only Duke faculty member who thinks like this.
Imagine facing a jury with people like Karla Holloway, Houston Baker, Paula McClain, Sally Deutsch, Larry Moneta, Richard Brodhead, and John Burness. Talk about a kangaroo court.
It’s worth remembering that their colleagues just elected Lubiano and Holloway to positions on Duke’s Academic Council.
[Update, 12.58pm: Group apologist Robert Zimmerman reports that he has received an email from Karla Holloway that Anderson’s claim is “an absolute and patent falsehood,” that he’s “reporting a conversation that could never have taken place” and that it “misrepresents [her] views.” (I should note that Prof. Holloway does not respond to my emails.) On Prof. Zimmerman's blog, I have invited Prof. Holloway to submit to DIW her recollection of the conversations, and also what her "views" on the case currently are. I will post any response she supplies in its entirety.]
I have a question for those of you in academia: KC; Bill Anderson; Duke Prof; Gary Hull; cks; and any of you who are professionals in education and are familiar with this subject.
Notwithstanding the comments about the scholarly quality (or lack thereof) of Lubiano's scholarship, what is a reasonable expectation of the quantity of publication work for a professor at her level at Duke?
I have seen this subject broached at other blogs and there seems to be a wide variety of opinion depending on whether or not a particular university is considered a "teaching" institution or whether it has a "research" focus.
Also, I've seen discussions that offer explanations for a lack of publication production from professors due to a plethora of reasons including: outside time spent on administrative duties; child raising; committee work; requirements of minority and female scholars to serve on diversity groups; and even teaching loads.
It appears that publication output is often part of the criteria for granting tenure or promotion.
As a non-academic, I would appreciate the views of those of you in the academy on my question.
Wow Prof. Johnson:
1. Why would you inject the pejorative with sexual innuendo "tea bagging" to describe the anti government spending self named "tea party" protest against the unprecedented increase in government expenditure into this essay?
2. What evidence do you have about the average intellect of the protesters? Is your evidence survey related? Did you survey some random sample of the estimated 350,000 protesters on 15 April?
3. Do you consider the average intellect or educaton of protesters important and as such believe the US Civil Rights protests of the 1950s and 1960s were similarly illegitimate? Do you thus in your writings use sexual innuendo to describe those protests?
I could go on and on here, but the point is that you could have easily made you point of not being impressed with the Prof's "scholarly musings" without resorting to smearing 350,000 or so people without any evidence I bet. If you are against prejudice from the left and right, it would seem to me that you would want to practice what you preach.
"(This level of analytical sophistication regarding American politics mirrors that at the average Teabagging protest.)"Why the gratuitous insult of a significant portion of your readership? This kind of pettiness leads me to think that some of your critics are correct.
Lubiano's excuse was that she was inebriated; what's yours?
Live Free or Die ... how's that for sophisticated political analysis?
My guess is that most of those Tea Party rubes don't spend their working lives engaged in intellectual masturbation like your average Ethnic Studies or Womyn's Studies professor. I wonder how KC could evaluate their positions since the same media that smears Duke lacrosse also smears Tea Party protestors (Susan Rosegen, anyone?).
Was this "interview" written up by someone other than Lubiano? If so, how can she credit this as writing. Even if she has written down answers to questions posed by an interviewer, how can she credit this as scholarly writing?
"(This level of analytical sophistication regarding American politics mirrors that at the average Teabagging protest"
I have to say I'm deeply disappointed by the constant political cheap shots and increasing partisan line of this blog. Insulting the more than 500,000 middle-class Americans who took part in peaceful, real grassroots demonstration (as opposed to George Soros funded with professional Gang88-protesters bused by ACORN, with factory-made signs) is beyond pale and approaching Gang88/Olbermann territory (or the CNN "reporter's" meltdown on TV). Like Lubiano, KC offers no proof about the idiocy of teaparties or "lack of sophistication" (I assume KC really means that lack of hard-core leftist activism?). Rather than serious debate or analysis on teaparties, KC retorts to Gang88 like insults.
I don't mind occasional update on Cooper's polling numbers etc, but the cheap shots against Bush/Gonzales DoJ and now tea parties is tiresome, especially from someone I consider serious scholar.
I love living in a country that is so prosperous that we can afford to feed people like this.
This level of analytical sophistication regarding American politics mirrors that at the average Tea Bag protest.I'm very disappointed in you. Here's all the analysis you need to understand the issue.
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in PicturesPlenty of us fiscal conservatives didn't like the Bush spending. But it was not going to bankrupt the country. Obama's spending is literally beyond our ability to pay for.
At the risk of making even more enemies, I am defending K.C.'s recent "tea-bagging" quote. If you think that comment is rough, here are a couple of articles from people who are even more critical -- from the libertarian side.
I only wish that the Republicans had been advocates of fiscal responsibility when they were in power. We now have to live with the consequences of Bush's profligacy that Obama seems intent on extending.
To O.S., 2.28:
Your question is an excellent one.
One of the potential drawbacks of tenure, of course, is that once a professor receives tenure, there is no institutional requirement to continue publishing.
The academy presumes (1) good faith--that a scholar will continue to be a scholar, even when she or he doesn't have to be; or (2) peer pressure--that a level of expectation will exist among colleagues so that a non-producer such as Lubiano would be professionally ostracized.
In departments like Duke's Group of 88-dominated ones, no peer pressure seems to exist--Lubiano can claim, as she has done on several occasions, that her "activism" is an important part of her job.
There is, also, the Summers precedent here. Early in his Harvard presidency, Larry Summers called in African-American Studies professor Cornel West to demand that West produce scholarship rather than, as he was then doing, rap music. West was a University professor, the highest honor in Harvard's faculty rankings, and a position reserved for the most esteemed scholars.
West accused Summers of racism (though no evidence exists that Summers had any lower scholarly expectations for white professors) and decamped to Princeton. In the censure resolution (as introduced) against Summers, his treatment of West was listed as one of the three reasons for his censure.
The message: it's at their own peril that administrators raise the "non-scholarship" issue against faculty members who can appeal to political correctness.
If Holloway and Lubiano are part of Duke's Academic Council, how can Duke be considered an "elite" academic school?
This is even taking into some of their outstanding academic programs in the "hard" sciences.
The programs may be good, while the school is not.
"Obama seems intent on extending" (!?)
Sorry Bill, Look at the graph. Obama seems intent on exceeding beyond imagination and any possibility of supporting those expenditures short of confiscatory tax rates.
Many, many of us did not "cheerlead" for much of Bush's domestic agenda. On that he enjoyed, at best, lukewarm support, if any. The problem was Congressional Republicans acting like Democrats in a minor key.
We had to elect actual Democrats to remind us what real overspending looks like. In a few years we'll hear how tax rates have to be raised to a crushing level to support all the spending to which they've obligated us.
In any event. KC's snarky aside is beneath him and completely irrelevant to the whole rest of the post.
Oh, jolly good! It looks like this thread might provide some really good ideational diversity and all of us diversiphiles can dig that.
Speaking of diversity and diversiphilia(?) (Tom Lehrer once referred to someone as a professor of Animal Husbandry - until they caught him at it), here is an article, found at Minding The Campus, about some of the contemporary strategic thinking among the diversicats.
You know: What, when and to whom should we do it next?
The tea party seems to have fizzled.
Anderson echoes something that Bill Bennett and others mentioned on some of the Sunday talk shows.
For a conservative, GWB performed his share of unusual fiscal maneuvers during his presidency.
However, the Bush family were never really "conservatives"--especially Pere Bush.
No other president has ever done as much for Africa as GWB---funneling billions---to combat the AIDS epidemic which is perpetuated by their own cultural mores.
GWB did a lot of spending.
Obama is, indeed, improving on that trend.
But he wants to succeed, and presumably be elected for a second term.
Just as he does not want to be the president at the helm if this country is attacked again as a result of relaxed security measures, he does not want to be in charge of complete financial destruction.
Let the people protest.
And give this president some time to work things out.
KC, I have really admired and respected your analysis of the Duke rape hoax case.
But you use of the sexual metaphor "Tea Bag" is immature and irresponsible. I attended two of the Tea Parties, and found them to be well-reasoned and legitimate protests against fiscal irresponsibility in government.
(This level of analytical sophistication regarding American politics mirrors that at the average Tea Bag protest.)KC,
I am pleased that you have edited your post to that above;(the crude sexual reference you previoulsy used is unworthy of you and this blog) but surely you should acknowledge the "edit".
Demeaning teabag protestors is out of line. Since when has prudence about national finance become considered odd or marginalized behavior?
Why can't you own up to the fact that you didn't know the sexual connotations of "teabagging" and changed the post to read "tea bag" which is really not much better? Since we're at it, the organizers refer to them as "Tea Party" protests. As a historian, no one should need to remind you of the significance.
I teach at the secondary level - thus the requirement to publish does not exist. What is required is on-going coursework (one has to complete the masters degree if one does not already possess one) in order to keep one's state certification (and thus one's position). However, my father-in-law was a tenured university professor (he had an endowed chair). He was constantly writing articles and books. Although he was a chemist, I know that his colleagues in the humanities were also engaged in scholarly pursuits. Perhaps the rules are different at Duke than they are for other institutions, however, friends of min who are college professors are all engaged in research and writing - which they publish. Though my husband is no engaged in academia, he still publishes articles dealing with philosophic questions. It would seem then that Lubiano should have the time (I doubt that her teaching load is anywhere near that of your local high school teacher) and the wherewithall (access to collections, etc) to engage in some literary output. The fact that she has published little of merit (and I would argue little that is understandable) speaks to the declining standards in academia at Duke.
KC Johnson said...
Please keep comments on the topic of the post; or on Bill Anderson's important comment.
4/18/09 2:45 PM Two days after dropping into the comment thread to make the statement pasted above you do a write a post containing a shot at the Tea Party protests. It required a strained analogy to work it in to your post. More to the point it was a shot that was certain to generate an entire thread of off topic responses. Well KC, do you value on topic comment threads or not?
This Lubiano topic brings back memories---and fond ones.
I spent some time with Jim Valvano before his battle with cancer when I decided to do a freelance piece for Attenzione Magazine.
My idea was to do a pop culture piece on the mania inside the world of college basketball....comparing and contrasting coaches.
Although, I had no connection to N. C. State, I adored him because he had such love of life.
Since I was so much younger, he always called me his "little baby sister". LOL!!!
Valvano often touted the benefits of imbibing and said that he didn't trust people who wouldn't drink at all because he thought they were hiding something.
But I don't think he meant that you should drink while you're on the job.
Wahneema shows us there are people who should keep some things hidden.
Perhaps Lubiano subscribes to the Latin phrase, "In vino veritas", which literally means "Truth in wine".
The loose translation means that when you drink alcohol you tend to sometimes say things you normally wouldn't say had you not imbibed.
Could this really provide a glimpse into the origins of the "Listening Statement"?
Was Wahneema gettin' her groove back while pedantic-partying on the down-low?
Was she mugged by an "othered" stream of consciousness while the metaphor lay in a stupor??
Did Wahneema succumb?
Let me be the first to pay honor to the benefits of drinking wine---especially red.
However, when you incorporate this into your work as a professional and are relaxed enough to actually talk about it as you intertwine personal habits with so-called scholarship.....
......then you know that the woman has no standards because she isn't held to any.
One Spook 04/20/09 :: 2:28 AM said...
...Notwithstanding the comments about the scholarly quality (or lack thereof) of Lubiano's scholarship, what is a reasonable expectation of the quantity of publication work for a professor at her level at Duke?
Some people just yearn for such rules. They must have those rules and in writing with appropriate updates signed and dated in triplicate three times a year by the King/Queen or other higher order humans who occupy something resembling a throne.
Wahneema Lubiano's game is to annoy those people which apparently...she has.
Now the question becomes...how much longer can she pull it off?
Tea bagging - who knew?
I have learned so much in the 2+ years reading this blog.
My university considers itself a research (as oposed to teaching) institution. For tenure, we expect faculty to average one or two publications a year - in my field (mathematics) these would be research articles in a refereed journal. Of course you don't need so many if you are getting research money from a reasonable place - the NSF, or some branch of DOD, or possibly one of the well-established foundations.
The problem is that, after tenure, a faculty member can just stop producing. We have people coming up for promotion to full professor who, in the ten years after tenure, have published maybe 4 research articles. They are invarialby turned down, though they ask for promotion on some other basis - service on the academic council or the faculty council, or maybe preparing online courses. Of course they can stay on forever, so it's not a hardship.
You want to know who should really take some heat for the Lubiano kind of show that is allowed to persist?
The Duke alumni.
If they would exert their power in numbers onto the Duke administration and make relentless demands that the Gang of 88 "scholarship" will no longer be tolerated, it would make an impact.
Why are these people so impotent?
What I found most interesting is that K.C. talked about the "average tea bag protest" and then for evidence linked to a post titled "10 most offensive tea party signs." There is a relevant cliche about pots and kettles applicable here.
The second most interesting thing is the historical ignorance. While I would expect Huffington Posters to not realize that one of the things they identified as most offensive (i.e. the Gonzalez banner...the white flag with the cannon and the phrase "come and take it") was actually a flag flown by Texans during their independence fight with Mexico. It is sad that the historian K.C. Johnson did not know this when he choose to endorse this Huggington Post judgement on this historic flag by approvingly linking to it.
A lot of harrumphing about government spending, but not a single clear idea about how to avert a possible depression or turn around the recession. On the other hand, there were some wicked smaht tea party protestors in Boahston, but that was centuries ago.
I will give the Tea Partiers this much credit, they didn't drown out anyone like the Tancredo protestors. They exercised their rights, and they did it well, garnering a lot of national press.
On a more silly, note:
Lubiano grandly describes being involved in "larger knowledge projects," "visible bodies of work and thought," and various kinds of "new entit[ies] of thought," about which I can't wait for her to publish, as this sounds -- at least as she describes them -- to be the humanities equivalent of cold fusion.
Professor Anderson, will you please comment about this excerpt from Lubiano's interview:
"George Lipsitz has described our urgency as a struggle against the homogenizing of the neoliberal market that empties out the particularities of time and place ...."
By doing so, you will be able to update your CV with this "interveiw," and that's something in which to take a measure of pride. MOO! Gregory
P.S. Professor Anderson, that was a rhetorical question, so don't bother answering, but you can take credit for this "Rhetorical Interview," which I believe constitutes a "new entity of publication" or something.
Here's a link to a YAHOO! news story about a prosecutor immunity case from Pottawattamee, Iowa, which has been granted cert by the Supreme Court.
K.C.'s point on Cornel West is a good one. Once a person has reached full professor, the incentives to continue to publish, or at least publish at the same academic level that brought one to full professorship (at a research university) definitely have changed.
Some professors will change the focus of their writing and research. For example, I remember one well-known University of Georgia economist telling me that he as "finished dealing with first-order conditions, and devoted much of his time to other writing pursuits.
Some universities tie raises and other things to continued publication. Lubiano and the "angry studies" faculty, however, are going to be held to different standards. First, and most important, much of what they do really falls into an anti-intellectual category. Granted, they write in very dense prose, which often is mistaken for "intelligent" writing, but the content is pretty dismal.
This anti-intellectualism aspect is very important, for they believe that all science -- everything -- falls into the "social construct" category. That means that they believe that if one applies enough force and intimidation against people, they also can change the very laws of science.
If there is a mentality to which this can be compared, it would be the mentality presented by the Bolsheviks in the U.S.S.R. after the revolution and at least through Lenin. They believed that if they killed enough property owners and rich people and intimidated enough people, that they could "remake the world."
Well, they ran headlong into the laws of economics. (I hate to tell people this, but the law of demand, the law of supply, the law of scarcity, and the law of diminishing marginal returns really cannot be "remade" by killing and intimidating people. Yeah, I know that E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post recently claimed that economic laws are the creation of people, but I beg to differ.)
Second, the rules that govern the "angry studies" "scholars" are very different than the rules that govern other academics at place like Duke. While many of them are intelligent and even accomplished people, nonetheless their Marxism and their sense of victimhood stand in the way of their developing what I would call "adult" thinking.
In a very real sense, they insist on being treated as children, and they act the part. When the accusations against the lacrosse players surfaced, they immediately sprang into action. Why? So they could get attention.
Look at their various antics. They always have the same purpose: drawing attention to themselves. I think if we look outside the academic realm and into the realm of appropriate and inappropriate behavior, we find ultimately that this is a childish bunch of people.
Children engage in games of "let's pretend," and so do the members of the G88. Lubiano gets to pretend that she is a real scholar, Holloway gets to pretend that her "social construct" viewpoints really can be applied to general society without disastrous and destructive results, and Mark Neal can give us his "thugniggaintellectual" schtick and the teacher does not tell him to take his seat and be quiet.
Of course, the sad thing is that the administration of Duke and other "elite" universities also is in on the "let's pretend" games. At Vanderbilt, it is "let us pretend Houston Baker is anything but the fraud that he is." Why? Because they know that if the kiddies are unhappy, they will make lots of noise and hold their breath until they turn blue, and no one wants a blue "angry studies" prof on campus.
A quick reply to some of the above, which I will refer to the "Tea protesters" to avoid any suggestion of derision, and then I would like to move the comment thread on to the topic of the post. (Off comment items therefore won't be cleared.)
I should note that I'm a fiscally moderate Dem, and one reason I supported Obama in the primaries is that he clearly was more centrist on spending issues than either Clinton or Edwards.
The Tea protesters may very well be correct (although their specific message was hard to discern)--just as Lubiano may very well be correct in her indictment of the Dem Party. Neither, however, featured any "analytical sophistication," to quote the description used in the post.
Right-wing populism is a persistent thread in US history--we have seen the protests against Obama, just as we saw similar protests against Clinton spending in 1993 and LBJ spending in 1965. This concern with deficits and government spending tends not to manifest itself under GOP administrations--unsurprisingly, of course, since otherwise the ideology wouldn't be right-wing populism. (It would be libertarianism.)
Leaving aside the fact that a discernible minority of the Tea protesters (10%? 15%?) were not motivated, shall we say, by their feelings on Keynsianism, it's hard to avoid the question of where these deficit hawks were for the last eight years. Obama might be wrong in his belief that we need a massive infusion of government spending to get out of the recession, but at least he has an intellectually justifiable reason (one shared by most economists) for government spending. It's hard to come up with an intellectually justified reason for the deficit spending during the Bush years (except for those who argue that we needed to pay for the biggest entitlement program since LBJ, the Medicare expansion, with borrowed money). Yet we had no Tea protests for the past eight years, even as we see a Tea protest within 100 days of Obama's start.
But, just as it's predictable that a right-wing populist movement will greet a new Dem spending initiative, it's just as predictable that academic extremists will attack a Dem administration the left.
The difference--and to get back to the issue raised in this post--is that the academy has very few right-wing populists and is overrun with left-wing extremists, which helps explain the imbalanced debate we've seen at Duke since 2006.
While many of them are intelligent and even accomplished people, nonetheless their Marxism and their sense of victimhood stand in the way of their developing what I would call "adult" thinking.
In a very real sense, they insist on being treated as children, and they act the part. When the accusations against the lacrosse players surfaced, they immediately sprang into action. Why? So they could get attention.************************
This is precisely how they behave.
Bonilla-Silva is a special case whose every gesture and every syllable that comes from his mouth are examples of childish navel-gazing.
I often wonder how members of Duke's administration really feel about their "scholars".
I mean, there are people over there who are accomplished and who know the difference between the real professors and the seat-warmers.
"George Lipsitz has described our urgency as a struggle against the homogenizing of the neoliberal market that empties out the particularities of time and place ...."Hmmm, to decipher that would require a few beers or glasses wine beforehand....
Actually, if she is semi-consistent with her Marxism, then she would be saying (as historicists generally do) that analysis of human action is predicated upon when the action took place, as different epochs of history are governed by different rules. (Marx, Gustav Schmoller, and Thorstein Veblen all were historicists.)
For example, a historicist might say that "free trade was appropriate at the time of Adam Smith, but is not appropriate today." I have seen modern protectionists make a similar argument.
On the other side, one would say that the laws of human action are immutable and apply at any time in history. Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek were in that category.
Now, I am not sure what she means by the "neoliberal market." Is it a market economy or a "market" of ideas? I don't know, as I don't know the larger context of that piece.
However, you can bet that she uses terms like "commodification" and such in her prose. According to Lubiano, her system of values is morally superior to any system that anyone else might have.
I have read elsewhere in which she declares an an "oligarchy runs the country." Gee, I had no idea. Of course, she admires countries that had dictators and not "oligarchies" running things.
You have frequently mocked the groupthink and lack of scholarship of the G88 and their enablers. You've been right and they've deserved it.
But reflexively repeating an irrelevant derisive description you heard in the faculty lounge or read on some blog somewhere and by failing to understand its origin, you have fallen into the same trap. So sad.
Leaving aside the fact that a discernible minority of the Tea protesters (10%? 15%?) were not motivated, shall we say, by their feelings on KeynsianismIf you want to call them redneck racists then just do it and get it over with.
it's hard to avoid the question of where these deficit hawks were for the last eight years.Where they were was increasingly dissatisfied with the Republication-led overspending Congress to the point where they turned them out in 2006 and elected Democrats promising fiscal responsibility. As if.
That having failed to rein in the spending, they're exercising their rights as Americans to assemble and protest.
Go back to the graph I posted and do an "eyeball" addition of the cumulative deficit during the Bush Presidency. This is the addition to our debt. But notice how the deficit was declining until 2006.
Now look at the first year of the Obama Presidency. He's been in office for 4 months and he's already matched the deficit spending of the entire Bush Presidency. In his first year! And he's promising the same for every year thereafter. That should put any and every taxpayer in the street.
Analytical sophistication not required.
Now that Lubiano has been exposed as an irrational extremist I doubt that many Duke students will sign up for her classes.
To the 5.04:
Based on enrollment figures, Lubiano has drawn very poorly for the last several years.
But, of course, her key power comes in helping to shape new faculty lines and other administrative matters on campus.
Is Lubiano a Communist?
KC Johnson said, 5:33 PM,
"[Lubiano's] key power comes in helping to shape new faculty lines and other administrative matters on campus."
Therefore, Lubiano serves at the pleasure of the Duke. None of that 'key power' is protected by tenure or an endowed chair.
IF... IF... IF... Duke's board and Administration had the cojones, Lubiano would be a footnote in history.
BUT, they don't .... cowed by threats, trembling before the PC Brigade, pretending the Emperor really is wearing clothes.
What remains to be seen is if the incredibly shoddy excuse for erudition will continue to maintain the 'brand image' and command $50K a year in the future. With the job outlook being so dismal, students might not see value in Duke academics as superior entree to a career.
These people are damned sociopaths.
Where, oh where, are the responsible people in all this?
Surely there must be some, who care enough to push back against this anti-intellectual insanity?
Sorry, I think the "blind item" quoting an anonymous Duke faculty member, in turn quoting the alleged Wahneema harangue, is unworthy of this excellent blog. It is double-hearsay (actually triple-hearsay, when KC quotes Anderson quoting the anonymous person purporting to quote Wahneema); its anonymity suggests the cowardice and potential dishonesty of the speaker, and it fails to meet minimum standards of attribution for either a journalist or an historian.
Could I imagine Wahneema saying something like that? Yes. But the whole nature of that part of the post, lacks the necessary basis for credibility. I have no respect at all for Wahneema, but we should respect each other too much to indulge in this kind of thing, unless this "faculty member" is willing to stand by his/her words.
As author of the 7:02 post, I apologize for saying "Wahneema" when the "blind item" was about Holloway. But I still object to the nature of that slam on principle, because of how it was done -- even if I can't get terribly worked-up about it, given the unsympathetic nature of the person being slammed.
This broad-brush approach is consistent with the leftist ideology that is pervasive in the nation’s college campuses. Since government intelligence analysts have undergraduate degrees and most obtain graduate degrees, usually in sociology or criminal justice, they are indoctrinated in the leftist dogma.
Much as the DHS memo did, the Megiddo report lumped white supremacist groups and readers of the Turner Diaries (a book which details a violent overthrow of the federal government by white supremacists), together with militia groups, Christian Identity advocates, followers of Odinism (Germanic pagans), and members of the Aryan Nation.
None of these groups committed a millennium-related terrorist act. Ironically, the most dangerous millennium terrorist plot was that of Muslim terrorists who wanted to detonate bombs at Los Angeles airport. They were caught by a vigilant border patrol officer.
The Megiddo report did not mention Muslim terrorists.
The idea that a government analyst, most likely with a postgraduate degree college, would produce a report that considers people who are opponents of abortion, illegal immigration, gun control or military veterans as recruits for right-wing terrorism should surprise no one. Still some people find it troubling.
.Homeland Security Memo Reveals A Larger Problem.
And there are those of you who wonder why we should care about the make-up of our universities and what propoganda the students are subjected too.
Surely the "elites" of the Marxist crowd must know... They are next.
the "anonymity [of the Duke faculty member quote] suggests the cowardice and potential dishonesty of the speaker, and it fails to meet minimum standards of attribution for either a journalist or an historian."
An "unnamed source" is in fact standard fare for journalism. The quote's credibility is measured by the reputation of the journalist.
Besides, your complaint is rather ironic considering it's made anonymously.
Your question is not an easy one. Scholarly output should definitely be higher at an institution that is more research-focused than at one that is more teaching-focused. There are several reasons for this, including higher teaching loads and fewer or no graduate students at the latter. For example, my institution has masters-level graduate students, not PhD candidates, and would be classified as somewhat on the teaching-focused side of the spectrum. Our institution has a stop-the-tenure-clock provision that would automatically kick-in if someone took maternity leave. The quality of the publications, often inferred from the prestige of the journal in which it is published, is often factored into tenure and promotion decisions. A critical issue is that most of the publications must come in peer-reviewed journals. At my institution one might come up for tenure with only two or three publications and a little less than one publication per year would probably be considered par for the course. This would clearly be insufficient for someone at UNC Chapel Hill.
It may be helpful to look at Steven Baldwin’s publication list for some idea of what a Duke professor would be expected to do:
At least some of the pre-1970 publications come from Professor Baldwin’s student days. To the best of my knowledge, all of the journals listed are peer-reviewed and most are those that any organic chemist would recognize and consider good places to publish. Hope this helps.
I'm not sure I follow your halides1 - 9:59 PM post:
"It may be helpful to look at Steven Baldwin’s publication list for some idea of what a Duke professor would be expected to do:
From 2002 to NOW, Baldwin has published twice (both in 2004), and THAT IS IT. Similarly, he has no publication in the years 1992-1997.
Exactly what is your point on "what a Duke professor would be expected to [research and publish]".
Good point from a Duke Dad. KC has gifted us with his disdain for roughly 14 of the group of 88's publications. Maybe it would be better to just look at the other 74 of them for insight.
To the 8.30:
I invite you to do so. I suspect that you might discover that several of the 74 make Prof. Lubiano look like a publishing machine.
You are, of course, also free to create a blog devoted to profiling the other 74. If you choose to take this path, please supply a link.
I think that Steve is not taking graduate students any more, meaning that he is close to retirement. That would be my interpretation of the small number of publications last few years. That having been said, they describe interesting work, the synthesis of nonnatural amino acids, and I am trying to find a way to follow up on them myself (wish me luck). You correctly note that 1992-1997 were lean years (I wondered about that as well). There are at least two things that may be going on. First, Steve was chairman from 1995-1999, and the heavy administrative load that goes with sitting in the big office will slow almost anyone down. Second, 1991 was unusually productive, yielding five publications including one in the Journal of Organic Chemistry, which, along with Tetrahedron, are the leading publications in the field of organic chemistry. Sometimes a project goes poorly at first, then one figures things out and a whole slew of publications comes out. Then one moves on to the next project, and the process repeats. The number of publications is also dependent on the discipline and even the subdiscipline of the researcher and the preferences of the research leader. For example, the greatest organic chemist of all time, R. B. Woodward, did not publish nearly as much as some other chemists. Finally, let me add a final note about the content of papers. I once heard former editor of Science and President of Stanford Donald Kennedy say that he was tired of deans who could count but not read. It’s a useful caveat. Hope this helps.
Remember the Jena Hoax which has a lot of same elements than Duke Hoax?
Looks like CNN's "reporter" Susan Roesgen whose performance at Tea Parties (ranted against Fox News and Tea Parties and defended Obama in live interview) has been exposed widely was also key activist to push the Jena Hoax Narrative in 2007.
Also, funny thing..She applied twice for a job at Fox News..twice rejected.
Her bio actually proudly states:
"became the first national TV reporter to cover the tumultuous “Jena 6″ episode in that Louisiana town."
TO (8:30 AM)--
No doubt, many of the 88 could be considered the academy's Chia pets; however, with regard to the Lacrosse Hoax, don't you think there's more relevance in highlighting those who played primary roles in constructing such an abominable situation?
Can there be a middle-ground between the two following lines-of-thought? And what about the clarity of the language, the racist tone of the language, the respect for the individual, the moral clarity? There is no middle ground.
“I think that what I sometimes hear in the critique is the unspoken hope that the right terms of a struggle, the masterful rubric, description, account, or theory of struggle, will always remain expropriation proof. But we’ve been producing accounts, theories, rubrics, descriptions, etc., long enough (if we take into account centuries of struggle) that we ought to know such things are always up for grabs, always available for some use other than that intended. If Monsanto (for example) can make use of multiculturalism as advertising, as justification for yet more seizure of resources, and as diversity management among its work force, should we be surprised and dismayed, or should we work to make what the term named, a challenge to material domination in the sphere of education and knowledge production exercised as the Enlightenment right of a single and erroneously described “culture,” a project with ever-renewed and sharpened ambitions?...Call the project what you will and rename it every time the older name seems to lose its luster, but continue the work that the project once tried to name in its moment." - Wahneema Lubiano
"How can limited government and fiscal restraint be equated with lack of compassion for the poor? How can a tax break that puts a little more money in the weekly paychecks of working people be seen as an attack on the needy? Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes - one rich, one poor - both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of socal and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?” – Ronald Reagan
After years of reading KC's unrelenting honesty and thoughtful commentary, I am surprised to see what can only be an unthinking reference from KC to those participating in tea parties. Any correlation between such persons and the approach of the Group of 88ers is unjustifiable, unwarranted and unfair.
TO (9:30 AM)---
The reporter you mention is one of a multitude of journalistic grifters.
I don't know when, or if, reporters, columnists, writers, and commentators will ever learn that in the long run ginning up stories in hopes of making a name for themselves---and in the cases of some at the N&O, trying to avoid being a victim of current downsizing---will never bear lasting fruit.
I read this weekend that the N&O's J. Peder Zane was let go in the flurry of layoffs over there.
Zane is an excellent writer. A great wit.
I have praised his work and I have strongly criticized it; however, at least he had a real product to be criticized.
So many of them do not.
It gives me no pleasure at all to know that he was let go; however, in 2006 when I appealed to him to do a column or two presenting an objective view of the lacrosse case, he did not reply.
Last year, as we all recall, he threw softball questions to the waddling Timothy Tyson and only the sanitized and dressed-up version appeared in the print edition.
None of the probing questions by many on this blog which took Tyson to task were included in Zane's final coverage.
And recently, Zane brought an obscure non-issue to a few of his columns by demanding that a Confederate statue from the Civil War in Raleigh be torn down.
It was promiscuous.
It was professionally tawdry.
And it was a failed attempt to create relevance for himself at the paper in the eyes of publisher Quarles by beating this lame-brained topic.
I have no ancestry connected to the Civil War, that I know about, so I have no personal stake.
However, there are many descendants of those Confederate soldiers who fought to preserve their way of life.
And that way of life for the overwhelming majority did not consist of owning slaves and huge plantations.
Only a small percentage of Southerners were ever plantation owners.
Most were dirt-poor.
That monument is something that people rarely give the time of day. Similar to an aging parking meter.
Zane was a journalistically promiscuous fool to have devoted such a longwinded and emotionally-damning (he was hoping) column to such a topic.
However, he knew what those who run the paper like.
As I have castigated him for this, I also left a comment under his last Sunday column praising his talent.
When will the media just report and not try to invent?
There can only be one reason for the woeful production of published works by the Klan of 88 and similar race, gender, and class warfare frauds.
They cannot publish due to their work being classified and having distinct relevance to our constitutionally enabled collective security.
Wasn't one Klan member/abettor researching floating gay Mayans or some such? Imagine what would happen if that power was harnassed by rogue parties?
Just a theory...
No Justice, no peace:
I'm afraid you are right. Klan88 members will probably find an employment at CIA and other national security organization..Recent DHS memo was telling (publication was rushed so that it was available just in time for Tea Parties) it stated that veterans and people who oppose abortion, illegal immigration or Obama (or Klan88 theories in general) are likely to be terrorists.
I can only imagine what will happen when Karla Holloway and the comrades gets official power. 20th century totalitarian regimes provide a relevant context what may happen.
The bat cave must be hard-up for news.
This is hilarious!
So what about Holloway's publishing? Deans generally use the occasion to stop being held responsible for their own publishing, and are often people who couldn't make it in the peer review process so they judge everybody else.
Duke is urging employees to retire.
Does this never end?
Do Barber and his ilk do anything but demand?
But do they ever do anything themselves?
"This level of analytical sophistication regarding American politics mirrors that at the average Tea Bag protest."
I see you've crossed the line again. Just can't help yourself, right? The addict needs his fix.
If you had some moral courage, you would put on your favorite denims and loafers and go talk to those bothersome protesters. You might learn something. Oh, but wait, as you frequently remind us, you're too busy writing those books, teaching classes and running blogs. Sorry. Better to just drop those back handed innuendos, right?
I know you are liberal. OK. I understand completely. As it happens, I have several relatives on the Island that would make you look like a conservative Evangelist. But don't make everyone who reads the blog suffer through your political leanings.
Beckett's post at The Chronicle is one of the very best:
posted 4/21/09 @ 6:13 PM EST
The Zimmerman / Johnson contrast has always struck me as highly illustrative of the issues at play in academia today. A dip into Johnson's intellectual pond is bracing and invigorating. One knows immediately that a rigorous, fearless scholar has put an incisive mind to whatever topic is under discussion.
And then one reads Zimmerman. All is placid and soporific. Nothing is really said. Disinterest comes quickly.
From the last quarter of the 20th century until now, the humanities academy has established a vetting process that selects the Zimmermans and the Lubianos of the world. They're nice enough people in their way, I suppose, but they're timid, roaring like lions for show, but really rushing to beg acceptance from their peers by always saying the right things in the right way. After all, let us not forget they're the inventors of campus speech codes.
Johnson is a glaring anomaly in that world. He sticks out like a sore thumb. But he's much more fascinating and interesting than these others. He's fearless, as I said, and therefore much more deserving of respect.
My G/d, these people are either pathological liars or they're crazy.
I don't even bother leaving a comment on harmony boy's blog because he doesn't believe in free speech.
What he has asserted below is a total white-wash of what goes on among the Gang of 88 and many in Durham.
They were indifferent to the murder of Eve Carson.
I'm sure everyone will recall that I posted an example of an N&O editor who expressed similar sentiments about coverage of Carson's death.
Bonilla-Silva made the issue a huge feature of his race rant during the Duke conference.
Is "Reharmonizer" vying for a slot as a Gang of 88 mascot along with Timothy Tyson?
Here he is on Bill Anderson:
"The most jaw-dropping example I know of is a wild post on the Liestoppers forum last July, asserting, based on his understanding of the way those kind of people think, that local African American leaders had a supremely callous attitude towards the murder of Eve Carson."
What a putz!
You are offended by a blogger expressing his opinion on his own blog?
Write your own damn blog, or support a counter-position here in the comments (see, for example, One Spook who actually supports his opinions).
Does Debrah live in Durham?
What the fuck does she know about Durham?
What the fuck would Bill Anderson know?
What the fuck would Johnson know?
Any of you dumb fucks live in Durham?
No, I didn't think so.
Indeed, the big discussion in Durham was the fact that there was a lot of coverage of the murder of Carson, but not as much devoted to a female student at NCCU who had been recently murdered, allegedly by a minister. Many of the "leaders" were using this to "prove" racist bias in the media, and, not surprisingly, the media people fell on their knees and bowed and scraped.
Yet, the circumstances of their deaths was quite different. The NCCU student was killed, allegedly, by someone she knew, someone prominent in her community. Carson, on the other hand, allegedly was abducted at random by two young men who did not know her and who callously decided to kill her for the heck of it.
Yet, because the men accused of murdering Carson are African-American, any extra coverage given to the event is automatically deemed "racist." Where people are mistaken in their perceptions, however, is that the newsworthiness of this story was not in the race of the people involved, but rather that a student body president of a prominent public university living in a supposedly "safe" community could be abducted and murdered at random.
Furthermore, because at least one of the alleged killers had violated his probation agreements and should have been in jail but for the indifference of his probation officer. The combination of these facts made it a huge story.
I hate to tell Reharmonizer and others, but racism did not drive the Carson coverage. Had her alleged killers been white, there would have just as much coverage given to it. Unfortunately, it was not the media, but people like Reharmonizer and others who decided to inject race into the story.
Does he really think that but for the race of the accused killers, this would have been relegated to the police blotter or back-page coverage? That is nonsense.
For that matter, we could make the Abhijit Mahato a "race-driven" story, since his accused killer also was accused of killing Carson. The coverage given to Mahato's murder was substantially less than the coverage for Carson's killing. Does that mean that the media "downplayed" it because Mahato was from India?
No, I made the comments I did precisely because local African-Americans decided to turn the news coverage of the Carson murder into an accusation against the media of being racist. The Carson killing was a terrible thing, yet it seems that people like Reharmonizer were more worried about racial matters than the situation at hand.
When one looks at how the NAACP, Irving Joyner, Cash Michaels, and others in Durham dealt with the lacrosse case, I think that we can say that race was the reason they were willing to accept prosecutorial lies, a crooked "line-up," and hiding of evidence. And, let's face it, they supported these things purely out of racial animus. They wanted Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans to go to prison because of their race and social status, not because of anything they did.
Does anyone really think that Karla Holloway and Cash Michaels would have sat back and let a Durham prosecutor conduct an illegal lineup, fabricate evidence, and lie in a courtroom in an attempt to railroad African-American defendants? One would hope not, and one would hope that people of all races there would have seen it for the lie it was.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Even now, we have people in Durham insisting that Cooper somehow covered up a rape and assault for racial purposes. They are oblivious to the facts because they want to be oblivious.
Do we really get what we pay for?
Note the dichotomy between ALL (emphasis mine) four keynote speakers at the recent Duke feminist theory workshop presented a Marxist view and the cost to attend Duke.
Duke University estimated costs for 2008-2009 are:
Tuition & Fees: $36,065
Personal expenses/books: $4,509
Total Cost of Attendance (4.5% increase per year):
Freshman - $50,750
Sophomore - $52,845
Junior - $55,233
Senior - $57,709
$216,536.00…plus travel … but are we getting our monies worth?
From the Duke Spring 2009 Women’s Studies Newsletter:
“Lesbianism with Chinese Characteristics: An Interview with Dr. Elisabeth Engebretsen in the Duke Women’s Studies publication.
"Sex at Work": An Interview with Dr. Svati Shaw by Kinohi Nishikawa
PS: A Short Take from the Third Annual Feminist Theory Workshop “For me, this year’s Third Annual Feminist Theory Workshop was particularly striking in that the four keynote speaker ALL (emphasis mine) returned to the rich theoretical traditions of Marxism to rethink various kinds of economic, political, social, and cultural issues in the contemporary world….” – Calvin Hui Women’s
Studies Spring Events
1/15 - In Print: A Celebration of Recent Publications by Duke Professors
1/22 - Chris Berry Professor, “Queer Asian Film Studies, Gendered Consumption of East Asian Gay Cinema” Transnational Sexualities
1/27 - Noor Al-Qasimi, “The Emergence of the Boyah Identity in the United Arab Emirates” Transnational Sexualities
2/3 - Robyn Wiegman, “Profiles in Sexuality Research”
2/13 – “India, Sexuality, and the Archive Colloquium”
2/15 – “The Real Dirt of Farmer John”, New Eco- Feminism Film Series
3/5 – Jamie Long, Director, Duke’s Center for Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgendered Life “Profile in Sexuality Research”
3/20-21 - Feminism Theory Workshop
3/22 –“Invisible”, New Eco-Feminism File Series
3/31 - Svati Shah,: “Sex Work, Migration and Labor in Mumbai, Reading Biopolitical Execptionalism and Neoliberal Sovereignty Through India’s Gotham” Transnational Sexualities
4/2 - David Valentine, “How to Make Do Without an Identity”
4/6 - S Charusheela, “Sexing Economy: Sex Work between Mars and Doucault”
4/7 - Lazaro Lima “U.S. Empire Building in Puerto Rico: Reproduction Science and the Politics of Transgendered Dissonance”
4/18 - “Feminism Today” panel
4/19 – “The Gleaners and I”, The New Eco Feminism File Series
4/20 - Pamela Stone talk “The Ethical Workplace”
I do not recall hearing about any of these types of events when taking my children to tour the campus and meeting with admissions personnel.
Like any Longhorn alumnus, I was horrified to read that "Lubiano [was] reminiscing about her time at the University of Texas". I knew for certain that she was not polluting the Forty Acres when I was there 30 years ago. On her CV, under "Teaching (sic) Experience", she lists "[The] University of Texas, 1987-90; Department of English & Afro-American Studies". This is false. There is no "Department of English and Afro-American Studies", nor is there a "Department of Afro-American Studies". There is a "Center for African and African-American Studies" which is not unaffiliated with the Department of English.
Kudos to the anonymous commenter who pointed out the Huffington Post's apparent ignorance of the famous "Come and Take It" flag. I would only point out that the name of the Texas town is spelled "Gonzales", not "Gonzalez".
That brings me to KC's mischaracterization of the recent massive grassroots protests as "Tea Bag" rather than "Tea Party". (I heard from the MSM -- how do they know such things? -- that "teabagging" is some sort of homosexual sex practice. Due to having an extremely inquisitive mind, I pondered further research into the specifics of this practice ... for about five seconds. Then I realized that John Stuart Mill could not have had "tea-bagging" in mind when he said that an informed man could not wish to be more ignorant.) Anyway, in defense of KC's misuse of "Tea Bag" when he should have said "Tea Party", well, it's not like he's a historian from Boston or anything. [/sarc]
Finally, on a note of warning to other attorneys, I notice that our Group of 88 federal administration now says it will consider criminal charges for lawyers who give "incorrect" legal opinions. This is in the case of Office of Legal Counsel lawyers who wrote opinions about interrogation techniques of captured terrorists. This is apparently a "thought crime" now. But why limit it to lawyers? Why not also charge judges who write "incorrect opinions" about, say, death penalty cases? Coming soon to a country near you!
I am glad to see in this blog post a reprinting of Prof. Anderson's report of Karla FC Holloway's views of the "guilt" of the Lacrosse Boys -- e.g., they are guilty because they were born white. To the anonymous commenter, above, who complained that this report is based on "hearsay", I would say (1) this is not a courtroom where someone's life, liberty, or property is at stake, and (2) Holloway is free to respond to the report.
I think Prof. Anderson's other comment is at least as noteworthy. There he said
I know that Karla Holloway and her husband had a tragic situation with their adopted son, and from what I have been told, they did everything they could for him. I cannot even imagine the hurt they experienced, and I would not want to do anything that could open up those wounds.
That seems awfully collegial of you, Prof. Anderson. I have a different view. If, say, David Duke had adopted a toddler who as a 18-year-old went out and raped and murdered black women, would you be so sure that Mr. Duke "did everything he could" to avoid that "tragic experience" (nice euphemism!)? Or would you be more likely to believe that the nut doesn't fall far from the tree?
Yet, destroying the lives of David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty and their families was not the answer, either. If that is what Karla Holloway was wanting...
Unfortunately, my choice to become involved in this case has led others (on Syndey Harr's evil blog) to call me a racist and even worse. That is fine with me. If Mike Nifong's supporters wish to continue the Big Lies, I am quite glad to be included in them.
The first word is unnecessary, since you are glad. I have said that being called "racist" by the likes of the 88ers is a badge of honor, and now I would go further: If you are not being called "racist" in America today, you're part of the problem.
Duke will offer up to 700 buyouts
By Matthew E. Milliken : The Herald-Sun
Apr 22, 2009
DURHAM -- Duke University will soon offer voluntary buyouts to as many as 700 hourly workers as part of a plan to cut $125 million by 2012.
Administrators announced the buyouts Tuesday at a forum and question-and-answer session attended by about 200 Duke employees and streamed live to dozens of computers on campus.
Buyouts will be offered to workers 50 and older with at least 10 years of Duke service. Incentives given to those who take the buyouts will include retiree health insurance and increased pensions. It's not yet known how much the voluntary buyout of hourly workers will save.
Administrators have considered buyouts of salaried employees, which include most faculty, but haven't yet devised a plan that would save money.
In all, Duke has identified measures that bring it about halfway to its ultimate goal of cutting $125 million from the general budget. Administrators could know by late summer or early fall if layoffs are needed.
Emphasizing a commitment to openness during the cost-cutting process, the members of the administrators' panel said the priorities during this austerity period would be maintaining the quality of the faculty and the experiences of undergraduate, graduate and professional students. They would not promise to avoid layoffs but called them a last resort.
"I think the most important thing to say here is we're trying to do this carefully and deliberately," said Tallman Trask III, Duke's executive vice president.
Administrators said they feel that Duke is better-positioned to deal with the current economic crunch than other universities for two reasons:
- In December, the Board of Trustees authorized borrowing $500 million to use over the next three years as the university's income shrinks faster than its spending. Without that cushion, the school would have to make immediate cuts.
"That has been a true significant advantage strategically," said Kyle Cavanaugh, the university's vice president for human resources.
- Because of steady investments in the university's capital needs over the last decade, the university can and will cut its $300 million capital budget entirely without suffering immediate harm. The elimination of all construction, which is expected to last for two years, means delays in the New Campus project.
In other cuts so far, Duke has frozen pay for all its more than 13,000 employees. (Workers who make up to $50,000 will get a one-time $1,000 bonus on July 1.) Duke has also instituted a hiring freeze, with exceptions made for key faculty members and grant-funded positions.
For instance, Duke is aggressively recruiting workers to fill 18- to 24-month research positions sponsored by federal stimulus money.
Because each academic unit is responding differently to the budget crunch, some departments will lose faculty members while others will hold steady or even grow slightly.
Another cost-cutting measure is ending the printing of paycheck stubs for employees enrolled in the direct deposit program. (Most are, Cavanaugh said.) This will save the equivalent of one to two full-time workers.
Along with avoiding involuntary layoffs, a key goal in cost-cutting is protecting benefits, administrators said.
"Among many things that make it worthwhile to work at Duke is our benefits package," said Trask, to audible agreement from many spectators.
Officials asked employees to contribute money-saving suggestions to www.duke.edu/economy, a site that also has information on the financial crunch. But few of the many ideas they've received so far have been either new or substantial. Trask noted that even if Duke eliminated all heating and water-chilling operations at the university and hospitals, "that would solve about 25 percent of the problem."
Sorry 4/22 8:30 a.m. should read
Marx and Foucault...for the 4/6 meeting.
And done. The fact that you feel the need to resort to snide remarks about the tax day TEA PARTY protests makes you no better than the academic elite you take to task on here everyday. Congratulations, you've joined their ranks.
"If you are not being called "racist" in America today, you're part of the problem." - RRH
Now that is perfect...
"I think the most important thing to say here is we're trying to do this carefully and deliberately," said Tallman Trask III, Duke's executive vice president.
Now who among us would ever take Mr. Trask's word again on anything?
My return to DIW after 5 months disappoints, which is why I stopped reading KC in the 1st place. He has wonderful disdain for the 88, but lives happily (apparently) in the larger den of academic serpents without a problem. Some of these snakes are found at Brooklyn College.
Smearing the TeaBaggers is a tell,antidemocratic and elitist as hell, KC. I trusted your scholarship on Duke, but your broader biases and I are incompatible. Adios.
Not surprisingly I am confused yet again. I recall reading that the contributions to Duke University were up this year and that the number of students being admitted at $50,000+ per head was up. Have the investments purchased by Duke done so poorly that the cost cutting measures are necessary? Or, has Duke already paid out so much money in the scandal that the university is starting to feel the pain? Just wondering???
'You are offended by a blogger expressing his opinion on his own blog"
When the stated purpose of the blog is to provide facts rather than opinion, well.....yes I do get offended.
This is not the first time KC has used a backhanded innuendo to denigrate holders of different political views. It is both juvenile and counterproductive.
I have posted previously on the negative impact these comments have on an otherwise fine blog. Evidently the message didn't get through.
If it continues I will not visit this blog again.
To Ken at 7:46:
"When the stated purpose of the blog is to provide facts rather than opinion, well.....yes I do get offended."
I am not sure where you found the "stated purpose" but the blog states in the comments policy:
"My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1200 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions."
Are you offended that he expresses any opinion, or only those opinions you don't agree with?
"Are you offended that he expresses any opinion, or only those opinions you don't agree with?"
KC is obviously entitled to his own opinions, whether I agree with them or not. I enjoy reading the blog because it is informative and provides a wealth of intelligent comments from other posters.
Political comments are, by their very nature, polarizing. If I am required to read those comments while I am attempting to keep up to date I will simply not bother any more. There are alternate sites that cover Duke/Durham. It's the same reason I don't visit the NYT site. It's polarizing.
I am just one reader, so I don't expect to see KC radically alter his commentary on account of me. I found his comments on the Tea Party participants offensive and I said so. I am sure he found my comments to be equally offensive. Perhaps something useful will come of it. Then again,....perhaps not.
Are you ever offended by the other lacrosse blogs that virtually marinate in political points-of-view daily........as they cover the Duke/Durham lacrosse issues?
My response to your previous comment could not be published....for some reason.
This one is tame and not rhetorical.
"Are you ever offended by the other lacrosse blogs..."
Yes. I'd like to keep that from happening here. However, I can't disagree with you that my politics are different than KC's. I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case.
IMO, DIW is a cut above many of the blogs I have visited. But, tearing down others who hold the opposite view on politics doesn't make the blog reader friendly. (The newspaper business has seemingly not learned that lesson yet.)
If KC has no issues with putting trillions of dollars of debt onto the backs of his children and grandchildren, that's his right. Injecting derogatory spears at folks who don't hold that position is unnecessary. It detracts from the blog.
Post a Comment