Juan Cole: Denied Yale appointment?Historians in the News
At some level, of course, academic appointments are always political. Qualified human beings making decisions is the essence of politics. Yet, partisans both left and right ought to shun making or denying academic appointments on merely ideological grounds. If a distinguished conservative scholar were denied an appointment at Yale because of her or his conservatism, partisans on the right would be, er, rightly outraged. Academic conservatives at ACTA, Critical Mass, and Phi Beta Cons can't both take heart from the denial of Juan Cole's appointment and continue their campaign for a"depoliticized classroom." However ideological Juan Cole may be, he is no Ward Churchill and conservative ideologues sullied the decision-making process by their ideologically-motivated public campaign against Cole's appointment at Yale. Meanwhile, the University is still without a distinguished scholar of the post-Caliphate Middle East.* In the current world, that seems like a yawning gap in scholarship.
*NB: I stand corrected on that. Abbas Amanat is a Professor of History and of International and Area Studies at Yale.
comments powered by Disqus
Don Williams - 6/6/2006
If Juan Cole's Yale appointment has indeed been shot down, it may not have been the result of the conservative campaign-- although the conservatives certainly tried.
New England Universities are not known for appointing professors on the basis of appeal to ignorant and stupid conservative yahoos.
Rather, Cole's appointment may instead have been fallout from his praise for Mearsheimer and Walt's article on the Israel Lobby. See
The malign effects of the Israel Lobby were known at the time of the Sept 11,2001 on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. That it took until 2006 for two academicians to point out those effects --in an article which had to be published in a FOREIGN journal -- shows the state of academia today.
I believe that Mearsheimer has already noted the negative effects his article will have on his career-- that he is, as the military says, "falling on his sword" over a matter of principle and patriotism.
Rather than any Socratic search for truth, today's academicians gain influence by being like medievial priests -- eager to sell profitable sophistry which defends the rich and powerful and with intellectual ethics best summed up by the phrase "He whose bread I eat his song I sing."
The only philosophical question appears to be the issue of to which group one sells out.
There are many honest academicians, just as there were honest priests.
But they survive by keeping their mouth shut and their findings are never published in the New York Times.
- Hillary Clinton’s 3 debate performances left the Trump campaign in ruins
- Now Austria Says It Will Likely Redesign Hitler's House, Not Tear It Down
- Some looted Idlib National Museum artifacts resurface, fate of others a mystery amidst ‘thriving black market trade’
- Is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau constitutional?
- Poll: Millennials desperately need to bone up on the history of communism
- Does the 'Father' of the 1948 Ethnic Cleansing Narrative Really Want to Recant His Words?
- Max Boot wants to know “what the hell happened to my Republican Party?"
- Conservative historians against Trump sign a petition warning he'd be dangerous
- Benjamin H. Irvin Named OAH Executive Editor
- Historian Diana Ramey Berry praises effort to return the skull of Nat Turner to his family