History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Jennie Weber at American Presidents Blog will host the 33rd History Carnival on 15 June. Send your nominations of exemplary history posts since 1 June to her at coppertop67*at*hotmail*dot*com or use the form.
Adam Kirsch,"Diary of a ‘One-Man Grateful Dead'," New York Sun, 7 June, reviews Louis Moreau Gottschalk, Notes of a Pianist,"one of the most vivid and unvarnished records of ordinary life in the North during the Civil War."
Never mind what new biography of Huey Long Elizabeth Colter is reviewing, her"The Big Sleazy: How Huey Long took Louisiana," New Yorker, 12 June, serves up a delicious gumbo of scandal. With good reason, T. Harry Williams and George Tindall used to call Louisiana"the northernmost of the banana republics." Bit of an insult to Honduras, now that I think about it.
Billmon is back at the Whiskey Bar, with a few candid words about"God and Money at Yale."
As Dylan said: Money doesn't talk, it swears – even if at Yale, it swears politely. It's getting hard to tell what the difference is between Yale University and your average New York street hooker, except that one works on 42nd Street and the other in New Haven, and one sells p***y while the other peddles . . . well, I'm not sure what. Endowed chairs, I guess.
He's frothing at the mouth about Yale's denial of an appointment to Juan Cole. Bitch/Lab calls it"major suckage." Reminded me of comments on some of my student evaluations at Antioch.
But, seriously, they are right about the dangerous precedent this sets for mobilized public warfare over academic appointments. That's a road we ought not travel. There was no orchestrated public campaign by the left on Cole's behalf and academic life just cannot tolerate repetition of the right's campaign against him. Swiftboating our political life is bad enough; swiftboating our academic life is intolerable.
On basketball, I don't know: the Coleman Committee, as I said in another comment, doesn't provide breakdowns of team alcohol offenses. It's entirely possible that one or two were guilty of underage consumption of alcohol. And if Duke wants to adopt a policy of automatic suspension from athletic teams for alcohol offenses, I have absolutely no problem with that. But the institution can't act as if such a policy existed before 3-13, and then condemn the lacrosse players for failing to follow a university policy that didn't exist at the time.
I don't want academic appointments determined by outside mobilizations. But this gets back to the substance vs. procedure point. If the substance of the outside criticism is fundamentally correct, which in this case I think it is, then it's perfectly legitimate to ask why 13 of 23 voted yes in the History Department.
Had the History vote been 20-3, it seems to me quite unlikely the senior committee would have voted no. But given the severe divisions in the department, a close inspection by the senior committee is unsurprising.
And I'll repeat, just for the record, you're making an assumption that I don't consider warranted: that the vote of 13 of 23 in History wasn't motivated by political concerns; but the vote of the senior professors in the senior appointments committee was motivated by political concerns. Cole's politics, as we all know, aren't exactly out of line with the strong majority of the academy. I don't know the membership of the senior appointments committee at Yale: perhaps they were all Zionist Bush supporters. But I doubt it.
Oscar Chamberlain -
6/12/2006
Thanks for the Gottschalk link. I have long enjoyed Lawrence Levine's Shakespeare in America and the way changes in the manner of performance indicates larger changes in society.
This looks like a fine primary source companion.
Ralph E. Luker -
6/11/2006
I stand corrected on the Washington assault case, but why is it inconceivable to you that student athletes' consumption of alcohol can be under control, when Duke's basketball team seems well under control on that score? You don't have to assume that I'm making an argument for prohibition. The successful control of student athletes' behavior by Duke's Coach K is probably more on the administration's scope than it is on yours.
I can't believe that you want academic appointments determined by left/right mobilizations of propaganda and financial resources. I trust majority votes by both the history and the sociology departments at Yale before I'd trust mobilized wind machines and financial lobbyists.
Robert KC Johnson -
6/11/2006
On the Finnerty issue: he was not charged with gay-bashing, which is a hate-crime and a felony, nor was he charged with a felony at all, as I noted before. He was charged with a misdemeanor: he got in a fight. Therefore Duke's rule didn't apply to him. Maybe Duke should have a policy of suspending all students charged with misdemeanors. In that case, it would have suspended 400 students in the last year alone, according to the figures supplied by the Coleman Committee Report. Personally, I think he should have been suspended from the lacrosse team after the charge, and would have no problem with such a policy. What I DO have a problem with is Duke's selective enforcement approach--i.e., severely criticizing an unpopular group (in this case men's lacrosse players) for certain offenses, but offering no comment about other students' commitment of these very same offenses. (I'm not applying that comment to you, by the way--you've been consistent in condemning the offenses across the board.)
I don't like the use of alcohol on campus any more than you do. I'm just very dubious as to the ability of a school of Duke's size and composition to deal with it. The recent Rolling Stone article on Duke shows that the lacrosse players are hardly alone as part of a student alcohol culture there.
On Wilentz, I had misunderstood your point, which is an interesting one. But there seems to me a big difference between Cole and him on this point. I've read just about all of Wilentz's scholarship--I consider him to be a very fair historian, someone whose work suggests that he lets the chips fall where they may, even about conservatives. There's nothing in the few pieces that Cole lists as "scholarship" for the 20th century that suggests a similar willingness to set aside his very very strong biases against Israel in any aspect of his scholarly work. I see no reason why that shouldn't be a problem, as I wouldn't if Wilentz's last book, for instance, argued that the road to the Civil War is best explained by the United States adopting the very same policies that GW Bush has exhibited as President.
On the political litmus test issue, I go back to my original point: it seems to me that you're assuming that Cole's standing and the support that he received from 13 of 23 in the Yale History Department comes from his academic qualities and not a basic agreement with his worldview. I see no reason to accept that as a basic assumption. And I see no more reason why a Middle East Studies professor should be given a pass for a history of making wild and often intellectually dubious statements about Israel, a subject he would have to teach, than a Jewish Studies professor should be given a pass for a history of making wild and intellectually dubious statements about the Palestinians. It seems to me that, even though we all have our ideological biases, we also should be able to establish baseline definitions on what passes for intellectual quality.
Ralph E. Luker -
6/11/2006
_Finally_, (Caleb McDaniel's example of commenting three times in a row on one post giving me leave) the refusal to take countervailing evidence into account is one of your primary charges against Nifong. It seems to me that you have to exemplify in your own writing what you indict him for not doing. I realize that the consequences of his not doing it may be more significant for the students, but if you're going to make an issue of it with him I think you have to do what he's failed to do.
Ralph E. Luker -
6/11/2006
I should add that I mentioned Sean Wilentz, not intending to compare his scholarship with Cole's, because I don't think there's any meaningful way of comparing them. I mentioned Wilentz because, like Cole, he is an intense public partisan. I don't know that he's ever spoken more kindly of the Republican Party than Cole has of Israel. Still, even though a Republican, I'd jump at the chance to hire Wilentz, if given the opportunity. There's a fairly long history of scholars as intense partisans in the causes that they study.
Ralph E. Luker -
6/11/2006
Brodhead followed previously established policy that Duke students charged with a felony would be suspended until their case was disposed. The student charged with gay-bashing in DC was fortunate that he'd escaped that penalty until he violated his informal probation by participating in the party at 610. Neither you nor Rubin take sufficient account of the seriousness of offenses by the lacrosse team members that are beyond dispute. They certainly are, in my judgment, serious enough to warrant suspending the lacrosse team's schedule for the season. Linking that to the unresolved murder in New Haven is dubious journalism. Brodhead could have been charged with administrative malfeasance had he not suspended the team's schedule for the remainder of the season.
I should say, btw, that I've found your posts, here at Cliopatria and elsewhere, about the legal case against the Duke students very persuasive. I'm much less convinced by what you've said about the student culture and administrative action at Duke.
Partisans of Israel and Israel's neighbors both suffer from ignorance because of their very partisanship. Even so well-informed a scholar as Eugene Volokh, for instance, was surprised to discover that Iran has a historically significant Jewish community and that, even under the current regime, a seat in Iran's parliament is reserved for the Jewish community. If one reads only the work of scholars one agrees with, the ignorance is re-enforced. Reading anything by Rubin, for instance, won't force you to take account of inconvenient evidence. You really do need to consider to what degree your argument for a Middle Eastern Studies' candidate's position on Israel becomes the very kind of political litmus test for appointment that you've objected to so eloquently in other cases.
My point about narrow time frames was, simply, that given our relatively brief national history Americanists are likely to take century-based job descriptions much more seriously that job searches in other fields. In his department, Jon Dresner must cover China, Korea, and Japan since Adami and Evi. Centuries be damned. To a lesser degree, that's true of all non-Americanists.
Robert KC Johnson -
6/11/2006
On the Rubin NRO piece: he never mentions the phrase civil rights, or claims that Brodhead violated the civil rights of the lacrosse players in cancelling the season. His argument is that in both the Van de Velde case and at Yale, Brodhead took actions and made statements that left the impression, whether intentional or not, that the administration considered Van De Velde at Yale and the lacrosse players at Duke were guilty. This is an unfortunate pattern--compounded by the far less defensible recent statements of the administration (the Bliwire article, Brodhead's remarks accompanying restoration of the program).
On the Cole appointment: I've never said or written anything that even resembles a claim that "a candidate for a position in Middle Eastern Studies must be sympathetic to the current regime in Israel." Indeed, I would suspect that, as many Arab countries don't grant visas to visitors with Israeli stamps on their passports, most people who do Middle East Studies are likely, for pragmatic reasons if no other, to have a greater intellectual sympathy with the Arab world than with Israel--though, of course, they're required to teach both, since both are part of the Middle East. (I'm not aware of any position in Jewish Studies where the candidate is required to teach about Iran, or in many cases even about the Palestinians.) I have said, however, as with Cole and with others in the MESA establishment, that when a candidate's animus toward Israel is so extreme that it generates questions as to his fair-mindedness on the region that he is supposed to teach, it's perfectly reasonable for colleges to consider the fact.
On the chronology: I assume you're not comparing the quality of Wilentz's scholarship to the quality of Cole's? It's been my experience, both at Brooklyn and at Williams, that when departments advertise for a position, we give preference for candidates who fit the written job description. A case, in fact, could be made that for affirmative action and other reasons, colleges are legally obligated to do so.
Getting back to my original point: I've still seen no reason, based on what's publicly available, why we must assume, as a given, that the vote of 13 of 23 senior History Department members in this case was motivated by academically pure goals; and the actions of Cole's critics were motivated by "smear" tactics.
Ralph E. Luker -
6/10/2006
I'm disappointed that you cite the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin as a credible source both on Brodhead and the lacrosse players and on Cole and Yale. Rubin is simply wrong to argue that Brodhead violated the lacrosse players' civil rights by suspending the team's season. And, if you and he are going to argue that a candidate for a position in Middle Eastern Studies must be sympathetic to the current regime in Israel, you must also argue that candidates for positions in Jewish Studies must be sympathetic to a current Palestinian or Iranian regime. Finally, your narrow definitions of who is qualified for a position in terms of their period of research probably derives from your being an Americanist. Even then, if Sean Wilentz were to apply for a position in 20th century American political history at my institution, I don't think I'd want to reject his candidacy simply because he's concentrated on the 19th.
Robert KC Johnson -
6/10/2006
I'll do so--provided, as has been the case with the attacks against Cole, the attacks revolve around things I've said or done related to my field of study and the attacks are credible.
The fact that outside attacks occur, it seems to me, isn't the issue. The question is the substance of the attacks. Simply saying the attacks are the work of "smear artists" and therefore should be dismissed isn't terribly persuasive. Shortell said the same thing in his bid to become Brooklyn's Sociology chair, even though the "smear artists" were simply quoting his words. In this instance, most of the attacks against Cole have been accurate, consisting of using his own words against him; others, such as Kramer's on Cole and internal disputes within the Baha'i, have been at best speculative; but few (if any) have been proven swift-boatian.
There seem to me two basic assumption that you're making in this case that I'm unwilling to make: that the motives of 13 of 23 members of the Yale History Department were academically pure, while the motives of Cole's opponents are academically impure. The second is clearly true for some, though I see no evidence that all who oppose Cole are academically impure. As to the first, that the 13 of 23 couldn't come up with a candidate whose scholarship actually was in the same century as the position suggests to me that there might have been other aspects of Cole's background that appealed to them.
Ralph E. Luker -
6/10/2006
The next time you are a candidate for a position at another academic institution, remind me to ignore attacks on your candidacy from George Soros and left wing smear artists.
Robert KC Johnson -
6/10/2006
It's indeed true that "there was no orchestrated public campaign by the left on Cole's behalf." Cole's views are widely known; anyone on the left could easily have spent a few minutes and summarized his perceptive perspective of the modern Middle East.
So what didn't they? The fact that this didn't occur points to the dilemma of the MESA establishment--which Cole personifies. Academic freedom, of course, allows MESA activists who focus on 20th century commentary to offer as extreme an interpretation as they like on the Middle East since World War I. But should there be any surprise that, having done so, MESA finds itself with few people outside of its academic ranks willing to defend its ideas?
A good comparison might be LASA in the 1980s. Latin American Studies also is a left-leaning group. But LASA also was able to influence the broader public and US foreign policy, to some extent, in the 1980s, because their views weren't so extreme that they seemed absurd to anyone outside the academy.
So what we got instead from Cole's defenders was an argument based on procedure: 13 of 23 senior members of the History Department voted for Cole; academic freedom means this result can't be criticized by anyone from the outside, because academic procedure filters out politics and relies solely on the academic merit of the candidates.
That leaves, however, the non-ideological question of why the department's academic procedure, in a position that's been described as modern Middle East, resulted in the tendering of an offer to someone whose scholarship focuses almost exclusively on the 18th and 19th century Middle East. Is New Haven so unattractive that the department couldn't come up with one candidate who fit the job description? Or perhaps, in this case, the procedure broke down.
On the swiftboating point: my interpretation of swiftboating is the articulation of basically false allegations. My interpretation of the essence of the public campaign against Cole was the following: based, in large measure, on the words of his blog, his views on the subject matter he teaches (a remarkably presentist set of courses on the Middle East, at least based on his Michigan website) are extreme, and seem motivated by a bias against Israel (and to a somewhat lesser extent US foreign policy) that seems less academic than political in motivation.
This argument might be persuasive; it might not be. (I think it is largely persuasive.) But I don't think it can be called swiftoating--it's certainly not demonstrably false.
