KC Johnson was bemused by my characterization of his argument as "Horowitzian," because, it seems, one can't share argumentative tics with someone who's publicly denounced you. But Timothy's comments further down what has turned into quite an exceptional thread have helped me hone my complaint against KC vis-a-vis his Horowitzian tendencies.
His recent post about Duke University Press provides a paradigmatic example. He writes:
In looking through the Group [of 88]'s c.v.'s, an interesting pattern emerges: sixteen have published books with Duke University Press.
One of those sixteen is Priscilla Wald—who, as I mentioned earlier, was the impetus behind my first post—as her Constituting Americans: Cultural Anxiety and Narrative Form was published by DUP in 1994. According to this profile of her, she wasn't hired by Duke until 2000.
What Johnson considers invidious, then, is that Wald now works for the institution whose university press published her book six years earlier. That Johnson fails to note that is telling.
Also omitted is that it's published under the aegis of Donald Pease's prestigious New Americanist series. While KC would preface half its number with a "[naturally]," the New Americanist series is the series for Americanists. It published my advisor's book (New Deal Modernism: American Literature and the Invention of the Welfare State) as well as Sean McCann's Gumshoe America: Hard-Boiled Crime Fiction and the Rise and Fall of New Deal Liberalism, both solid works of literary historicism. Timothy's comment captures why they would want to publish with DUP even if they were currently employed by Duke:
One reason that I think someone might publish with their "home" press is simply that it's the best or most reputable press in the subject area that they're publishing in. Duke is certainly one of the top presses in cultural studies and cultural history, for example. If I were at the University of Ohio, for example, it would be strange not to consider publishing with the very prestigious Social History of Africa series that has moved to that press from Heinemann.
So Wald's crime, KC suggests, is publishing Constituting Americans with the most reputable press in her field a full six years before being hired by Duke. I sleuthed all these facts in five minutes, but in the course of writing a book, KC somehow failed to come across them? I don't think so, and this is what disturbs me. As Timothy writes (again regarding the character of university presses) in another comment:
Different scholarly publishers definitely have an identity, a particular reputation with regard to specialization, and KC knows that perfectly well. At least I hope he does: it's a pretty basic facet of the scholarly world.
The emphasis is mine, because that phrase captures the definition of "Horowitzian." To wit:
Horowitzian, adj. (of a writer) belonging to or characteristic of David Horowitz, esp. as regards intentionally withholding profession-specific information when speaking before a general audience in order to incite it to commit acts of rhetorical violence.
This is the Ur-Horowitzian move, and if you make it, it doesn't matter how many times the man himself has denounced you. You're behaving in a Horowitzian fashion, and should be called out on it. Given his presence in the post (and in my thinking about it), it seems only fitting that Timothy should have the last word. Responding to KC:
You're not responsible for your commenters' biases, but you can do a better job at discouraging them from seeing their biases confirmed by the way you're writing ... Read your commenters on Duke U. Press. They're definitely coming away from your post assuming that you are arguing that the number of Duke U. faculty serving as editorial advisors means that the output of the press is effectively valueless, without peer review, a vanity output, and the like. I think you can be a lot clearer about discouraging that reading.
Nice definition. I might expand it just a bit, to wit:
withholding profession-specific or exculpatory information
Another of the classic Horowitzian moves in which KC indulges is the use of the incomplete example. I'm not sure it's "withholding" per se, but it is jumping to convenient conclusions without full investigation.
Posted by: Ahistoricality | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 07:09 PM
How about this definition:
"Anti-anti-intellectualism" (an-tee'-an-tee'-in-tell-eck'-chew-uhl-ism) n. "Of or pertaining to that type of backbone-less member of the academy who cannot sustain the least amount of criticism (even if it is a search for truth) without first putting on her big girl pants."
Your evidence that DUP is not a citation circle for the Gang of 88 is? Do you have proof that members of the Gang of 88 did not get their "peer review" from buddies on the same faculty? Please show, with researched proofs, that publication in DUP is not statistically related to certain political views?
Can you do that? Neither can I, but those questions and many more are now (and bravely) raised. If we had waited for you to ask that type of necessary hard-hitting question, then, well, we'd still be waiting. [tick, tock; tick, tock]
As a confirmed anti-anti-intellectual, I'm sure you have to rub the fog off your glasses every time you use the words "Horowitzian" and "anti-intellectual." Don't you think that people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds, or do you subscribe to the belief that you, as a self-proclaimed intellectual, should make the decisions for them?
K.C. Johnson has put out the evidence for the world to see, and the world has been watching. He has been even-handed, letting his commentators do further research and reach their own conclusions. This has been extraordinary given the length of time, the daily requirement of a post, and the number of disciplines involved (law, education, journalism).
Now, I'm going to describe how you, my friend, have been Horowitzian in your treatment of K.C. Johnson:
1. You fail to mention that K.C. Johnson, besides putting up new posts every day for over a year, also has a day job and other responsibilities (i.e. no context).
2. You pick out one tidbit of information, and you harp on it (the blogger troll's stock in trade).
3. The tidbit of information that you pick out, well, you then misconstrue it (or assign it an evil motive without proof)(perhaps just bad reading skills).
4. You also use either hyperbolic words (i.e. "invidious") or wishy-washy words ("suggests") to make a point that, like a clock, may be right two times a day, unless, of course, it is a military clock.
5. Your agenda is showing.
Sound familiar? That's what you did. Here is some of what you wrote:
"What Johnson considers INVIDIOUS, then, is that Wald now works for the institution whose university press published her book six years earlier."
Is that REALLY what Johnson considered invidious? Or, was it that the author, Wald, only had ONE book to her credit, and that book happened to be published by DUP? Was K.C. Johnson suggesting that DUP was in the business of creating a market for certain authors? Was he thinking that perhaps tenured professors should have more than one book published? If a tenured professor only had one book, then a little cross-pollination at another publisher might be nice? I think any of those possibilities are equally plausible, and I did not use the word "invidious."
You also wrote:
"So Wald's crime, KC SUGGESTS ...." Again, is that what K.C. Johnson suggested, or are you just making it up? I believe it is the latter. Notice how the use of the word "suggests" allowed you to avoid putting Professor Johnson's actual words in quotes. It allowed you to SUGGEST what YOU wanted to SUGGEST! How very Horowitzian of you!
As to your agenda, perhaps we only need to look to your advisor or mentor. Now, stay with me here, I'm going to relate back to the definition at the beginning of this post. As a committed "anti-anti-intellectual," you could not stand that K.C. Johnson pointed out some of the foibles of the academy, especially since you are a junior member. But when he accidentally brushed against the fragile work of your advisor, you just had to rise to the defense. I hope you get through your thesis because of your brave defense today. Or, you could be a commie. This may sound "invidious" to you, but I am merely "suggesting" it as a possible agenda.
These are my opinions.
Posted by: Tortmaster | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 08:21 PM
You fail to mention that K.C. Johnson, besides putting up new posts every day for over a year, also has a day job and other responsibilities (i.e. no context).
I don't see how this is important to the argument. Many people are dedicated and hard working. This has nothing to do with working in good faith or doing good work.
Posted by: Karl Steel | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 08:26 PM
To Karl:
You are very quick!
The context is important for a number of reasons:
1. This is a relatively new medium, and I don't know, but I'm willing to bet, that K.C. Johnson never blogged like this before.
2. He has put out new posts every day. Sometimes more than one, like today. New York Times journalists do not have that kind of back-breaking schedule. Emergency room interns do. Yet, I have been watching over K.C.'s shoulder for nearly a year, and he has been right while the Times and almost every other national and local paper have been consistently wrong.
3. What K.C. Johnson is putting out NOW is not a final product, and it should not be judged as such. This is K.C.'s research for his final product - the book. I suggest that, given the context, it would be appropriate not to rush to judgment about the final product before ... er ... the book comes out.
4. Finally, the main point in my post is that the original poster constructed a view of K.C.'s writing about Wald that was, at best, one of many possible interpretations. Moreover, the original poster assigned, without evidence, a motive apparently by looking into K.C.'s mind. Wouldn't it be Horowitzian not to put K.C.'s work in context, especially if the original poster is merely guessing?
These are my opinions only.
Posted by: Tortmaster | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 08:56 PM
Ahistoricality, I think I'll be editing that into the definition shortly. All other contributions are welcome.
Tortmaster, where do I even begin?
For one, that Wald's book was published six years before she arrived at Duke. For another, neither of the other two books mentioned were written by people affiliated with Duke, and they're both substantial works of scholarship. For yet another, I've read many of the books in the New Americanist series, and know that the vast majority of them weren't written by people currently employed by Duke. You're harping about .001 percent of the books DUP publishes.
Yes, I do. It's called "blind reviewing," and as Timothy Burke -- who's at Swarthmore, not Duke -- writes, it's farmed out to experts in the field. This is why KC's post is so misleading: while DUP may be housed at Duke, it's not affiliated with any department. When they receive a manuscript, they send it to their readers ... who are not necessarily at Duke. This is how academic presses work. You don't know this, but you're not to blame, as you're getting your information from someone who deliberately misinforms you as to the inner workings of a university press.
I'm not even sure what this means, but I assure you, if I kept typing words that fogged up my glasses, I'd be pretty annoyed with myself. Probably come to blows. Since I'm a dirty fighter, I wouldn't be able to type this if I'd come to blows, ipso facto my glasses must be crystalline.
You, however, have a bit of the brawler in you. I can tell by the way this strawman's reeling. A few more body shots and he'll be down for the count.
I don't mention it because it's a given. I don't think KC will begrudge me not acknowledging what both he and I know to be true.
That one tidbit being his misrepresentation of a particular academic's career, and the false aspersions he's cast upon her by it? Honestly, he claims that cronyism runs rampant at DUP, and as an example, selects someone who wouldn't be at Duke for another six years to prove his point. Wald may be many things, but I doubt one of them is "owner of a customized DeLorean."
I could respond by countering your entry in the Rhetorical Sweepstakes with a few of KC's own -- and from that very post, no less -- but instead, I'll point out that "invidious" refers to "an action, duty, topic, etc. entailing odium or ill will upon the person performing, discharging, discussing, etc." Can you look me in the eye and say that KC wasn't claiming that the "action" of the Duke faculty in publishing with DUP "entailed odium"? Of course it did.
One book and thirty peer-reviewed articles. Some scholars, when they receive tenure, choose to eschew book-writing and concentrate on article publication instead. By no stretch of the imagination has someone who's published thirty articles rested on her laurels. Also, need I remind you that her book was published six years before she got to Duke?
As for the rest of your paragraph there, it's all insinuation, no substance. People get tenure on the strength of one book. Especially when it's as solid as Constituting Americans is. You'd know that if, you know, you'd read it. The same holds true for KC.
You really don't know who you're talking to here, do you? I'm known for pointing out the foibles of my discipline. That's the only reason anyone's heard of me. That you haven't isn't evidence of anything. However, had you done some research, you'd learn that not only am I a contrarian, but that I come from a long line of contrarians, stretching back to my advisor, my advisor's advisor, his advisor, &c. You can read the book event about the last fellows' work here.
You'll note that while I mentioned the name of my co-blogger at The Valve -- Sean McCann -- I didn't mention my advisor's name. And even if I did, it wouldn't win me any points, as opposed to blogging in both theory and principle. So intimate all you like, but regular and responsible readers alike will quickly realize how uncharitable and inaccurate your portrait of me is.
Posted by: SEK | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 08:59 PM
One last note:
The book's coming out on September 4th. Copies have been sent to reviewers. The book's finished. Sent to the printer.
How many ways can you interpret the fact that Wald wasn't at Duke until six years after her book was published?
Seriously. You'll note that KC's commented here, and seems to think that I'm a critic worth responding to. I'm not jerking my knee, nor spouting bald partisan nonsense. The fact that the crew of Cliopatria's migrated here says as much. So unless you can come up with some proof that I've read KC uncharitably, I suggest you reconsider the outraged tenor of your comments.
I'm not putting KC on the rack here. If anything, I'm holding him to the standards he set in his publications prior to this one.
Posted by: SEK | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 09:04 PM
But Scott, you actually criticized KC. You know that's not allowed. Haven't you seen the worship by several of the core members of his commentariat? They write little tributes to him, they call him a prince and a hero, they await his midnight posts with their fingers permanently poised over that "reload" button so they have something to fawn over the next day. (Note - I absolutely do not hold KC responsible for his commenters, and I would hope he's somewhat mortified by that stuff.)
More seriously, there is a certain subset over there that treats him as heroic and simply can't abide any criticism of him or his work whatsoever. If you disagree with him, apparently, you are a "G88 sympathizer" and clearly have an "agenda."
And that stuff is unfortunate for a whole bunch of reasons, but not the least of which is that there are a decent number of smart, reasonable folks who comment regularly there, but what they (and unfortunately KC) have to say that is of value is likely to be dismissed or ignored because of the hero-worship and anti-intellectualism that is a running theme for some.
Posted by: Steve Horwitz | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 09:13 PM
Scott,
I just wanted to thank you for casting a bit of light on KC's work today. I've found much of his work condemning the Group of 88 to be misleading at best, mean-spirited at worst. The number of folks who visit his site and comment as they do is also troubling.
In any case, good luck dealing with some of the party loyalists who choose to visit.
Posted by: ProfD | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 09:16 PM
One other point, on the other side:
The degree of hatred and disgust with academia that is on display in KC's comments section is, in my view, not to be totally dismissed. Those of us in academia who view all of it as just the rabble not understanding how academia works and why it works that way (e.g. academic freedom and faculty governance) are making a huge strategic/political mistake. There are smart, reasonable people who think faculty are lower than lawyers on the respect scale. It takes work to get distinguish the real criticisms from the crap, but they're there.
The degree of animosity there has stunned me, even after teaching at the college level for 20 years. We ignore it at our own peril: these folks have money and they vote.
Posted by: Steven Horwitz | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 09:20 PM
To SEK:
You wrote:
"So unless you can come up with some proof that I've read KC uncharitably...."
I thought I had? You also wrote:
"I suggest you reconsider the outraged tenor of your comments."
Please note that the outraged tenor of my comments was a form of parody. I was, if you recall, merely "suggesting" that you had "invidious" motives. I apologize if you were offended. You also wrote:
"How many ways can you interpret the fact that Wald wasn't at Duke until six years after her book was published?"
I suggested about four in my original post. Another interpretation might be that DUP can act as part of the "interview" process for certain disciplines. ("I read your DUP-published book and loved it; have you ever thought about a position with Duke.") Why did Wald end up at Duke and not at hundreds of other schools?
Let's look at K.C.'s actual words in quotation marks. He writes:
"For the most part, however, a disproportionate number of the DUP-published Group members are professors without books published elsewhere. The DUP book thus was or is a critical credential for the candidate’s continued employment or promotion at Duke."
That first sentence looks true. Even you admitted that Wald has only one published book. You also admitted that her book was published by DUP.
That second sentence looks true as well. K.C. used the phrase "continued employment" and the word "promotion." I do not know Professor Wald's particular circumstances, but if she is interested in a department chair or fellowship or such, then I bet that DUP-published book will come in handy. As a former managing editor of a law review, I have some knowledge of peer-reviewed articles, as I have had a hand in publishing hundreds of them, and I have written four myself. Articles, meh. Books, right on!
What K.C. Johnson did was he raised a number of questions, which, I believe, you decided to answer based not upon his words, but upon what you wanted to read (or would help your "Horowitzian" argument).
Now, let's look at your words after having looked at K.C.'s actual words. You wrote:
"That one tidbit being his misrepresentation of a particular academic's career, and the false aspersions he's cast upon her by it? Honestly, he claims that cronyism runs rampant at DUP, and as an example, selects someone who wouldn't be at Duke for another six years to prove his point."
Just because you came to one possible conclusion based upon the evidence provided by Professor Johnson's post, you make the otherwise unsubstantiated charge of a "misrepresentation of a particular academic's career." I think that you have rushed to judge.
In your second sentence, you use the word "[h]onestly." As a trial lawyer, I flinch every time I hear it. I have no doubt that you honestly believe that that was K.C. Johnson's intention, but, as I've pointed out above, I will draw my own conclusions based upon the number of possible interpretations.
Posted by: Tortmaster | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 09:47 PM
Scott,
You spend way too much time splitting hairs about the professor's publication six years prior to being hired by Duke. This fact alone tells me your arguments are based not on the broader issues, but on nit-picks, seeming driven by your political orientation.
Your mockery of David Horowitz is also telling. Where does he fit into the story? Perhaps his efforts to counterbalance the type of un-professorial behavior exhibited by Duke faculty, which is also on display at schools across the country.
I thought Steven Horwitz's comment about the 'degree of animosty' he sees in the comments at DiW interesting. Not sure if he gets where this comes from. My take is its coming people fed up with PC leftists pushing too far. A lot of smart people with money and who vote are waking up to the lies propagated by the left.
Horwitz is correct about the perception of professors in these days. Personnally, I was edged from the left to the center after attending UC Berkeley. Then from the center to the right after the internet decentralized information access (i.e., news sources outside of traditional channels).
You'd be wise to listen to those you disagree with. But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: jeffrey simmons | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 09:52 PM
Another interpretation might be that DUP can act as part of the "interview" process for certain disciplines.
Tortmaster, the problem with your complaint is that you're dealing with hypotheticals you think plausible, but which anyone with a knowledge of the hiring process knows to be entirely untrue. There's absolutely no chance a department abdicates its right to choose who will belong to it based on the recommendations of a university press. In the history of academia, it's never happened. I don't know what more to say. Yes, it's plausible, but given how hiring committees actually work--as K.C. well knows--it's not actually possible.
Posted by: Anon. | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 09:53 PM
I don't have time to respond to all these comments tonight, but I want to make one point abundantly clear:
My regular readers berate me for being too charitable with those on the right. This idea that I'm unwilling to brook any differing opinion is something people've imported from some other place and paradigm. If you honestly believe that I'm an ideological hack, I suggest you read through my archives. If you don't, but still insist I am, I'll call you dishonest, uninterested in dialogue, and stop listening. There's no point in talking to people who don't listen to a word you write, after all.
Posted by: SEK | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 09:58 PM
I haven't gotten involved in this one, not having read any of the texts or blogs under discussion. But my advice would be to answer KC, ignore his commenters. The clownishness of "But he blogs every day!" directed to an academic who blogs every day doesn't really demand a response.
There's a lot of resistance to the term "Horowitzian" or to association with Horowitz' political tactics, even from people like Bauerlein who have written approvingly for Horowitz' site. KC hasn't done that. But there's another commonality, besides that of the attack based on not informing the audience; the use of the political process to attack academia. In this case, the 88 were not simply wrong to sign this statement, their wrongness must also be made to apply to their work, and must be made a symbol of something generally wrong with academia that taps in to right-wing tropes.
Posted by: Rich Puchalsky | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 10:18 PM
Jeffrey wrote:
I thought Steven Horwitz's comment about the 'degree of animosty' he sees in the comments at DiW interesting. Not sure if he gets where this comes from. My take is its coming people fed up with PC leftists pushing too far. A lot of smart people with money and who vote are waking up to the lies propagated by the left.
I have no doubt that that's exactly where it is coming from. My problem is that I think the charges are overblown and often unfair. I'm in the strange position of being a libertarian academic where I have sympathies with both sides in the Great PC Wars. I also teach at a small liberal arts college where the classroom matters first and foremost. I have plenty of colleagues whose substantive views on politics and intellectual issues aren't all that different from the Duke faculty vilified by KC's commenters (and maybe KC too).
The difference is that I don't see most of them turning their classrooms into attempts to "indoctrinate." Most of them are committed to genuine liberal education and teaching students to think critically, read carefully, and write, speak, and research well. If they had an ideological agenda to purge those who didn't share their politics/worldview, I'd be near the head of the line, but I'm not. They are my friends and my colleagues who I respect a great deal and who treat me with equal respect.
When I read the kind of stuff in DIW's comments and even your overwrought comments here, it makes me as sad and angry as I am about the way in which 88 faculty at Duke rushed to judgment, threw their students to the wolves, and have refused to admit their error.
The reality of academia is way more complex than the critics seem to believe or are even aware of (e.g., what happens at R-1 schools isn't the same as at LACs). And some on the radical Left *do* despise their students and *do* have "agendas." But they, I believe, are the exception not the rule.
The real bottom line is that millions of kids are going through college these days and the majority seem to be emerging unscarred for life, able to make a living, and figure out how to think for themselves. If there's an indoctrination campaign going on, it's not working all that well I think.
Most of the faculty I work with are much more concerned about helping students learn to write and speak the language, to find and assess information from all sources with a critical eye, and to develop a sense of purpose and a set of ethical principles to guide them.
The creature homo political-correctus that haunts the Right is largely, but not completely, mythical.
Posted by: Steven Horwitz | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 10:27 PM
Rich wrote:
"In this case, the 88 were not simply wrong to sign this statement, their wrongness must also be made to apply to their work, and must be made a symbol of something generally wrong with academia that taps in to right-wing tropes."
Should we ignore the possibility of a connection between those who signed the statement and their work? What if there is a statistically significant relationship? Should we ignore that as well? How will that ignorance help us to understand what happened in Durham?
I'm not suggesting that the Gang of 88 are serial killers, but I think it was very good that academics found the linkage between harming animals, abuse as children, etc. If you are concerned about "Academic Profiling," I would suggest your concern is wasted. Unless you are going to pilot a plane into a New York building or metaphorically lynch some of your students, you have nothing to fear.
You seem a very intelligent chap, so I won't go on about what happened in Durham, except to ask that you read K.C.'s book. I would hope that somebody in academia WANTS to know how that abomination happened, with the fervor that Einstein went after atoms and such.
________________
Also, to my earlier, "clownish"* post, I wanted to add more about context. What Professor Johnson writes is not set in stone. It is not a book. He has frequently asked the subjects of his posts to comment or e-mail him with corrections or a response. There have been very few of those. Make your own judgments about that.
Professor Johnson has also apologized and made changes to his text. He amplifies the ideas or explains the nuances in the comment section. If the blog is not "peer-reviewed" to your standards, then I suggest that you contact the folks at Duke or jump into the debate yourself.
* "Clownish" is, coincidently, exactly how I describe myself!
Posted by: Tortmaster | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 11:04 PM
I'm not suggesting that the Gang of 88 are serial killers, but I think it was very good that academics found the linkage between harming animals, abuse as children, etc. If you are concerned about "Academic Profiling," I would suggest your concern is wasted. Unless you are going to pilot a plane into a New York building or metaphorically lynch some of your students, you have nothing to fear.
Wow. What a paragraph. The first sentence: huh? Are you suggesting that the Group of 88 were abused as children? Individually or collectively? And in re the last sentence, weren't you the guy going on about "hyperbolic language" above? "Metaphorically lynch"? And in the same sentence as "pilot a plane into a New York building"? Nice...
Good example sentences for the definition of "horowitzian" above, though...
Posted by: CR | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 11:21 PM
I just have to jump in to say, what the fuck is up with all these people claiming a scholar sucks because he or she published "only" one book? Have each and every one of these commenters written more than one book that they can say writing a book is so easy? Have they written these books in conformity with the research and publication standards of an academic discipline, that is, not simply written 300 pages of unrelated crap and hit print, but actually used historical research and footnoting like in a history department, or followed the generally accepted styles for writing about literature from a lit. or classics department, or conducted fieldwork and analyzed it as in an anthropology or linguistics department?
Because, hello, writing a scholarly book is hard. It takes time and a lot of work, and a lot of careful reading of all the other scholars who write upon your topic, and you do tons of the work ---- the research ---- before you even start writing it. Then, if you do finish it, you have to shop it around to various academic or university presses --- and since they are all having their budgets and endowments cut, it is getting more and more difficult to publish with them, even as more pressure is put on scholars (by some of the aforementioned complainers as well) to publish more more more.
There's no "oh only one book" about it, and one book plus 30 articles is fucking amazing, somewhat like writing SIX 5-chapter books, except that each article is on a different topic and collection of research and had to go through its own peer review process.
Posted by: Sisyphus | Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 11:42 PM
This thread finally got me to skim a few pages here and there. Scott may only allude to it, Timothy Burke may be too polite to say it, but since I'm not an academic I can: KC's whole project is embedded in the seamless matrix of wingnuttery. You can start anywhere in it and quickly traverse to any other wingnut issue. For instance, my first Google hit on one of KC's posts (I was looking for the "listening statement") took me to his criticism of Amanda Marcotte, who the wingnutosphere was going after at that time. What does Amanda Marcotte have to do with academia? Nothing. But KC takes the time to rally his base by condemning her other remarks. He goes on and on about Marcotte, a person who as far as I can tell has little to do with the whole Durham scandal, and whose dismissal seems to have been based mostly on her anti-Catholic remarks.
Or take the following quote from KC:
"One Group of 88 member stated that his current project "argues that unless we attempt to read racialized trauma according to a more Freudian, Lacanian understanding for subjectivity we will continue to misunderstand why racial stigma persists and, more generally, why the laws humans create to protect against forms of discrimination leave in place a notion of the racialized subject as emptied of interiority and the psychical.""
That's an Underpants Gnome argument. 1. Lacan, 2. [...], 3. Group of 88. I argue against similar kinds of readings at various times, because I don't think that they work, and I especially don't think that the work in a political context such as the one described in the quote. But the supposedly obvious connection between Lacan and being willing to sign certain kinds of statements only exists in the wingnut matrix. I could equally well take some equation published by the math professor who signed and say, look! set theory!
Posted by: Rich Puchalsky | Wednesday, 29 August 2007 at 12:21 AM
My stupid two cents:
I think a scholar has a better chance of chancing upon a friend when submitting an article to a journal than submitting a book proposal to one's university's academic press. To my knowledge, very few professors of a university's X department works with the X series of that university's academic press. I could be completely wrong, but I don't think a single English professor at the University of Pennsylvania works with UP's academic press. Instead, as others have pointed out, an academic press generally vets feasible proposals and sends manuscripts off to outside readers at various other institutions.
And thank you, Sisyphus, for pointing out what should be obvious but what is painfully ignored: one book and 30 articles is an amazing amount of published work, amounting to four or five books' worth of content (even given the fact that some articles probably came from the book manuscript). Tenure is given on a professor's first five or six years of professional activity at an institution. 700-800 pages of published work is certainly a great feat. (Conservative blogger and Friend of KC, Erin O'Connor, has one book to her name after 10 or 11 years at the U of Penn.)
Finally, all of KC's argument is some ridiculous form of the genetic fallacy. He refuses to engage the scholars on the substance of their work, and instead tries to fault the means of publication and tenure.
Bottom line: the Group of 88 did a stupid thing. What it speaks to is the fact that professors are better off restricting their public activities to their areas of expertise. But their group letter no more undermines their scholarship than the fact that some may have cheated on spouses or on their income tax.
Posted by: Luther Blissett | Wednesday, 29 August 2007 at 12:31 AM