comments powered by Disqus
Ralph E. Luker - 8/28/2005
Adam, Clearly KC speaks for himself, but as I look back over the piece at IHE I can't see that he would object to your observation. Calling it "intellectual diversity" was my choice for the post at Cliopatria, not his. I do think that there is broader ground for you and KC to agree on than you might initially think. Much of your objection to the arrangements at your undergraduate school had to do with the very lack of intellectual or ideological diversity that KC is talking about, didn't it? The only difference I can see is that the school had the kind of tilt to the Right that KC sees as a tilt to the Left in major institutions across the country.
Adam Kotsko - 8/27/2005
Why not just call it "ideological diversity" or "political diversity," since, you know, that's what he's actually talking about?
Sherman Jay Dorn - 8/27/2005
I need to reread the Forum pieces, because while I read the first article when it came out, I only recall it vaguely (and while it was better than the party-registration things, I don't recall being terribly impressed by it).
My impression is that KC was picking the more extreme responses by academicsnot quite a straw-man argument, but not exactly the most serious or productive way to address the issue. So what if Grover Furr doesn't quite get it? That doesn't mean that the opposite point is correct.
- Historian James Harris says Russian archives show we’ve misunderstood Stalin
- The Invisible Labor of Women’s Studies
- Lincoln University historian mourns decision to abolish the history major
- Hamilton College conservative historian questions diversity requirement
- Historians on Donald Trump: A Huge Hit on Facebook