Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Chronicle of Higher Education Fires a Blogger

From a Chronicle of Higher Education (paid subscription required) article highlighting the first cohort of students graduating from Northwestern University's doctoral program in black studies, including Ph.D. candidate La TaSha B. Levy:

"Ms. Levy is interested in examining the long tradition of black Republicanism, especially the rightward ideological shift it took in the 1980s after the election of Ronald Reagan. Ms. Levy's dissertation argues that conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, John McWhorter, and others have "played one of the most-significant roles in the assault on the civil-rights legacy that benefited them." Ms. Levy says that with patronage from what she calls white conservative think tanks like the Manhattan Institute and the Heritage Foundation, black conservatives are now being "used to legitimize a larger discourse around racial progress that delegitimizes civil-rights policies." 

Naomi Schaefer Riley, author, editor and blogger, responding in the Chronicle of Higher Education's blog "Brainstorm: Ideas and Culture":

"The assault on civil rights? Because they don’t favor affirmative action they are assaulting civil rights? Because they believe there are some fundamental problems in black culture that cannot be blamed on white people they are assaulting civil rights?"

 Seriously, folks, there are legitimate debates about the problems that plague the black community from high incarceration rates to low graduation rates to high out-of-wedlock birth rates. But it’s clear that they’re not happening in black-studies departments. If these young scholars are the future of the discipline, I think they can just as well leave their calendars at 1963 and let some legitimate scholars find solutions to the problems of blacks in America. Solutions that don’t begin and end with blame the white man."

For that response, Ms. Riley was fired by the Chronicle of Higher Education, here's some commentary below from today's WSJ.

From Naomi Schafer Riley:

"My longtime familiarity with the absurdities of higher education did not, I confess, prepare me for this most absurd of results. The content of my post, after all, is hardly shocking; the same thing could have been written 30 years ago. And perhaps that's the most depressing part of all this. Despite the real social and economic advancement that has been made by blacks in this country, the American faculty is still stuck in the 1960s."

From a WSJ staff editorial:

"Now more than ever, too many college graduates discover that their expensive higher educations send them into a modern workplace with skills that few employers want or need. The graduates sit home, unemployed and unemployable. Meanwhile, back inside the school walls, the Chronicle of Higher Education stands ready to eliminate any writer who causes distress to the modern generation of scholars who teach these students."

 From James Taranto:

"[This situation] encapsulates the intellectual corruption of academia, a profession that ought to encourage intellectual adventurousness, not pander to those who are unable to withstand the "distress" of having their ideas challenged."

68 Comments:

At 5/09/2012 9:06 AM, Blogger al fin said...

Make the bad lady shut up, mommy! Make her shut up!!!

 
At 5/09/2012 9:25 AM, Blogger Krishnan said...

Today's liberals find comfort in watching the deterioration of scholarship among people/groups they claim to support and represent - there is much to be gained by sticking people back in the 1960's and pretending that nothing has changed. They can come out publicly for the "oppressed" and go back to their mansions and a segregated society they enjoy.

The greatest danger to liberal thinking and liberalism (as understood today) is indeed the possibility that people will realize that each person has a responsibility for him/her self and their families and that blaming everyone else does not work.

I feel badly for those in such "minority" communities being stigmatized because they happen to have the wrong color of skin or ethnicity - I imagine they will never get their due for what they really are.

 
At 5/09/2012 9:36 AM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Reminds me of 1950s era McCartyism. You had to be PC, or lose your job, get branded etc.

 
At 5/09/2012 9:45 AM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

The fired editor and blogger, Naomi Schaefer Riley, wrote about three PhD dissertations from students at Northwestern U. The three students respond in a statement at SocialistWorker.org on Ms. Riley's blog post.

The Graduate School at Northwestern U.'s African American Studies Department offers this on their program:

"...at the turn of the 21st century, African American Studies, like many inter-disciplines spanning the social sciences and humanities, is becoming more responsive to and influenced by a contemporary world that is increasingly interdependent and subject to diverse representations and questionings."

It seems "diverse representations and questioning" has limited subsets, for the three PhD candidates whose work is being questioned.

 
At 5/09/2012 9:51 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

Yet, when Nicholas Degenerate...I mean De Genova, assistant professor at Columbia University, wished "a million more Mogadishus" on American soldiers in 2003, Columbia refused to either discipline or fire him on freedom of speech grounds.

Both my parents spent time in academia and it is still the home of some of my favourite people, so I don't want to spit on the whole thing. However, the academy as a whole is a disaster. Particularly in the Social Sciences. It is overrun with vengeful, elitist libtard thugs who are incapable of surviving outside the ivory tower (and, if we're honest, are barely getting by in it).

 
At 5/09/2012 9:59 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

Thanks for the link, Buddy. They "defend" themselves against Riley's accusations by confirming everything she said about them and manage to come off as even bigger boobs in the process. It's hard to imagine this is possible, but they pulled it off.

 
At 5/09/2012 10:25 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Reminds me of 1950s era McCartyism." -- Benji

Except that the subjects of those investigations actually were Soviet spies.

"Those who were convinced that the Soviets were spying on us during the 1930s and 1940s were right. Haynes and Klehr have provided the most extensive evidence to date that the KGB had operatives at all levels of American society and government. Where Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassilievs The Haunted Wood (LJ 11/15/98) provided a peek at Soviet spying, Haynes and Klehr throw open the door, revealing a level of espionage in this country that only the most paranoid had dreamed of. Building on the research for their earlier books, The Secret World of American Communism (LJ 6/1/95) and The Soviet World of American Communism (Yale Univ., 1998), Haynes and Klehr describe the astonishing dimensions of spying reflected in the cable traffic between the United States and Moscow. Venona is the name of the sophisticated National Security Agency project that in 1946 finally broke the Soviet code. This is better than anything John le Carr could produce, because in this case, truth is really stranger than fiction. Highly recommended." -- Edward Goedeken, Iowa State University, Library Journal

 
At 5/09/2012 11:00 AM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Che-

I am sure there were Soviet spies in the USA.

However, in that time frame of the 1950s one merely had to accuse another person of being a Communist or ever having been even associated with Communism, to destroy their career and life.

Sheesh, by the end, McCarthy was calling Eisenhower's US Army a commie organization.

"One of Eisenhower's most difficult political problems involved Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, who had been in headlines since 1950 because of his charges that Communist spies or sympathizers held high positions in the federal government. Republicans had gained from McCarthy's charges that the Truman administration was "soft on communism." But after the Eisenhower administration took power, McCarthy continued his attacks, even suggesting that the President's nominees for important ambassador positions were disloyal or subversive. Republican leaders could not persuade McCarthy, a member of their own party, to halt his attacks on a Republican administration. The news media gave McCarthy significant attention, but his charges never led to a single indictment or conviction.
Eisenhower also worried about Communist spies or agents, but he disliked McCarthy's outrageous methods, including a tendency to consider someone guilty until proven innocent. Yet Eisenhower did not want to criticize McCarthy publicly, as he was fearful that such a direct confrontation would demean his office or work to the senator's advantage: "I just won't get into a pissing contest with that skunk," the President declared.
In 1954, Americans got a good look at McCarthy in action when he held televised hearings on Communist influence in the U.S. Army. Eisenhower was outraged that McCarthy had made the Army—the institution in which the President had served for most of his adult life—a target."

--30--

As I said, no doubt were Soviet spies back then, no doubt there are Chinese spies, or terrorists, today. I do not think the US Army was being run by commies, and neither did Eisenhower.

The question is, do we defend our right to free speech and independent scholarship, or cravenly bow to fear-mongers and climate of fear?

 
At 5/09/2012 11:01 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Methinks,

"It is overrun with vengeful, elitist libtard thugs who are incapable of surviving outside the ivory tower (and, if we're honest, are barely getting by in it)."

Couldn't agree more.

 
At 5/09/2012 11:12 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Every generation, Western civilization is invaded by barbarians — we call them “children.” -- Political theorist Hannah Arendt

"The California Association of Scholars, a division of the National Association of Scholars, have just released an incendiary report showing that all nine of the University of California’s campuses have been compromised by too many politicized courses and radical faculty members. CAS members include a number of current or past professors from the UC system who have taught at UC-Berkeley, UCLA, UC-Santa Cruz, and UC-San Diego. ... There has been a sharp increase in faculty members who self-identify as radicals. This has led to “one party” academic departments, such as at Berkeley, where left-of-center faculty members outnumber their right-of-center colleagues in Political Science by a ratio of 28:2, in English 29:1 and in History 31:1. A number of these professors are openly avowed Marxists! Many curricula promote political activism, in violation of UC regulations. Critical Race Studies at UCLA’s School of Law, for example, aims to be a “training ground” for advocates committed to racial justice theory and practice ... Several departments attempt to erase the study of Western tradition. History majors are now not required to take a survey course in Western civilization on any of the nine University of California campuses. Four more UC campuses have dropped their American History requirements ... Suppression of free speech is commonplace ... Radical and left-of-center UC professors favor hiring like-minded new academics and block the hiring of new professors who don’t “think the right way.” -- Big Government

 
At 5/09/2012 11:13 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

It is astonishing that those in the West are living through the near extinction of their civilization. For students in the Academy today, the Western Civilization history course, virtually a standard curriculum offering 30 years ago, has disappeared.

This survey course covering classical antiquity to the present was the glue, the all-embracing narrative, that gave coherence to everything else the university taught. At the very least, students came away from this course with a partial recognition of their civilization and its monumental achievements.

Now Western civilization survey courses have been eliminated from the general education requirements, replaced in large part by courses and programs that either undermine traditions in the West or "Balkanize" the curriculum. Latino studies, for example, exalt the accomplishments of Spanish speaking people. Black studies emphasize the plight of blacks in white societies. Women's studies superordinate the role of women. However, white studies denounce male dominated, colonial societies. American history, on the rare occasion it is required, tells a story of conflict, exploitation and imperial goals. Third World studies is ostensibly a rehearsal of abuse and unfair dominance by the West.

Is it any wonder, poll after poll demonstrates students are alienated from their own culture? Clearly many of those who will eventually assume leadership positions are no longer learning about their civilization's triumphs and its singular role in transforming the human condition.

According to a National Association of Scholars report issued in 2011, "The Vanishing West: 1964-2010," only two percent of colleges offer western civilization as a course requirement. Remarkably, western civilization is rarely even required for history majors. By contrast, most institutions from 1964 through the 1970s did have this requirement. -- The Vanishing Western Tradition, Herbert London


Make no mistake, what the academic left is about is cultural genocide.

 
At 5/09/2012 11:14 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Born in January 1937, Leonard Jeffries is a longtime faculty member at the City College of New York (CCNY) and a onetime head of its Black Studies Department. He is one of the leading proponents of Afrocentrism—a field of study that judges Western civilization to be irredeemably racist and demands a corrective curriculum glorifying African peoples and cultures. A black supremacist, Jeffries claims whites to be genetically inferior to blacks; an inveterate anti-Semite, he apportions to “rich Jews” the blame for everything from the allegedly anti-black content of Hollywood movies to the transatlantic slave trade.

In 1988 Professor Jeffries was appointed by then-New York State Education Commissioner Thomas Sobol to help draft a report recommending an expanded focus on “multiculturalism” in the state’s K-12 curricula. Jeffries’ influence was everywhere in evidence in the final report. Reading more like a polemic than a scholarly assessment, the report claimed that “African Americans, Asian Americans, Puerto Ricans/Latinos, and Native Americans have all been the victims of an intellectual and educational oppression that has characterized the culture and institutions of the United States and the European American world for centuries.” The title of the report was: “A Curriculum of Inclusion.”

Jeffries’ black supremacist views first came to public notice in the spring of 1988, when a white student, writing in the CCNY campus newspaper, catalogued the host of anti-white theories that Jeffries routinely advanced in one of his classes, Black Studies 101. Jeffries had been teaching at CCNY since 1972, when he was tapped to head the Black Studies department and was almost instantly granted tenure, thanks in no small part to a CCNY administration determined to appease a surging militancy among blacks on campus. Jeffries had little or no standard peer-reviewed scholarship to his name at the time he was granted tenure -- or, for that matter, since. -- Leonard Jefferies, Discover The Networks

 
At 5/09/2012 12:10 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"I am sure there were Soviet spies in the USA. However, in that time frame of the 1950s one merely had to accuse another person of being a Communist or ever having been even associated with Communism, to destroy their career and life." -- Benji

Shouldn't the excesses of this era properly be referred to as "Kennedyism" since it was Bobby Kennedy who essentially ran the House UnAmerican Activities Committee? The HUAC was set up by the Democrats in 1934 and McCarthy - who was a Senator - was not elected until 1937.

As for having ones career destroyed, the HUAC investigations were initiated at the request of actors and studio heads in response to a blacklist set-up and imposed by the communists in Hollywood. In the end, it was patriots, like Eli Kazan, who suffered for their loyalty. Kazan had the temerity to testify honestly about the communist involvement in Hollywood. He testified to having been a member of the Communist Party until resigning in disgust as the truth about the Soviet Union slowly became known. He named names and revealed their strategy. Many of those who he named later acknowledged that he had told the truth. The Hollywood left sought to destroy him and the others like him who had put their country first.


"The news media gave McCarthy significant attention, but his charges never led to a single indictment or conviction."

The Venona project was not revealed to the American public until 1995, and it was not until the fall of the Soviet Union that the validity of the transcripts could be confirmed, beyond any doubt, through the opening of the Soviet archives. So, the fact that the investigations did not lead to a single indictment or conviction is meaningless. The vast majority of those being investigated were guilty as hell. And, as McCarthy argued, the Soviets had indeed managed to infiltrate the highest levels of our government, even recruiting direct advisors to the president.


"Eisenhower was outraged that McCarthy had made the Army—the institution in which the President had served for most of his adult life—a target."

Of course, this is simply bullshit since "the Army" was never a target - communist infiltrators were. Are you suggesting that the members of the U.S. military should never be the subjected to scrutiny, Benji? Would it be appropriate to have had high ranking military officers and State Department officials with deep Nazi sympathies serving during WWII, or those with communist sympathies serving during the Cold War?

The fascists were responsible for more than 26 million deaths. The communists have killed more than 100 million and we are still counting. For now, the leftist march through the Wests cultural institutions have spared the disciples of Marx the absolute condemnation that the fascists have rightfully been subjected to? Of course, their continuing success in this effort is dependent on the "useful idiots", like Jon, who have proven susceptible to their lies and diversions.

 
At 5/09/2012 12:22 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"The time is fast approaching (if it is not already here) when a student can be admitted to a selective university largely on the basis of his or her racial or ethnic identity; major in his or her identity; go to graduate school (also aided by preferential admissions) and get a PhD in his or her identity; and have an entire academic career based on professing his or her identity, perhaps rewarded at some point with elevation to a vice presidency in charge of “diversity and inclusion” to oversee the management and expansion of university-wide programmes based on racial and ethnic identity." -- "A Department Of Diversity at Berkeley", Minding The Campus

 
At 5/09/2012 12:26 PM, Blogger AIG said...

Now, while I may agree 110% with the response Naomi gave etc etc...the Chronicle probably was in the right to fire her.

I don't know anything about this Chrinicle, or how political it is...but if it's not political, then maybe it doesn't want writers like Naomi that give a politicized opinion like that.

And let's be honest, it is a politicized answer, whether it may be 100% true or not. The Chronicle of Higher Education, however, may not be the place for it.

I'm pretty sure the reason they fired her is not because of the opinions she holds, but for expressing such opinions in an improper place. And there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that; eg if I run an engineering journal, I don't want opinions on black marital patterns in there, regardless of their merits.

The three students respond in a statement at SocialistWorker.org
My God...that is very sad.

BUT, it goes back to my point. there are places to express such opinions. maybe the Chronicle of Higher Education, isn't one of them.

PS Comparing this to Columbia University and its professors, is also not quite accurate. Columbia's mission does not preclude professors from giving their opinions. The Chronicle of Higher Education, is quite a different animal.

 
At 5/09/2012 12:30 PM, Blogger AIG said...

However, the academy as a whole is a disaster. Particularly in the Social Sciences. It is overrun with vengeful, elitist libtard thugs who are incapable of surviving outside the ivory tower (and, if we're honest, are barely getting by in it).

I don't know much about the "social sciences", but this generalization is simply not true. I'm sure it approaches reality at some places, in some fields (like maybe "black studies")...but "the academy" as a whole? How exactly are, lets say, Finance academics, like that, Methinks? (since I'm sure you probably know some). Or economics academicians, since we have some on this blog?

 
At 5/09/2012 12:36 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

He is one of the leading proponents of Afrocentrism—a field of study that judges Western civilization to be irredeemably racist and demands a corrective curriculum glorifying African peoples and cultures.

That you object to recognizing the supremacy of people still living in grass huts and selling each other into slavery is damning evidence of your blood-thirsty racism.

 
At 5/09/2012 12:46 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

AIG, there are quite a lot of libtard anti-market finance professors. Actually, a surprising number.

In general I find that characterization to be true and the libtards in academia are quite vicious, very vindictive and outnumber any other group. That has been my experience.

If you care to share yours, go for it.

 
At 5/09/2012 12:57 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"McCarthy - who was a Senator - was not elected until 1937."

Sorry, should have been 1947.

It should also be pointed out that the original HUAC was set up to investigate the fascists.

Funny, how those investigations produced no martyrs.

 
At 5/09/2012 1:00 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Columbia's mission does not preclude professors from giving their opinions. The Chronicle of Higher Education, is quite a different animal.

Is it? Wasn't it you who started the post from which I pluck thi quote by saying you know nothing about The Chronicle of Higher Education? If you know nothing about the publication, then from where do you divine your expertise on the policies of said publication?

Moreover, I very much doubt that it has a policy prohibiting the voicing of personal opinions since Ms. Riley was fired from its blog, which is all about voicing opinions.

You may just have to find a way to come to terms with the reality that she was very likely fired for voicing the wrong opinion.

Wishing death on soldiers = laudable. Criticizing idiotic libtard crap = unforgivable.

 
At 5/09/2012 1:07 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Beardo the Weirdo may have been laughed out of real life during the 1970s, but
he found a home in our nation's colleges, where he whiles away the wait for the
next Woodstock Nation by pestering undergraduates with collectivist twaddle."

~PJ O'Rourke

 
At 5/09/2012 1:18 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I wonder how this plays out among the general black population?

are they supporters of folks like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, and John McWhorter?

are they split?

are they huge supporters?

do they defend them?

 
At 5/09/2012 1:19 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 5/09/2012 1:19 PM, Blogger AIG said...

AIG, there are quite a lot of libtard anti-market finance professors. Actually, a surprising number.
In general I find that characterization to be true and the libtards in academia are quite vicious, very vindictive and outnumber any other group. That has been my experience.
If you care to share yours, go for it.

Simply because some don't share your/my opinion, doesn't mean much. If you want to say that "libtards" are vicious, vindictive etc etc, that's fine...but people like that tend to exist in certain fields. "Academia" has a lot of fields which do not fall under that description. I wouldn't say Finance, for example, does.

I did an engineering undergrad, and that certainly doesn't fall under that category. I did an MBA, and most professors there didn't fall under that category. I will be starting a PhD this year, and I visited and interviewed in a lot of schools, and most of them didn't fall in that category. Overall most are very professional. Certainly there is the "I am better than thou" attitude, but that is not entirely unmerited, or necessarily a negative thing. Being elitist in an institution that is designed to attract the elite, is a job description. It always has been.

But the description of "academia is a disaster"...I'm not so sure. Certainly we have seen the rise of certain academic fields which produce very little other than "hot air". Most of these will fizzle away. They make a lot of noise, which is why they get the attention, like the example given here.

PS: I interviewed once with a certain economics professor (even though I'm not going for economics, but she taught in the business school) that most of you would be familiar with...and I'm sure would hate :) Her research, however, is quite respectable and most of you would agree with, even if her personality traits are a bit unsavory.

BUT...it's the same in the private market. "Elites" and "experts" in any company exhibit the same personality traits. But ultimately it is their research that one has to argue with. I find "academia", in general, to be far less full of such "vengeful elitist thugs" than many large companies (like the one I'm currently in, whihc is overrun by such types)

 
At 5/09/2012 1:21 PM, Blogger AIG said...

If you know nothing about the publication, then from where do you divine your expertise on the policies of said publication?
Sure. Then what is it's mission? Does it routinely allow its publication to be used as a political soap box? If so, then I take it back.


Moreover, I very much doubt that it has a policy prohibiting the voicing of personal opinions since Ms. Riley was fired from its blog, which is all about voicing opinions.

Is it? I don't know. I've never read their blog

Wishing death on soldiers = laudable. Criticizing idiotic libtard crap = unforgivable.
But that's at two different places.

 
At 5/09/2012 1:28 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

To discover that McCarthy was the victim of a massive campaign to discredit him, rather than the other way round, takes some time to absorb. But it turns out McCarthy didn’t ruin lives – it was his life that was destroyed by a big lie designed to protect a cadre of despicable traitors unprecedented in US history. Everyone seemed to agree that McCarthy was “tearing the nation apart” with his false accusations that departments of government – even the US Army – were infiltrated with Soviet Communist agents. The nation was indeed torn apart, but not by McCarthy. It was the ideological forces against him who won the day, and wrested control of the future political debate that still divides the country. ...

In 1995, the NSA and CIA turned the wheel of history toward the truth by declassifying the Venona files, intercepted messages from Moscow to their American agents from 1942 until 1964. And lo and behold there they are: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Lachlan Currie and hundreds of other American Soviet agents working for the US government – code names and all. Not only were these alleged victims guilty, they and their apologists made fools of us all. Yet, what followed in the national press after Venona was resounding silence.

After Venona sank in, despite violent opposition by the usual suspects, some of the more rational members of the intellectual Left – such as the venerated historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. – opined that McCarthy may have been right after all, but he was a bad person and he did great harm to innocent people. Then it was back to the same shopworn clichés, such as “McCarthy didn’t uncover one communist.” Actually, according to Venona, he was way short in his estimations, but the anti-McCarthy propaganda machinery churned on to be sure history goes their way ...

It is sad to realize that none of this would have happened, thus sparing us the past 50+ years of political distortion, if government intelligence agencies had released the Venona transcripts during the string of congressional hearings investigating the infiltration of Soviet-American agents in nearly all US government agencies during the McCarthy Era. If the evidence was made available, McCarthy would be a hero rather than a pariah "blacklisted by history." Instead, as is usually the case, history was manipulated and public policy stained due to the intelligence community’s obsessive desire to keep their secrets – no matter the consequence to the well-being of the nation. -- "The Truth Be Told: The Real Story Of Joe McCarthy", Intellectual Conservative

 
At 5/09/2012 1:39 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

AIG, I don't think it has occurred to you that your experience as a student is quite possibly different than the experience of your professors.

When I (briefly) taught high-school math, I assure you that my experience in the school and the school system was very different from that of my students. I know this for sure because I was also once a high school student.

Also, because the academy includes the Mark Perrys, Don Boudreauxs, Russ Roberts and Thomas Sowells does not mean that most of the academy is not controlled by progressive elitists. I'm pretty sure that none of your professors shared their personal experiences with you as a student. I know that mine didn't until I developed friendships with some of them after graduation. And, of course, I saw what my parents went through as non-progressives in two large research universities.

I will repeat (again - since you missed it the first time) that not everyone to a man/woman in the academy is a vindictive progressive and I don't spit on the whole enterprise, but it does mean that the academia is a career choice that I avoided like the plague when deciding on a professional direction because I think that it is basically a cesspool.

 
At 5/09/2012 1:48 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Simply because some don't share your/my opinion, doesn't mean much.

Not only does it not mean much, but it is utterly meaningless that people don't share my views. It only becomes a problem when disagreement with certain powerful members of the academy's mainstream progressive politics leads to marginalization. In fact, the very sort of discrimination and bullying these very same people concoct and rail against in industry. So, my general opinion of academia is as low as my opinion of Investment Banks - where I worked for years.

 
At 5/09/2012 1:52 PM, Blogger AIG said...

does not mean that most of the academy is not controlled by progressive elitists.
I don't know of anyone, or any group, that controls "the academy", since there is no such thing as "the academy" Each school is different, each discipline is different, and of course there are more "controlling" personalities in each department. And I'm not sure they are all "progressive elites". Elites, yes...full of themselves...absolutely.

But doesn't that describe every manager and boss at most large companies in the private market?

'm pretty sure that none of your professors shared their personal experiences with you as a student.
Well I worked as a researcher for them for a couple of years after graduation. Pretty much all they do is talk about themselves :)

I know this for sure because I was also once a high school student.
Yeah maybe in Lenin's days.

because I think that it is basically a cesspool.
Sure, that's opinion based on your experiences. I don't know of any place in the world where you will not be abused by your "superiors" for having opinions different than theirs. Do you?

 
At 5/09/2012 1:53 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Che-

Other people are posting here their concerns and speaking to issues.

The personal inventive is not needed.

I enjoy reading your viewpoints.

 
At 5/09/2012 1:58 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Sure, that's opinion based on your experiences.

Oh look! We're making progress.

I don't know of any place in the world where you will not be abused by your "superiors" for having opinions different than theirs. Do you?

I didn't say "opinions". I said "political opinions". If you're smart enough to earn an engineering masters then I'm assuming you're smart enough to understand the difference between the two.

Moreover, no, I have actually never worked anywhere where it was ever considered acceptable to abuse anybody for any reason. I wonder where it is you've worked if you think this is normal.

 
At 5/09/2012 2:11 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Then what is it's mission? Does it routinely allow its publication to be used as a political soap box?

It probably won't hurt you to actually read Riley's blog post so that your comments are less filled with nonsense. I don't see anything in her post that would would merit an accusation that she was using the publication as a "political soap box". It doesn't seem all that abnormal to me to question dissertations in a publications that is, you know, for the consumption of members of the academy.

Perhaps it might behoove you to browse through the web site and check the other blogs on the site to see if it is an appropriate place for opinions. Because all the blogs scream "opinion" to me.

 
At 5/09/2012 2:22 PM, Blogger AIG said...

I didn't say "opinions". I said "political opinions". If you're smart enough to earn an engineering masters then I'm assuming you're smart enough to understand the difference between the two.

If political opinions are the product of the field, then there is no difference.

My point is that in those fields where political opinion is not the product, then this phenomenon isn't prevalent. But fields that have political opinions as their product, are usually social science fields. But they hardly represent all of the "academy". They are just LOUD...not prevalent.

Moreover, no, I have actually never worked anywhere where it was ever considered acceptable to abuse anybody for any reason. I wonder where it is you've worked if you think this is normal.

By "abuse" I mean what you mean, marginalization. If you disagree with the strategy or tactics of your boss, you're not likely to go very far in any place in private industry. It is the exception to this rule when you have a manager or boss that is open to discussing your opinions on the strategy of the company :)

The "politics" of the workplace are just as vicious in every industry.

Here at Boeing for example, it's all politics. It's all about the agendas of individual managers, and if you happened not to agree with those agendas (which may be little more than agency costs), you're going to get marginalized extremely quickly. At this point, people in this company go out of their way NOT to ask my input ;) I count that as a success on my part, actually.

 
At 5/09/2012 2:24 PM, Blogger AIG said...

Perhaps it might behoove you to browse through the web site and check the other blogs on the site to see if it is an appropriate place for opinions.

It's a lot easier to come to the conclusion I want to come to, without doing all the work, since I would have come to the same conclusion either way :) It's all about efficiency Methinks :p

 
At 5/09/2012 2:25 PM, Blogger The Drill SGT said...

I wonder how many of the CHE commentors who are calling Naomi a racist know that she is married to Jason Riley, a WSJ editor, who is black and conservative?

Clearly the CHE folks know.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/176184/july-15-2008/jason-riley

 
At 5/09/2012 2:37 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

If political opinions are the product of the field, then there is no difference.

Have you decided to start saying stupid things for fun now?

Here at Boeing for example, it's all politics. It's all about the agendas of individual managers...

Um....how do I say this? This is not the politics I'm talking about.

 
At 5/09/2012 2:49 PM, Blogger AIG said...

Have you decided to start saying stupid things for fun now?
Hehe. What? What's the difference? If "political opinions" is what that particular field does, than "opinions" = "political opinions".

But my assertion is that this only applies to a small group of fields in "academia". These groups are certainly loud, but they are by no means descriptive.

Let me give you an example. One school I interviewed with for a PhD, the one that had the well-known leftist "economist"...also had very pro-free market professors in the same department. One, for example, taught Hayek as a large part of one of her seminars. And she was a Harvard graduate. So you had both of these very different and conflicting opinions, in the same department, in people of relatively equal tenure.

In fact, it is a lot easier to have differing opinions in academia, since most of the work in academia is SOLITARY, ie it is your own, and you get to chose whom you want to work with. So if someone doesn't agree with your opinions, it is easier to maintain your differences.

Not so in private industry. In private industry, you don't get to pick your boss. If your opinions are different, you're in big trouble.

I know...I know...you're going to say "political opinions!". But a professor who bases her academic world view on Hayek, vs someone who is the opposite, aren't arguing about "political opinion", but rather about the points of view in their professional fields. IE, if your product is political opinion, than it is no different then any other conflict of opinion.

This is not the politics I'm talking about.
Neither am I.

 
At 5/09/2012 2:59 PM, Blogger AIG said...

Um....how do I say this? This is not the politics I'm talking about.

To expand on this; your "political opinion" matters only as far as politics affects your field. This certainly happens a lot in many fields of academia, but I assert that these are just a small part of academia.

In engineering, or physics...or even finance...your political opinions may certainly earn you personal enemies, but they are very unlikely to be important at the end of the day.

Even myself, who was just a lowly research assistant...my political differences with my professors didn't win me any friends, but it didn't stop me from being successful. One professor I worked with was very very Leftist. She was a Management professor, so politics were in fact peripheral to her field. Another professor who worked with us was an engineering professor, and he was very free-market. She despised our politics, she knew what mine were. that certainly affected my personal relationship with her. But in the end of the day...it didn't affect our work. And she could certainly have just kicked me off the team, just for not liking me.

So , in the end, we all have had different experiences on this. But I maintain that there is no such thing as "academia"...so there's no way to generalize something that doesn't exist :)

 
At 5/09/2012 3:12 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Reminds me of 1950s era McCartyism"...

Let's repeat the lesson for pseudo benny...

McCarthy was right

McCarthy wasn't wrong

 
At 5/09/2012 3:26 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Okay, AIG, wore me down. Since it seems vitally important to you for me to come around to your personal view of academia and I don't really care what the hell you think about it, I will pacify you by saying that I find your fleeting experience as an interviewee so compelling that I've purged from my memory everything I've ever known and come to accept your view that academia and Boeing are exactly the same except that life in the academy is better.

And, of course, it isn't in the least hypocritical of a fellow who just bristled at the use of an (admitted, no less) sweeping generalization of academia to make a sweeping generalization about an even larger and more diverse "private industry".

Obviously, what you say about the ease with which one can have differing political opinions in academia must be true. How else can one explain the firing of a writer who criticizes dissertations in the politically charged area of blackness in a publication for the consumption of members of the academy?

I am now as completely bored by this conversation as I am by Vange's weird historical counterfactuals.

 
At 5/09/2012 3:45 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Oh, but I have to add one more thing. From the list of Perrys, Boudreauxs, and Sowells, I left out Walter Williams. Williams deserves special recognition because it is thanks to Mr. Williams that GMU's economics department is privately funded. A genius move.

 
At 5/09/2012 4:11 PM, Blogger AIG said...

I am very glad you have come around to my POV Methinks. I knew you would. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just doing it to begin with :p

 
At 5/09/2012 5:42 PM, Blogger Zachriel said...

Methinks: It doesn't seem all that abnormal to me to question dissertations in a publications that is, you know, for the consumption of members of the academy.

No, but it is, however, very odd to criticize particular papers you haven't read, especially in an academic setting, most especially because she suggested she had read them.

 
At 5/09/2012 6:01 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Now that would very odd if that's what happened, Zach.

Alas, I don't see anywhere a claim that Ms. Riley read the dissertations. Would you kindly point out to me where she made such a claim?

Here's what my eyeballs soaked in:

"You’ll have to forgive the lateness but I just got around to reading The Chronicle’s recent piece on the young guns of black studies. If ever there were a case for eliminating the discipline, the sidebar explaining some of the dissertations being offered by the best and the brightest of black-studies graduate students has made it."

Now, I followed the hyperlink to the Chronicle article she's talking about, but it is locked to non-subscribers and I'm sure as shit not paying for it.

 
At 5/09/2012 6:25 PM, Blogger Zachriel said...

Methinks: Here's what my eyeballs soaked in:

"The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations."

Advice she didn't take before reaching her conclusion.

 
At 5/09/2012 7:35 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Wait. I thought you said she claimed she read them.

You see, the very purpose of a dissertation is to provide the student an opportunity to find something new in the area of investigation.

Riley contends that there is enough evidence (and from the quotes from the dissertation, I agree) that these dissertations are basically a re-airing of 50 year-old grievances. Has nothing new happened since? Like, as Riley points out, a black president?

Whether or not these old gripes should be rehashed in every Blackness and Blankness Studies dissertation for the next 500 years is a matter for debate by some interested parties which do not include me. But probably with money wrenched from me and which I would much more happily hand over to Mr. Walter Williams's economics department (or, as black-bitching studies would say "Uncle Tom's cabin"). Who knows? I don't have the answer to what should happen in yet another useless humanities "discipline" where the intellectually lazy luxuriate while pretending they're getting an education by polishing their grievances.

However, it is perfectly legitimate that someone bring up the fact that these dissertations are nothing new. In fact, they may not rise to the level of a dissertation at all. Whether or not you agree with that opinion, the fact that Ms. Riley was fired speaks volumes about the state of the academy and its commitment to academic freedom, intellectual inquiry and all that other stuff they don't know the meaning of.

I find it particularly hilarious that the blackness studies faculty at Northwestern complained that Ms. Riley's mere criticism of these dissertations is akin to an attempt to silence the students and thwart the very mission of higher education. In their complaint, we are darkly reminded by this posse of fake-discipline faculty members that we are barely one generation away from black students not being admitted to "many" universities and such criticism of black students (especially in race-bating disciplines) is obviously never more than an expression of racism as these black students are also obviously above the normal process of critique so vital to academia.

Sadly, these faculty members, for all their time in the academy devoted to the scholarly pursuit of bitching failed to learn basic logic along the way. They accuse Ms. Riley of a non-existent ad hominem attack on the students. Yet, there is no hint of an ad hominem anywhere in Ms. Riley's blog post. You'd think that at least one of the posse of (e)steamed faculty members of such a highly regarded institution would have at least a weak grip on basic logical fallacy.

 
At 5/09/2012 7:57 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 5/09/2012 8:03 PM, Blogger Zachriel said...

Methinks: Riley contends that there is enough evidence (and from the quotes from the dissertation, I agree) that these dissertations are basically a re-airing of 50 year-old grievances.

Which is ironic in light of the title, "The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations."

Methinks: However, it is perfectly legitimate that someone bring up the fact that these dissertations are nothing new.

The description of a dissertation often does not reflect the final paper. That's because the initial catalyst may lead the researcher in new directions.

Methinks: ... intellectual inquiry and all that other stuff they don't know the meaning of.

Intellectual inquiry? Someone in an academic setting condemning a paper without ever having read it? Really?

Methinks: Yet, there is no hint of an ad hominem anywhere in Ms. Riley's blog post.

She named the students, and implied they were not "legitimate scholars". Sorry, that's simply beyond the Pale.

 
At 5/09/2012 8:04 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

You should also consider that Stacy Patton, the woman who wrote the piece about which Riley wrote her post, also didn't have access to the dissertations. In the student's published rebuttal, these damsels in distress claim that since the dissertation are in process (most likely of being rubber-stamped), nobody has had a chance to read them.

Yet, there are no such complaints about Ms. Patton's favourable dissection of the dissertations she also didn't read.

You see, according to Patton's article, these students are big enough not to feel like they are betraying their own people by appealing to advisors outside their own race and they're doing the important work of "rewriting the history of race". Further, you know, the shooting of Trayvon and fatal shooting of three blacks in Tulsa "inform the scholars' work" (read: provide fodder and confirm biases). Apparently, though, the brutal beating of an innocent white man by a posse of black teens screaming "This is for Trayvon!" does not.

Ms. Patton obviously retains her position at the Chronicle.

 
At 5/09/2012 8:20 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Yes, it is ironic, but not for the reason you think. You see, Stacy Patton also didn't read their dissertations yet she expounded on their dissertations as well writing:

"They have chosen dissertation topics with clear social relevance to this generation's ethos and are expanding upon previous studies of race with more nuanced examinations of sexuality, class, religion, performativity of race in day-to-day interactions, and global views about blackness."

So, apparently, it's totally cool to glowingly praise these unread dissertations, but not to condemn them. The problem isn't that Ms. Riley hasn't read the damn things it's that she doesn't agree with the parts she has read (and she has read parts since she quotes them).

It seems you, Zach, are just as confused about what an ad hominem is. Calling scholarship into question is most certainly NOT and ad homimen attack and neither is naming the person whose scholarhip you're calling into question. It is only beyond the pale according to the standards of the average street libtard. And race, gender, species and whatever else baiting pseudo-scholars.

 
At 5/09/2012 8:33 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"So, apparently, it's totally cool to glowingly praise these unread dissertations, but not to condemn them." -- Methinks

Zach? Zach, you there? (crickets chirping)

 
At 5/09/2012 8:43 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

... last week, on the Chronicle's "Brainstorm" blog, I suggested that the dissertation topics of the graduate students mentioned were obscure at best and "a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap," at worst ... Scores of critics on the site complained that I had not read the dissertations in full before daring to write about them—an absurd standard for a 500-word blog post. A number of the dissertations aren't even available. Which didn't seem to stop the Chronicle reporter, though." -- "Naomi Schaefer Riley: The Academic Mob Rules", WSJ

 
At 5/09/2012 9:26 PM, Blogger AIG said...

Calling scholarship into question is most certainly NOT and ad homimen

When you haven't read it, and when they haven't written it? Hmm, I guess you're right it's not an ad hominem. But what is it Methinks? What is it? ;)

 
At 5/09/2012 9:56 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Well, AIG, it is an opinion since she calls the topics into question. She opines that they are irrelevant. And usually, opinion is what one is expected to write on a blog which one is paid to opine on.

Of course, there are loads of scholars in the academy who rightly call the entire "discipline" into question. They object to the elevation of the mere topic of racial grievances to the level of a "discipline". Very much so. And, of course, the relevance of the pseudo-scholarly productions of these departments of discontent are constantly questioned in the academy - and have been since their establishment.

I do still find it quite interesting that you and Zach only take issue with Riley's criticism of the topics of these unread dissertations, but not Patton's praise of the unread dissertations.

What do you call praising a work you've never read, AIG? What do you call that?

 
At 5/09/2012 10:08 PM, Blogger Abir Mandal said...

"What do you call praising a work you've never read, AIG? What do you call that?"

A Pelosism?

 
At 5/09/2012 10:14 PM, Blogger AIG said...

Writing opinions isn't the problem, or the fact that she didn't read them. Rather, as I said in the beginning, her opinion is politicized. Patton's doesn't seem to be so, or overly so. Reily's looks like something one would read in this blog. I agree with her 100%, but its just the type of language that has no place in that setting.

It is about what she said, and how she said it. But it's about the setting.

Plus I'm not sure how Patton was "praising" them. She was describing the topics.

Look, I agree 100% with Reily.

 
At 5/09/2012 10:56 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Well, it's pretty big of you to agree and all, AIG, but it would be even better if you could figure out what the hell is going on.

 
At 5/10/2012 7:01 AM, Blogger Zachriel said...

Methinks: You should also consider that Stacy Patton, the woman who wrote the piece about which Riley wrote her post, also didn't have access to the dissertations.

No, but she didn't condemn the dissertations without having read them. She did say the topics have social relevance, and perhaps Riley could have simply argued that point. Instead, she went much further and condemned the students.

Methinks: Further, you know, the shooting of Trayvon and fatal shooting of three blacks in Tulsa "inform the scholars' work" (read: provide fodder and confirm biases).

That phrase does not appear in the article. The exact quote is "troubling real-life incidents that the doctoral candidates say inform their scholarly work." Most of the article is written in a journalistic fashion, quoting others; unlike the Riley article which is written as a tirade.

Methinks: So, apparently, it's totally cool to glowingly praise these unread dissertations, but not to condemn them.

You don't read carefully. Patton praised the topics, something that might be arguable; Riley attacked the dissertations, the field, and the students.

Methinks: Calling scholarship into question is most certainly NOT and ad homimen attack and neither is naming the person whose scholarhip you're calling into question.

She didn't merely attack the scholarship, but the scholars saying, "If these young scholars are the future of the discipline, I think they can just as well leave their calendars at 1963 and let some legitimate scholars find solutions to the problems of blacks in America." It was certainly not appropriate for an academic setting.

Methinks: It seems you, Zach{riel}, are just as confused about what an ad hominem is... It is only beyond the pale according to the standards of the average street libtard. And race, gender, species and whatever else baiting pseudo-scholars.

Now that's funny.

 
At 5/10/2012 7:59 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

It's really interesting the mental gymnastics you militant liberals are willing to perform in order to justify silencing dissenting viewpoints and trampling academic freedom while screaming bloody murder when someone so much as objects to yours.

No, but she didn't condemn the dissertations without having read them.

Exactly my point. Patton praised the unread dissertations as "nuanced" and "relevant". That's why Patton is employed and Riley isn't. Welcome to humanities, sweetheart.

That phrase does not appear in the article.

No? The whole paragraph from Patton's article:

"Charged conversations about race have escalated since the election of Barack Obama, recently heightened by such events as the shooting death in Florida of Trayvon Martin and the fatal random shootings this month of three blacks in Tulsa, Okla., troubling real-life incidents that the doctoral candidates say inform their scholarly work.".

But not, as I said, the brutal beating of an innocent white man by a posse of black teens screeching "this is for Trayvon!". Shame on Riley for calling these hard-core pseudo-scholars' scholarship into question, eh? How dare she?

How about this?:

"With more openness and trust on both sides, young scholars don't necessarily feel that they are betraying their own people by working with someone outside of their race as a mentor."

Very big of them, don't you think? I wonder how many white people mentored by Thomas Sowell felt some kind of internal conflict about betraying their "own people" because they were mentored by a black man. I wonder how fast a department would keep its funding if this was written about white instead of black ax-grinders.

"They are not concerned with the sort of racial and gender identity politics that often informed scholarly works and divided departments and campuses a generation ago."

Clearly not. How else can you explain dissertation topics like black mid-wifery and 21st century Uncle Tomism?

Here's a quote from another "scholar" and Ph.D. candidate in ax-grinding and grievance airing.

"...We understand that when it comes to race, nothing happens in isolation. All systems of oppression work and operate together."

Race is a system of oppression. Uh-huh. Yes, I don't understand why anybody would ever question the legitimacy of this crap passing for "scholarhip" - except that everybody does. Riley is no trail blazer.

 
At 5/10/2012 7:59 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

Most of [Patton's] article is written in a journalistic fashion, quoting others; unlike the Riley article which is written as a tirade.

Duh. That's because Patton's was an article and required a level of objectivity (which it lacked) and Riley's was an opinion piece. Do you seriously not understand the difference between those two things or will you just use any excuse to silence people you don't approve of? Rhetorical question, obviously.

You don't read carefully. Patton praised the topics, something that might be arguable; Riley attacked the dissertations, the field, and the students

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. It's not that I didn't read carefully, it's that you have no idea what you're reading because you make my point - only views favoured by the militant race,gender,species,etc.-baiting libtards ware tolerated in the the academy. It's worst in humanites. This isn't scholarship and it isn't intellectual inquiry it is bullying, pure and simple.

It was certainly not appropriate for an academic setting.

LOL!!!! Thank you. I actually did laugh out loud. Based on this idiotic statement, I can say with confidence that you've never ever spent any time in academia - especially not in humanities.

This kind of bullshit is precisely what shaped my view of the academy. Yes, AIG it's worst in humanities and social sciences (where my parents were) and probably much better in some of the hard sciences. However It's a rare engineering student who isn't forced to spend at least some time soaking in the militant dogma of the humanities department as part of a liberal arts base required for four year degrees.

I still find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that legitimate academic departments are forced to compete for limited funding with these clowns.

 
At 5/10/2012 1:21 PM, Blogger juandos said...

What kind of a real job can one get with a degree that has a lot of 'black studies' in it?

 
At 5/10/2012 1:51 PM, Blogger AIG said...

Methinks, you have a lot of speculations etc. And that's fine, it's your right to speculate. But the matter stands that Patton was simply describing the topics in the words of the students. She was not politicizing. Riley was not doing the same thing.

Regardless of our opinions on the issue, there is always a place to express them. That was not the place to express them.

I still find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that legitimate academic departments are forced to compete for limited funding with these clowns.
I'm pretty sure that there isn't too much competition for funding against the "black studies" department. Plus, departments don't necessarily compete with each other.

As I said, these fields are full of LOUD mouths. But they are really pretty insignificant.

However It's a rare engineering student who isn't forced to spend at least some time soaking in the militant dogma of the humanities department as part of a liberal arts base required for four year degrees.

I think your opinion may be clouded by your experiences, and by the things you read on the internet (such as in this case)

 
At 5/10/2012 3:22 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 5/10/2012 3:34 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

AIG, you are the only person anywhere in this debate (not only on this blog) who is making an ass of himself by harping on the “time and place” issue. Everyone else understands that it is not the issue. Everyone (with the exception of you) understands that giving her impassioned opinion was her job. Do try to keep up.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/tag/naomi-schaefer-riley

But the matter stands that Patton was simply describing the topics

*sigh*. Oh good. Another drone who doesn't know the difference between an article and an op-ed and is possessed of such poor reading comprehension skills he doesn't know what he's reading. I'm not going to re-paste that part of Patton's article as I expect all big boys to have the ability to scroll to the post where I excerpted her article.

Patton is not quoting the students or their advisors. It is the judgment of the journalist that the dissertations she did not read are nuanced and relevant, blah blah blah. What about this is confusing to you?

It is news to me that academic departments are flush with cash and don’t compete for their universities’ scarce resources. Did you learn this fiction in your interview or in your assistantship? And yes, of course my opinions are shaped by my experiences and those of the people I know intimately. We can’t all be as lucky as you to have The Truth handed down to us by God Himself.

My opinion on the issue of pseudo-disciplines in victimhood is completely irrelevant. Except as a taxpayer. But, to the actions of CHE it's completely irrelevant.

Frankly, Riley’s firing is irrelevant to me. The CHE is free to run its business any way it sees fit and as far as I'm concerned, they could fire her just for being white or because they didn't like her hair or because she's a chick. I'm a big supporter of at-will employment.

Similarly, Colombia is well within its rights to retain Nicholas De Genova after he called for the death of soldiers who risk their lives on the orders of their commanders. The University of Colorado was perfectly justified in holding on to Ward Churchill after he claimed that the murder of people working in the WTC on 9/11 was justified because these employees were "little Eichmanns".

Universities usually defend such idiotic and uncivilized faculty spouting on academic freedom and freedom of expression grounds - darkly warning of the dangers of silencing unpopular opinions. Fine. They have a point. It is illiberal and dangerous to silence unpopular and even blood-curdling opinions.

However, not only the firing of Riley but the vicious attacks on her and demands to fire her from within the academy for expressing an opinion which is unpopular within the academy exposes yet again what a cesspool of bottomless hypocrisy academia is. Academic freedom and freedom of expression are nothing more than empty shields - the pretense of virtue behind which militant totalitarian progressives protect their revolutionaries and eviscerate their political enemies.

The academy is in disgrace and long has been.

That is all.

 
At 5/10/2012 5:28 PM, Blogger AIG said...

Methinks, nothing said here so far, or in the link provided, somehow disproves what I said; there's a place for everything, and that wasn't it.

Yes the editors made a bad decision in approving her writing, and they tried to cover their a*s afterwards. They should never have allowed her to write what she wrote.

Patton's review was simply a review. Riley's was not. The fact that the blog "encourages" the writers to "enlighten" the readers, doesn't mean that a politicized opinion should be placed there.

Frankly, Riley's writing was inappropriate, even if I agree with it.

 
At 5/10/2012 5:33 PM, Blogger AIG said...

As for your opinions on "the academy", again...what is this thing you call "the academy"? Could you provide me an address? Who's the head of it? No?

So why do you speak of things which don't exist, of things which ave no relation to one another, and somehow pretend that "black studies", or "liberal arts" or "social sciences", somehow are representative of all academicians, all academic institutions, all academic programs etc etc.

The only reason I can think so, is because you want to make a political point.

Certainly, if one looks at where the MONEY flows in academia, liberals arts, black studies, or social sciences...don't seem to be anywhere near anyone's top list.

A storm in a tea cup.

 
At 5/10/2012 6:59 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

AIG, if your ignorance on the subject is so deep that you can't even understand that "the academy" means "the academic community" and that addressing the academic community is not controversial, then we really have nothing to talk about.

 
At 5/10/2012 10:39 PM, Blogger AIG said...

AIG, if your ignorance on the subject is so deep that you can't even understand that "the academy" means "the academic community" and that addressing the academic community is not controversial, then we really have nothing to talk about.

There is no such thing as "the academic community". There is nothing in common between academicians in "black history" and academicians in "rocket science".

As I said, this is all a storm in a tea cup. The money tells where the real power and focus in the "academic community" exists: it ain't social science.

The problem is that the "elite minds" of "conservatism/libertarianism" which you and I and everyone else reads...are total baffoons. They are total baffoons because they spend all day talking and writing about how awful "academicians" are, based on their experiences which are in 99.9% limited entirely to social sciences. Every single one of them graduated in social sciences. Every single one of them practiced academics in the social sciences. Every single one of them works...in journalism and writing and such types of activities. Every single one of them send their kids to study...the same old cr*p they studied in the same old social science liberal arts schools.

They know nothing else, and yet they pass judgment on everything else :)

But liberal arts, and social sciences...as far as the real academic world is concerned...are storms in a tea cup. All the money goes to the STEM fields. All the bright students go to those fields. All the great schools become great through those fields. All businesses care about are those fields.

And here they are, blabing about how awful...THEIR degrees are, and how awful...THEIR kid's degrees are.

So?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home