tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post2576995446405046053..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Group Profile: The Latin Americanistskcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger250125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-89234535330522072312007-08-03T17:15:00.000-04:002007-08-03T17:15:00.000-04:00I'm not getting into the debate over the Group of ...I'm not getting into the debate over the Group of 88 because I am no longer at Duke, having graduated in 2005, but it seems to me that most of the people complaining about these faculty members hadn't been at the university for the four years I was there when sexual assault was one of the biggest issues on campus. Faculty are supposed to be behind the students but everyone makes mistakes and, in this case, mistakes were made in large part because the prosecutor led us all to believe something had actually happened.<BR/><BR/>But most of these comments seem to just be about the nature of academia, that often encourages narrow specialization. What makes studying gender any more narrow than studying sports or studying the history of pets? If people have problems with academia itself, that's one thing...I'm a graduate student now and I have a lot of problems with it. But to accuse these scholars of particular irrelevance is frankly ignorant. And because some people seem to be concerned about potential brainwashing from these professors, let me just say: Professor Olcott was a mentor of mine and I neither study Mexico nor gender and she never pushed her politics onto me. Say what you will about her participation in the Group of 88 (although what happened to free speech) but she is not indoctrinating students.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-7958863590973529042007-07-25T18:35:00.000-04:002007-07-25T18:35:00.000-04:00That's the reason I got the HELL out of Duke histo...That's the reason I got the HELL out of Duke history back in '86. Nothing but a bunch of ideology-based fable-makers, masquerading as authors of importance. As least I had a fellowship so none of my money went to support those morons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-79572421823665266222007-07-23T01:10:00.000-04:002007-07-23T01:10:00.000-04:00"What you cannot do -- because it backfires -- is ..."What you cannot do -- because it backfires -- is attack professors for their presumed belief systems. Your presumption might be wrong, "<BR/><BR/>KC seems to be doing a pretty good job of documenting exactly what the belief systems of his targets are. <BR/><BR/>So I agree one shouldn't atack a "presumed" belief system. One should only attack a genuinely known one.<BR/><BR/>"and good scholarship is not the exclusive domain of some belief systems. "<BR/><BR/>Many belief systems can produce good scholarship. But some belief systems (e.g. Marxism/post-modernism/post-structuralism) are almost guaranteed to produce crap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-4084441011395345062007-07-23T00:57:00.000-04:002007-07-23T00:57:00.000-04:00" My bet is that most of them do not think of thei..." My bet is that most of them do not think of their apparent public silence as a sin of omission.<BR/><BR/>Soc.Sc.Prof."<BR/><BR/>Well it was. A huge one. <BR/><BR/>The 88ers violated many specific rules of the university and all the ideals of their profession.<BR/>If the majority of professors had quietly pursued official action against them the silence would be fine. But the total lack of action is intolerable. Faculty like to make a big deal about being "self governing." In this case they have shown they are not up to the task.<BR/><BR/>The lawyers understand that if they want to continue to be a self-governing profession they need to take their own garbage out, so they disbarred Nifong. If the professoriat doesn't start to take their own garbage out, someone else will eventually do it for them. That someone else may or may not care what sort of collateral damage they do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-31499871630488374472007-07-23T00:44:00.000-04:002007-07-23T00:44:00.000-04:00" I seriously doubt that the majority of the Duke ..." I seriously doubt that the majority of the Duke faculty are faux scientists/scholars -- it IS a great university after all. I am convinced, however, that those who are real scientists/scholars there want no part of discussions based on questioning the proffesoriat's morality, intelligence or political beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Soc.Sc.Prof. "<BR/><BR/>Well that's kind of too bad, because the problems with the Listening Statement were that it was immoral, stupid, and motivated by evil politics. And if they don't like the way the discussion is going now, wherre the heck were they a year ago? <BR/><BR/>Why did none of Duke's faculty have any sort of "not in my name" response? Their silence has called into question their own morals, intelligence and politics. Sorry, but them's the breaks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-50262815556946833882007-07-23T00:36:00.000-04:002007-07-23T00:36:00.000-04:00steven horwitz sez"... the problem with much of th...steven horwitz sez<BR/><BR/>"... the problem with much of the "studies" is that they approach whatever empirical material they find with bad theories.... The G88 types usually make use of some form of Marxism/ post-modernism/post-structuralism. That is, suffice it to say, crap. And with a crappy, often implicit, theory, the odds of either finding or interpreting well the relevant empirical evidence is much lower."<BR/>And since they're peddling crap, they're more likely to objuscate by using lots of jargon, and claiming that anyone who thinks they're full of it is just to dumb to understand. Many of us who have been around a university and had to deal with this crap, when we're reading an article, as soon as we see one or two words of the characteristic jargon of the above theories we classify it as bullshit and move on to something else. Yet somehow entire departments devoted to producing work based on "bad theories" continue to be funded.<BR/><BR/>"but one certainly can demand empirical evidence and a cogent narrative that places that evidence within the reality-based community."<BR/>Not if one is a university administrator, it seems. The "scholars" KC has been focusing on should be as embarrassing to Duke as having a Department of Astrology would be. Why aren't they?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39195119177155456832007-07-23T00:20:00.000-04:002007-07-23T00:20:00.000-04:00steven horwitz sez:RP:"...around here, it often se...steven horwitz sez:<BR/><BR/>RP:<BR/><BR/>"...around here, it often seems like anyone who suggests that gender is a useful category is automatically a crappy scholar and a hater of white, "<BR/><BR/>And 95% of the time we're right. It isn't good to assume anyone talking about gender is an idiot, but i's a real problem one has to be on guard against.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-9099524024652405142007-07-23T00:06:00.000-04:002007-07-23T00:06:00.000-04:00Steven Horwitz sez:"I think we just disagree on th...Steven Horwitz sez:<BR/><BR/>"I think we just disagree on the degree to which obfuscating jargon is created intentionally and rewarded by the scholarly institutional structure in the humanities and social sciences. That's an empirical question, as far as I'm concerned. "<BR/><BR/>And <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair" REL="nofollow">Alan Sokal</A> answered it experimentally. "Theory" = "bullshit."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-46581017242427214582007-07-22T22:09:00.000-04:002007-07-22T22:09:00.000-04:00It is fascinating that the Soc.Sci. Prof (above) p...It is fascinating that the Soc.Sci. Prof (above) pins his hopes on the survival of institutions as if they were living organisms with biological systems to cope with infections by parasites or bugs of 88ers. He is in an institution of higher learning himself and has a pro-institution point of view. Those of us on the outside, looking in, are necessarily utterly appalled by the gibberish generated as scholarly work, and by the policies/politics of professional groups such as the MLA and AHA; we are well aware this disease has infected almost all such institutions. Good scholarship by the good faculties will assuredly not drive out the drivel-generators; they are tenured, and are cloning themselves by whom they hire at the asst prof level. The private schools, like Duke, are more, not less, vulnerable to the 88 disease than taxpayer-funded schools. But look at Ward Churchill-he survives! Though the U Colo president is gone. It will take a social revolution to undo the tyranny being foised upon us by the gibberish speakers/writers.<BR/>M.D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-27059799193501087932007-07-22T07:06:00.000-04:002007-07-22T07:06:00.000-04:00I was late to the profile this week.Wow! The pres...I was late to the profile this week.<BR/><BR/>Wow! The president of Duke ought to be deeply ashamed to employ these "scholars" (even if he isn't)<BR/><BR/>I still look forward to a profile of one of the 88 who is a legitimate academic from a discipline not overtaken by corruption.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-2541374115392584672007-07-22T02:51:00.000-04:002007-07-22T02:51:00.000-04:00Dear Soc.Sc.Prof,I agree that the ship has been tu...Dear Soc.Sc.Prof,<BR/><BR/>I agree that the ship has been turning away from the shoals,<BR/>but I have to agree with Polanski<BR/>that there are lots of holes left to patch, and there are plenty<BR/>of storms still on the horizon.<BR/>(Yeah, enough boring metaphors..I know, I know.) <BR/><BR/>BTW, my "colorful" language (thanks for that!)<BR/>is sometimes spot-on:<BR/>the satirical course I described<BR/>earlier in the day (8:03 am)<BR/>aren't all that bizarre, at least compared with the<BR/>actual course offerings: <BR/>I based them on their own courses<BR/>and proclivities!<BR/>Colorful? Yup. Satire, colorful satire.<BR/><BR/>But here is where we disagree:<BR/>on the relative importance of <BR/>seemingly minor oddities and<BR/>eccentricities, found in the cellars of higher education.<BR/>Perhaps you are a sociology professor? <BR/>You study movements, perhaps?<BR/>Here's my point, upon which we disagree (agreeably, I hope.) <BR/><BR/>Because the 88 are so widely found,<BR/>distributed all across academia -<BR/>(Ward Churchill, for one)-<BR/>it's not safe to say that any institution is "solid" any more.<BR/>They are all under seige, and some are more vulnerable than<BR/>others.<BR/><BR/>It follows:<BR/>Little movements often become big movements: the Great Cat Massacre<BR/>of Paris (1730s) was a portend of the French Revolution,<BR/>mostly because the family cat got better treatment in one printing<BR/>house than the workers!<BR/>It was disgusting, for sure, but it<BR/>was arguably a response to<BR/>inhumane working conditions,<BR/>leading, over time and with the widespread abuse of workers, <BR/>none too (individually) grievous <BR/>to singularly begin a revolution,<BR/>especially to a national revolution. <BR/>And to the "National Razor."<BR/><BR/>And then... <BR/><BR/>Who would've thought the French Revolution would be so bloody that<BR/>it would slaughter its own authors?machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-31300403397043215402007-07-22T02:33:00.000-04:002007-07-22T02:33:00.000-04:00Inman,"Are you suggesting that good scholarship is...Inman,<BR/><BR/>"Are you suggesting that good scholarship is a function of the field of study,... that a "belief system" underlying a particular field is considered when defining good scholarship?"<BR/><BR/>No, I define good scholarship exactly as you do in the rest of your post. Empirical fields have the additional requirement that one cannot make up the data to fit one's beliefs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-13790584084631408472007-07-22T02:19:00.000-04:002007-07-22T02:19:00.000-04:00mac,No worries, I don't feel attacked.The ship is ...mac,<BR/><BR/>No worries, I don't feel attacked.<BR/><BR/>The ship is not sinking. Solid institutions survive bad leaders and bad times. Duke is solid. It has first-rate students that are not that easy to infect with what you refer to as a cancer. If the performance of the Chronicle is any indication, the majority has the intelligence and good sense to avoid being turned into cannon fodder for political activism. I bet that the good professors there know it and focus on providing them with the best education possible. <BR/><BR/>Soc.Sc.Prof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-42034925405248916592007-07-22T02:12:00.000-04:002007-07-22T02:12:00.000-04:00Just saw American Psycho.It reminded me of somethi...Just saw American Psycho.<BR/>It reminded me of something:<BR/>not the lacrosse players/students,<BR/>but something else.<BR/><BR/>Patrick Bateman became incensed about...a colleague's business card<BR/>being superior to his?<BR/><BR/>The letters one has behind one's name, PhD etc, <BR/>the academic pedigree, conferred<BR/>upon one for...hard work?<BR/>Or maybe they're sometimes awards, <BR/>no more significant than the print<BR/>on a business card?<BR/><BR/>Sometimes, perhaps? <BR/><BR/>It was interesting in the movie<BR/>that Bateman told a homeless man<BR/>to get a job, but his own calendar<BR/>was discoveed to be - <BR/>(by the end of the movie) - virtually empty. <BR/><BR/>It's surpising that the story was<BR/>required reading at Duke,<BR/>considering how many Patrick Batemans <BR/>there apparently are, conducting themselves <BR/>as if they are of significance,<BR/>of special importance,<BR/>while their classes are mostly...<BR/>as empty as Bateman's schedule.machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-17431885858253330422007-07-22T02:05:00.000-04:002007-07-22T02:05:00.000-04:00Soc.Sc.prof. @1:42Are you suggesting that good sch...Soc.Sc.prof. @1:42<BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that good scholarship is a function of the field of study,... that a "belief system" underlying a particular field is considered when defining good scholarship?<BR/><BR/>With due respect and humility... I suggest otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Good work...good scholarly work... can withstand the scrutiny of peers and the opinions of the 'simply interested'. <BR/><BR/>A well developed theory has a mathematic quality. It is sound and internally consistent. That is how one can evaluate scholarly work in any field. <BR/><BR/>But, in no way is that a function of the field of study.<BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting otherwise?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-86028096498693357422007-07-22T01:54:00.000-04:002007-07-22T01:54:00.000-04:00Dear Soc.Sc.Prof.Please don't feel attacked.I am a...Dear Soc.Sc.Prof.<BR/><BR/>Please don't feel attacked.<BR/>I am asking what you would do it<BR/>a group of professors used<BR/>their weight, (and the weight of<BR/>their departments, fraudulently obtained)<BR/>to ostracize, humiliate and threaten 3 <BR/>demonstrably innocent young men?<BR/><BR/>I am saying that it is well wotrhwhile to look into<BR/>their scholarship - (or lack<BR/>thereof) - to see if perhaps<BR/>there was a significant oversight<BR/>(over the years) in the hiring<BR/>of such men and women.<BR/><BR/>Many, I will admit, seem to have<BR/>fine credentials. Many - (like Lubiano) - have almost laughable<BR/>credentials, the professorial <BR/>equivalent of the experience of<BR/>one SANE Nurse who played a role<BR/>in this Hoax.<BR/><BR/>KC has taken great pains to describe and to define the issues<BR/>relating to the credibility of the<BR/>accusers, and how the lack of <BR/>substance in the accusations <BR/>mirrored the lack of credibility<BR/>of the accusers - <BR/>in this case, some of the accusers being the so-called 88.<BR/><BR/>You might ask:<BR/>How did they get there?<BR/>Why were they hired?<BR/><BR/>It looks as if there is a good bit of intellectual incest <BR/>being practiced.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you: good scholarship <BR/>is an antidote to bad<BR/>scholarship. But what if the whole ship is sinking, so-to-<BR/>speak? Does one depend upon<BR/>the rats to save the ship?machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-76028191137017825342007-07-22T01:42:00.000-04:002007-07-22T01:42:00.000-04:00mac,I don't get you. What am I minimizing? I'm not...mac,<BR/><BR/>I don't get you. What am I minimizing? I'm not an in-your-face kind of person and express myself less colorfully than you do. The answer to your question is actually simple: you fight bad scholarship with good scolarship -- which is what I believe Prof. Johnson is doing. But don't delude yourself that this process works quickly. It doesn't. What you cannot do -- because it backfires -- is attack professors for their presumed belief systems. Your presumption might be wrong, and good scholarship is not the exclusive domain of some belief systems. (We have already agreed today that letting one's belief system interfere with one's empirical validations is bad scholarship, so I won't go there.)<BR/><BR/>Soc.Sc.prof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-6055393093858643152007-07-22T01:38:00.000-04:002007-07-22T01:38:00.000-04:00I feel that I am out of the loop...what is the dif...I feel that I am out of the loop...what is the difference between trinity andf non-trinity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-43800369563640592282007-07-22T01:27:00.000-04:002007-07-22T01:27:00.000-04:00To Soc.Sc.ProfOne Duke Prof told me about the Trin...To Soc.Sc.Prof<BR/><BR/>One Duke Prof told me about the Trinity vs Non-Trinity. I trust him but I am relying on one persons impression.<BR/><BR/>To NJNP<BR/><BR/>Every time I bring up McCarthy someone wants to tell me he was right. While he was correct in some instances he was also wrong in many. Every time I ask the same question. Did he know he was right or was he repeating rumor and innuendo? Not once has anybody offered any proof that he had any proof before he made allegations.wayne fonteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12082812958420391750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-65400008663747950232007-07-22T01:20:00.000-04:002007-07-22T01:20:00.000-04:00Soc.Sc.Prof.Fear of being called a racist/sexist i...Soc.Sc.Prof.<BR/><BR/>Fear of being called a racist/sexist <BR/>is enough to make lots of people cower. <BR/>(The "R"-word and the "S"-word are <BR/>just newer versions of the "N"- ord.)<BR/><BR/>I ask you: if no one is willing to stand up and say:<BR/>"this is bullshit," (as KC has)<BR/>then who will?<BR/><BR/>It's not a little matter -<BR/>(and I think you minimize it, frankly.)<BR/><BR/>What would you do, if you actually did think it <BR/>was a cancer on education?<BR/>What would be your solution?machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-91033765077583852882007-07-22T01:12:00.000-04:002007-07-22T01:12:00.000-04:00wayne fontes,Generally, I cannot speak as to what ...wayne fontes,<BR/><BR/>Generally, I cannot speak as to what others feel. However, that's not how most of the professors I know think about students. Finally, I am not sure that you have the Trinity vs. non-Trinity aspect right.<BR/><BR/>I'm too young to have lived through the McCarthy era. I agree on your assessment that the racist label carries a big stigma. Fear of that stigma might have played a supporting role in silencing some professors. I don't think it was the main factor though.<BR/><BR/>Soc.Sc.Prof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-34829492893719006462007-07-22T01:08:00.000-04:002007-07-22T01:08:00.000-04:00Wayne Fontes...McCarthy was right. The false charg...Wayne Fontes...<BR/><BR/>McCarthy was right. The false charge of racism by true PC bigots and racists is a wholly different matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-55114297773935197882007-07-22T01:07:00.000-04:002007-07-22T01:07:00.000-04:0012:56 Inman. Why not fire him first? Brodhead is n...12:56 Inman. Why not fire him first? Brodhead is not a leader of any sort.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-61826731970838159782007-07-22T01:00:00.000-04:002007-07-22T01:00:00.000-04:00To Soc.ScProfThe bulk of the lacrosse players were...To Soc.ScProf<BR/><BR/>The bulk of the lacrosse players were in trinity. The non-Trinity professors felt they didn't have a dog in the fight.<BR/><BR/>Most Americans sat out McCarthy's reign of terror. For academia today my impression is that the label racist carries more of a stigma than red did in the 1950's.wayne fonteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12082812958420391750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88600088841348577062007-07-22T00:59:00.000-04:002007-07-22T00:59:00.000-04:00Soc.Sc.Prof.You are a welcome voice of reason.Than...Soc.Sc.Prof.<BR/><BR/>You are a welcome voice of reason.<BR/><BR/>Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com