Academe: September 2007 Archives

Yeah, it's all about me here.

You know, the quote that sums up my feelings about the whole Columbia/Iran/UC Regents/Chemerinsky/Larry Summers/UC Davis/academic freedom fooferaw is this one:

The issue we see with Columbia is deeper than freedom of speech but rather the inconsistency with which university faculties choose to support it.

Some consistency would be refreshing, although you could be cynical and argue that the academy has always been perfectly consistent with regard to free speech:  as long as it conforms to a particular political ideology, it's free. Otherwise, not so much.

And now for something completely different:  HAT WATCH, DAY 22....

A Mr. Wuf head. Mr. Wuf is the NCSU mascot, for those who are unfamiliar with the Giant Mascot Copyright-Off of Aught Seven.  I was unaware that they made hats out of the upper portion of his head and jaw, but I guess you learn something new every day. 

Dropoff took almost 10 minutes today.

From patting yourselves on the back so hard.

Poor Columbia.  This whole thing has devolved into exactly the kind of political/media circus we've all expected, complete with self-satisfied proclamations on the part of Columbia's president that he will "ask tough questions," the inevitably clueless, morally equivalent knee-jerk response of student activists about how can that be fair, since we didn't "ask tough questions of the Minutemen racists," and an article in the Columbia Spectator with a comments section that has devolved into a flame war wherein the most scathing insult the students can muster is to call people "stupid." Granted, they are deft in their use of synonyms, but still...

But that whooshing sound you hear is the entire campus missing the point.  Several points, really, the most important of which is the simplest:  What, exactly, do they hope to accomplish by hosting this man, and what do they think will actually be accomplished by doing so?

According to the comments section, here's what some folks believe will be accomplished:

It's interesting that people constantly raise Hitler and Nazi Germany. Under Nicholas Murray Butler, Columbia got involved in a controversy back then when it tried to send a message of contragulations to, I think, Heidelberg, but was seen as an endorsement of Nazism.

Of course, today, we can see such criticism to be hollow and motivated by hysteria, but it was hard to do so at the time.

In time, people will think the same of the criticism of this invitation and recognize how forward-looking Columbia actually is.

Ah, so by inviting a crazy homicidal racist head of state to campus, Columbia will cement its reputation as "forward-looking." Nice to know that even in a high-stakes situation, the academy can still focus on the low-stakes payoff.

Now let me tell you, as a seasoned academic PR professional, what will actually be accomplished by hosting this visit:  a massive PR opportunity for a crazy dude, who will be able to use it to show that The Great Satan cannot possibly withstand his personal power, that the intelligentsia were cowed by his masterful arguments, and that America is a paper tiger. Do you think anyone in Iran will hear actual unedited audio, or see photos of the protests?  Do you think that maybe, just maybe, propagating those false impressions might inspire people to violence? But hey, as long as Columbia can be seen as "forward-looking," the rest is just details, right?

In addition, you've just called down a huge pile of crap upon your pr folks and donor managers. Not that my personal interest makes me biased... 

Ironically, after the firestorm of media dies down, I'm thinking that "forward-looking" is probably not going to be the adjective most commonly used to refer to Columbia.

Let me see if I've got this right:

Larry Summers is too dangerous a symbol of racism and sexism to speak to any students attending university in California, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who's been pretty upfront about wanting to bomb a country because he doesn't like Jews, and whose attitude toward women is somewhat less than progressive, is okay to speak at Columbia?

I wonder if Columbia would let Summers speak, and if Ahmadinejad would be welcomed by the UC regents?

It just seems that if the grounds for disinviting someone are that "inviting a keynote speaker who has come to symbolize gender and racial prejudice in academia conveys the wrong message to the university community and to the people of California," then I'm thinking the answer to part II of the above question is "no."  Dunno about part 1 - has Summers spoken at Columbia post-Harvard explosion?

On a related note, I would like to tell the Sisterhood At Large, Academic Division, to please stop acting like a bunch of prissy-pants weenie heads about Larry Summers.  You got his ass fired, which proves to anyone with a brain where the true power lies.  Getting all a-twitter because the guy may actually TALK IN PUBLIC AT A UNIVERSITY, ON A TOPIC COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE HARVARD HOO-HA, just makes you look like a bunch of wimpy chicks who can't handle icky bad words.

I'd tell you to grow a collective pair, but I don't feel like dealing with the mess that will result when your heads explode due to my use of scary, heteronormative, phallocentric LANGUAGE.

So this particularly ignorant and self-absorbed student op-ed has already been thoroughly giggled at - read it, it's hilarious! 

Andrea links to the link to the article in IvyGate, in which myriad commenters pile onto the writer - not to point out the roughly 2 billion errors within the op-ed - but to make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that the writer DOES NOT GO TO COLUMBIA, DAMMIT! And that all these PRETENDERS who COULDN'T GET INTO COLUMBIA need to STOP SAYING THEY GO THERE! 

Which, okay, I get not wanting to see your school being dragged through the mud because of one dingaling's supremely uninformed ravings in a public forum, but let's get real. That's not the source of the outrage here. When you read between the lines (or even just read the lines themselves) the message is clear: Can't have those filthy little Barnard interlopers polluting the hallowed halls!  Thrill to the backhanded "compliments," the "damning with faint praise" and the whiffs of condescension so strong I had to step outside for fresh air after reading them!

Although I will hand it to the commenters - they are well-prepared, if they so choose, to pursue a life within academia, where the stakes are routinely this low.

Ah, intellectual snobbery:  our only true uniter in these divisive times.