The Dartmouth Observer Guide to Professors and Courses

The Review does it...albeit with mixed results. Note to TDR editors: Mary Kelley, Alex Bontemps, Don Menge, Robert Fogelin, and Walter Stephens have either left Dartmouth or retired; Roger Masters no longer teaches Government 6, although I hear he's preparing an interdisciplinary Government/Chemistry class on Affirmative Action and Silicoflourides; History 44 is Medieval France, not Spain in the Golden Age; it's Heide, not Heidi Whelan (Emmett Hogan said something about this in a recent Dartlog post about this). Pedantry aside, all the professors the Review lists under the "Best" heading are pretty damn good. I've had classes with David Lagomarsino, Peter Saccio, Heide Whelan, and Jeremy Rutter, and they are truly outstanding. I'm not so sure about their "Worst" professors though...

The Free Press does it, but I don't have a copy of it with me right now, so I will avoid comment. Note to Free Press editors: update your website!!

The Dartmouth Observer should do it to, except that we should write lengthier reviews using concrete examples and avoiding ideological bias.

So I'll get the ball rolling, starting with my English 5 Prof.:

1) Donald Sheehan (English). I had the fortune of taking English 5 with Professor Sheehan, who is quite possibly the most distinguishable professor on campus. An Eastern Orthodox Christian, he has a lengthy beard that reaches down past his waist. In class, Prof. Sheehan moderated with skill and intelligence some truly exceptional discussions. To date, I have not encountered any professor capable of leading students - remember, these were first-term freshmen - through what was admittedly pretty complex subject material. While other English 5 professors go for Heart of Darkness and The Great Gatsby - great but short and probably much-read books - Prof. Sheehan had us read selections from the Gospel of Mark, Shakespeare's Winter's Tale , and almost the entire Aeneid. In his other classes, he teaches more of the Bible, a few other Shakespeare plays, and also Dostoevsky. His wonderful teaching aside, he is also an exceptional human being. You can read a superb essay of his on Dostoevsky here. Unfortunately, Prof. Sheehan teaches only first-year and MALS classes.

Also on my list:

[Name (Department) - Course I took with him/her]

Allen Koop (History) - History 53, Lewis Duncan (Engineering - see my previous post) - Engineering Sciences 7, Heide Whelan (History) - History 56, William Spengemann (English; he's retired, but heck) - English 67, Walter Simons (History) - History 3 and 43, Bill Cook (English) - English 50, David Wykes (English) - English 29, Manuele "Lele" Gragnolati (Italian) - Italian 33, Peter Saccio (English) - English 24, Jere Daniell (History) - History 11.

Posted by kungfuzi at 8:15 PM | |

 
Arts and Letters Daily is back!

After a short hiatus, Arts and Letters Daily is back and serving up more thought-provoking, fascinating articles for public consumption. Here are just two that struck my eye:

1) Todd Gitlin criticizes the current anti-war movement as being dominated by a "self-proclaimed anti-imperialists who seem to have little to no interest in the security of Americans or the world. (If you think I exaggerate, take a look at the www.internationalanswer.org.)"

2) George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein go head-to-head...except in 18th century prose. I am, Sir, your most humble, etc...



Posted by kungfuzi at 7:42 PM | |

 
Terrorism and Relativism

My friend Chris Curran has a fabulous op-ed in today's D in which he highlights the immoral, relativist implications of statements like "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Clear, thoughtful and insightful, Chris' comments are definately worth a read.

Posted by Vijay at 11:46 AM | |

 
Apopleptic Now

I very much enjoyed the image of Brent Kesler falling into an apopalectic fit over the terrible prose in my post Blind to Postmodernism. I am sad that his outrage over my writing ability led him to spell "apopleptic" incorrectly. I plead guilty to sometimes taking this weblog posting less seriously than other pieces of writing, as I view it as more part of a conversation.

I do appreciate Mr. Kesler's criticisms. Has Mr. Kesler read an earlier post of mine, "Postmodern Conservatives'? I ask because I do not think Mr. Kesler mentions it. The original point of my criticism in this thread was to disagree with Mr. Stevenson's talk about race being a 'postmodern' social construction; I noted that this point does not logically lead to Stevenson's position that the government should be absolutely race-blind and race is no longer useful. Stevenson's response did not specifically respond to my points about the government using racial data to enforce civil rights laws and racial profiling (race is useful there, isn't it?). Stevenson focused on my criticism at the end of my post, which questioned his suspicious use of academic jargon. Hence, my (admittedly poorly edited) post "Blind to Postmodernism" focused on the jargon issue. Unless I remember incorrectly, the context in which I was questioning Stevenson's (mis)use and (mis)understanding of postmodernism and academic jargon, was my argument that it was invalid for Stevenson to tie social constructions and race-blindess together. As I noted before, I hope Stevenson will specifically respond to my examples about race. I will say more about race-blindness in the future. For now, the rest of this post will respond to Mr. Kesler¡¯s criticism of my post, "Blind to Postmodernism."

First let me say that Brent Kesler's 'point by point' refutation of my criticism of Stevenson completely ignores my comment that John wrongly said critical theorists were part of postmodernism. John's misunderstanding of postmodernism means he apparently does not realize that so-called 'diversity advocates' come in many more stripes (such as those Critical Theorists, like Habermas, who are opposed to postmodernists, and liberal multiculturalists like Will Kymlicka). If you were aware of these different traditions, you know people can be a lefty type who believes in multiculturalism and yet not rely on Foucault, postmodernism, or radical moral relativism. Mr. Kesler told us later that he did not know anything about Critical Theory. My question is: does Mr. Stevenson? I only have only seen evidence to the contrary.

What Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Kesler spent much space on was my questioning of Stevenson's claim that these diversity advocates were "Nietzschean in its methodology, Marxist in its ontology, and Foucaultian in its analysis." My initial response was "huh??" Marx's ontology (theory of being) specifically relied on class, and excluded race and gender, very important categories to diversity advocates. Mr. Kesler entered the fray and said I was wrong because Marx's ontology was one of dialectical materialism, and 'diversity advocates' rely on dialectics. First, that's not entirely true: not all them do rely on dialectics. Second, the other diversity advocates share only the dialectics, not the materialism. And Marx's dialectical materialism referred to class antagonisms connected with the modes of production, hence my original claim. I stand by my point that Marx did not have an 'ontology' of race or gender. If you want to say that Marx and ¡®diversity advocates share something because they both analyze large groups, wouldn't it be preferable to say what is shared is Marxist analysis (or something besides ontology)? But if Mr. Stevenson now wants to make the more limited claim that some diversity advocates share part of Marx's ontology (if dialectics can properly be considered part of ontology), then I share no deep disagreement I care to get into.

Mr. Kesler has two interesting interpretations about how the idea the ubermensch relates to diversity advocates and their being Nietzchean in their methodology. I'm skeptical, given the structure of Mr. Stevenson's sentences, about one of those interpretations, but I think I'll wait at least until Mr. Stevenson says what he has in mind (I'd rather have him address my substantive criticism about race).

As I noted before, I never questioned that many diversity advocates rely on at least some of these thinkers, even if not in the way Mr. Stevenson outlines. I cannot see the relevancy of Mr. Kesler's points about these diversity advocates not having to have read Foucault et. al specifically to rely on them. I'm not sure what essence of Foucaultian analysis that Mr. Kesler think is shared all of these diversity advocates.Besides, what I asked was whether Foucault would actually separate the tools we use to analyze the world from the ontology of the world, which would be contrary to Mr. Stevenson's earlier statement. Mine was a question not an assertion, but Mr. Kesler strangely doesn't even address my only specific point.

In any case, I specifically noted I was not sure about my questioning on my points about Foucault and Nietzche. While my writing is unclear, when I'm uncertain of something I try to make that clear. I expect to be challenged if I assert with authority something that others do not agree with, as I did to Mr. Stevenson, and Mr. Kesler did to me. There are other minor things Mr. Kesler said that I could dispute, but I do not think this is very important. I will note that many of my challenges to Mr. Stevenson's assertions have gone unanswered. A minor one is that he asserted the authority of Adam Smith (on another matter) but didn't answer whether he had actually read Smith's book. But the major one is that though Stevenson has restated he wanted to transcend race, John Stevenson has so far not responded to my specific questions of him earlier about whether his race-blindness is absolute and how he can defend this based on the original arguments he gave. I was not at the Race Matters conference, so I obviously can't speak to the specific speakers there, but I just want Mr. Stevenson to acknowledge that the diversity advocates are a diverse bunch and realize his criticisms are necessarily limited by his apparent lack of knowledge. Again, his use of 'postmodernist' logic to argue for an absolutist position on race does make sense. The logical implication is that race should never be used for anything by the government is that we should not use it to track and stop discrimination and stop enforcing civil rights laws. And if he's not willing to go that far (and I've asked him several times to be specific), his major basis for attacking the diversity advocates (that race was not real and a social construction) falls apart.


Posted by Timothy at 7:34 PM | |

 
Thoughts on today's Teach-In and "Why War?" Rally

Before I begin, I'll make my position clear: I don't have a strong position on the imminent attack on Iraq. I'm not much of a political person, contrary to what many people might think.

1) The speakers, including SA President Janos, Profs. Shelby Grantham and Agnes Lugo-Ortiz, employed much inflated rhetoric, but made very few substantive points about why a pre-emptive strike against Iraq would be a bad thing. I know that rally's aren't meant to be academic lectures, but I really wish those who went up there today had more solid points to make. One of the speakers - I think she was from the United Church of Christ - said something to the effect of, "we need to sit down together and talk, and the world will be a better place...all the United Churches of Christ have come together to write a letter to Saddam Hussein pleading with him to allow weapons inspectors back into the country." I kid you not.

2) Where were the pro-war views? I'm surprised that the Dartmouth Review didn't show up carrying "Wanted: Dead or Alive" pictures of Saddam Hussein. This would have added a little flavor to proceedings. As things stood, the ideological conformity at the Rally was quite stifling. Someone next to me tried to make a dissenting point, but he was quickly shouted down.

3) The Teach-Ins looked excellent; I really wish I could have gone to all of them. Some of the professors who spoke are among Dartmouth's best: Dale Eickelman talked about the relevance of the Japanese model to post-Saddam Iraqi politics, and Edward Bradley - I doubt you could call him a leftist radical - discussed Athenian Imperialism in the Age of Pericles. The one I attended was by Lewis Duncan, Dean of the Thayer School of Engineering. I took my freshman seminar, entitled "Technology and the Future of Human Society," with him, and he proved to be an outstanding teacher. (He's also an outstanding researcher: he was a Carnegie Science Fellow at Stanford and worked at Los Alamos for 10 years). What amazed me is how he could moderate discussions of topics such as cloning and environmental pollution without ever giving away his personal thoughts on the matter. I tried to ply him for his views during his office hours (which, for an administrator, were extensive - pretty much any time, he said), but still no luck. Today, he began his short presentation on weapons of mass destruction by stating his opposition to the war, but made it absolutely clear that dissent would be welcomed. After he finished his lecture, which sent a chill down my spine, it almost seemed as if he had set it up in opposition to his own beliefs. I doubt Shelby Grantham would have been as impartial.

If any freshmen reading the Observer are looking for a seminar next term, then I highly encourage you to take his class. You get to discuss highly relevant issues, read some very interesting stuff, and write thought-provoking papers. I cannot speak more highly of Prof. Duncan. Plus, you'll have yours truly as your Writing Assistant. I don't bite, I promise...

Look where I've ended up.

Posted by kungfuzi at 7:05 PM | |

 
Farewell, Senator Wellstone

His is a loss to our nation, and to the world. From onlookers of any ideology, a man who fights for what he believes, honestly and fairly, deserves the highest respect. This is a man who, rather than bending to the will of politics, wielded that hammer to his advantage. This is not a man who backed down from voicing his opposition to war on Iraq because to oppose such a war woud be a boon to his opposition; this is a man who engaged his constituents with an explanation of his vote, defending it passionately and winning them with his honesty. American political leadership should not be a short-term dictatorial position granted at the whim of a manipulated populace, utilized for self-serving ends - it should be a demonstration of the sort of resolve, rationality, candor, and honesty that was embodied by Senator Wellstone. Bless you sir, and thank you for your years of service to our country.

Posted by Anonymous at 3:35 PM | |

 
An Apology to Mr. Waligore

I have recently blitzed Mr. Waligore, concerning my most recent post English and Postmodernist Objections to Mr. Stevenson. My blitz had one simple purpose: to apologize for some of what I had written. I still stand by my substantive arguments, mostly those concerning definitions and their application, and even some of my points on the use of language. However, I wrote with needless violence, and regret my error.

Reflecting on my mindset at that time, I see that I had let my editorial fury take control of my keyboard, and did not moderate it with tact. My friends know that I am a great lover of language (does "left-brained word fetish" flash any lights?) , and I especially love to dabble in the relationship between word and thought. This is why I like to edit. However, I also like to occansionally one up my opponents, and in this case, once I got the ink flowing, I had so overawed myself with the powers of these words, and my own poer in wielding them, that I did not stopp to think through their effects. This merely explains my behavior; it does not excuse it.

It gladdens me that Mr. Waligore took all this in stride, and evened offered to let me edit his response on this thread. Unfortunately, my class schedule leaves me little free time, and, I must confess, I have only a fleeting familiarity with the topic at hand. His response looks at issues of Critical Theory and postmodernism, which lie beyond my comprehension.

I must also apologize to the readers and contributors of the Observer. This apology serves two purposes. First, to relieve myself of the regret I accrued. That issue worked out between myself and Mr. Waligore. Second, the Observer is a rare sort of publication--it holds intelligent analysis of the issues at hand, striving not to support one specific ideology, but to look at issues from many perspecitives. By plunging into the oily pool of linguisitic rage, I endangered that aspect of this forum, and I would not want to see the Observer morph into "just another group of self-righteous intelligentsia."

So now I'll observe Strunk's Rule 17 and omit needless words: I apologize.

Posted by Anonymous at 12:16 AM | |

 
"So you may be surprised that I'm encouraging you to read his stuff."

Chien Wen Kung posts a link to a writer attacking Stanley Fish. I'm shocked, shocked.

Posted by Timothy at 10:46 PM | |

 
London Review of Books / Terry Eagleton Trilogy:

Here are three excellent articles, all by Terry Eagleton. Prof. Eagleton is presently Professor of Cultural Theory at the University of Manchester; he made his name as one of the most prominent Marxist theorists in contemporary literary criticism. So you may be surprised that I'm encouraging you to read his stuff. But his background does not detract from the quality of his writing:

1) Eagleton on Gayatri Spivak
2) Eagleton on Stanley Fish
3) Eagleton on T.S. Eliot

Posted by kungfuzi at 4:53 PM | |

 
It depends on what the definition of "regime change" is....

The President said: "If [Saddam] were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I've described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed ..."

Bush has a new and interesting definition of the 'regime change' he has long called for: if the regime has changed its ways, then that is regime change. I got this from blogger Josh Marshall, who notes: "Could anybody but this president have managed to get away with uttering such a quote? What we're seeing here is a grey glimmer of that undiscovered country where verbal goofballism meets the honed edge of grand strategy."

Posted by Timothy at 9:58 AM | |

 
Tim's Fun Page

Do you want to take a break from all this serious talk?
Check out Bible stories, illustrated with legos. The Epistles of Paul of is especially amusing. This "Brick Testament" is rated for sex, violence and nudity. Sorry, being a religion and lego lover, I had to link to this.

Check this comic, this one, or this one. They are lefty comics, but there are no links to Ted Rall, I promise.

And from Anagramgenius.com:

Rearranging the letters of 'National Review' gives:
Vote in a new liar.
An oriental view.

Rearranging the letters of 'The New Republic' gives:
Weren't blue-chip.
White preen club.
Peril, but whence?

I know you all eagerly await my response on postmodern confusion, but I thought you'd enjoy this for now.


Posted by Timothy at 7:41 PM | |

 
Future Faculty

This discussion has degenerated into an irrelevant quibble over words, in short, a truly postmodern debate. At this rate you could all qualify for tenure at the elite American university of your choice. There is not very much original about Foucault. He is the logical bastardson of Marx and Neitzche. He combined the concentration of the former on methods of social control with the focus of the latter on individualist morality. Following the disappearance of Communism as a viable alternative to capitalism, the academic left, unwilling to abandon its commitment to social revolution, thenceforth known as deconstruction, naturally adopted his thought as a Marxism Lite tailored to the needs of a postmaterialist era.

Posted by Anonymous at 10:16 AM | |

 
English and Postmodernist Objections to Mr. Stevenson

As I read Mr. Waligore's post Blind About Postmodernism, I fell into an apopalectic fit as the ghost of William Strunk Jr. siezed my body and began making red marks all over my computer screen--such was the intensity of his rage that I hadn't the opportunity to explain to him the benefits of modern technology.

In other words, I don't really know what, if anything, Mr. Waligore tried to say. I think he is accusing John Stevenson of not knowing what he's talking about. I thought if I went back to the beginning of this thread, I might find some insight, but no luck. All of his lengthy posts read like a stream of consciousness. They jump from one point to another without pause to make sure we're still listening, or even understanding. It demonstrates his own lack of understanding of the topic at hand. So, what follows is a sort of a hodge-podge of a response. If this frustates my readers, I remind them of the material I have to work with.

1. Marxist Ontology
Waligore writes:
Yet as Stevenson surely knows, Marx thought that in the world, class was the only thing we should care about. He did not have an 'ontology' of race or gender. In fact, he and mainstream Marxists been criticized on that score. So diversity advocates, or whatever you want to call them, are NOT using a "Marxist ontology," as John says. They are using Marxist ways of looking at things to ANALYZE totally different things in the world BEYOND "Marxist Ontology,"

Incorrect, Mr. Waligore. Marxist ontology is one of dialectical materialism. This means that human activity is determined by the material conditions of time and place. If I live in South Bend, Indiana during the 1950s, I'll drive a Studebaker. If I live in South Bend, Indiana in the 1830s, the Feds will relocate me to Kansas or Oklahoma. Marx analyzed how this ontology led to conflict between the classes of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Just because Marx concerned himself with class does not mean his entire ontology was about class. It was about material conditions and power, and one can apply it to race and gender as easily as one applies it to class.

Thus, Mr. Stevenson does not mislabel Marxist ontology, nor does he get his arguments backward. In fact, he has hit his target.

2. Nietzschean Methodology
On a less assured note, I am not clear how the idea of the ubermensch is a methodology (it seems on first glance to be closer, if anything, to being an ontology?) and also I am not sure how the idea of the ubermensch connects to a theory that minority groups are being oppressed, though here I can think of some possible connections. You could make a better case that Nietzche's geneology is aking to a methodology used by 'diversity advocates.'

I'm not quite sure what it means to "ak" to a methodology, and I have no idea what the original word should have been. But I can discuss Nietzsche.

First of all, the übermensch concept is about ethics and the will to power, not onotology. Übermenschen constitute a higher form of humanity, and thus our herd ethics of "good" and "evil" do not apply to them. I see two ways for it to connect to a theory of minority oppression. First, the oppressors view themselves as such supermen, and thus may oppress with impunity. This idea fueled much Nazi rhetoric. Second, considering the rhetoric of many of the panelists at the Race Matters Conference, they probably view themselves as such supermen, having the right to dictate policy to the unwashed, unitiated heathens in their audience. Übermenschkeit isn't just a philosophy, it's a way of life. So, if I've interpereted Mr. Stevenson's remarks correctly, he indeed made the case that Nietzsche's views ak to the panelists' opinions. I find nothing wrong with such an assertion.

Also, Mr. Waligore has no idea how the übermensch is a methodology. It's not. Mr. Stevenson never said it was. He said that the diversity advocates' methodology was Nietzscean, and related it to the übermensch in his explanation. Be careful shuffling ideas around.

3. Foucaultian Analysis
I'm not sure about this, but something is nagging me about John's description of Foucault in that I wonder whether, as John states, Foucault would separate the tools from how we analyze the world from what actually exists in the world is. I know some PoMos deny this distinction between how we view and world and what exist: I bet this a big debate among Foucault scholars; John, do you know? I'm not denying that Foucault (and therefore his influences like Marx and Nietzsche) has influenced at least some 'diversity advocates,' but I think John's jumbled up what is going on here and does not quite know what he talking about. That's fine, as long as he admits he got it wrong and the implications of that for the other things he said in his post or show why those errors do not affect his criticism, which is possible.


I will assume from Mr. Waligore's familiarity with postmodernism, that he has spent a fair amount of time within their camp. So I must ask him, and anyone else who may have something to say on the topic, why do postmodernists, who obsess about the influence language has on the structure of thought, so ineffectively use language to structure their thoughts? I have a gist of what he wanted to say in this piece, but his syntax is so fragmented, I can't possibly be sure this gist in anyway reflects his real opinion. I'll try to comment anyways.

First off, a so-called diversity advocate need not have read Foucault or Marx or Nietzsche to be Foucaultian or Marxist or Nietzschean. That's the great thing about ideas--anyone can have them. Thus, I can describe the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence as Keslerian in politics, despite the fact that they were written about two centuries before I was born.

But does Mr. Stevenson accurately use the term "Foucaultian" in his description of the rhetoric heard at the Race Matters Conference? Yes. Foucault viewed ideas as the products of "discursive formations," not as the products of individual thinkers with human motivations. This fits in nicely with Marxist ontology if we accept this as an ideal analog to dialectical materialism. Instead of resource distribution driving the privileged whites, pyschological insecurities about power drive them. Further, Foucault's work had a focus--it tied ideas to systems of social control. Thus, "white privilege" and the ideas that drive it are about social control over minorities. Institute a new system of knowledge, and thus institute a new system of social control. By deconstructing white privilege, one can break its hold over social structure, or so the panelists would argue. Therefore, considering Mr. Waligore's statement, "some PoMos deny this distinction between how we view and[sic] world and what exist[sic]" change our view of knowledge and we change the world. Quite fitting within the context of the Race Matters Conference.

4. Lumping People Together
Now, I realize most of you don't care about this stuff, but those lefties who John seems to lump all together sure do.

As I said, I went back thorugh the thread trying to make sense of this debate. I found no instance of Mr. Stevenson assigning these sorts of ideas to the left. In fact, he claims:

Another option could be to: acknowledge "white" "privilege" but suggest that these loons have taken a good concept to far and proceed to deconstruct structures of power complete with your own portable Foucault and Derrida for just $2.95. By doing so, you could condemn morally insufferable radicalism without reverting rightist jargon and showing your leftist credentials.


This doesn't seem like lumping all leftists together. In fact, Mr. Stevenson seems to write that one can be leftist without adhering to these sorts of beliefs. I must wonder why Mr. Waligore is so eager for Mr. Stevenson to lump leftists together that he accuses him of doing so before he even does do so.

5. English
[I]f [Mr. Stevenson] can't talk about epistemology and ontology in a comprehensable manner here, I'm skeptical as to whether he understands the much harder debates that take place among other 'leftists' against postmodernists. . .

I think his use of academic jargon only serves to obscure his thoughts (or lack thereof) rather than make clear what he's (not) saying; for someone who projects the aura of knowing about 'postmodernism' he misuses and misunderstands basic terms.

If Mr. Waligore thinks Mr. Stevenson "can't talk about epistemology and ontology in a comprehensable manner," I would suggest it's because his own command of the English language is too immature to make sense of Mr. Stevenson's writing. His lack of a coherent response only bolsters my arguments. The sort of writing found in Waligore's posts may pass for complex thought at The Nation, but I have much higher standards of style. Mr. Waligore further accuses Mr. Stevenson of hiding his misunderstanding of basic terms behind obscure academic jargon. But Mr. Waligore provides no counterdefinitions for these terms, nor does he demonstrate how such counterdefinitions would negate Mr. Stevenson's arguments. In fact, he betrays his own lack of thought by refusing to include any sort of structure in his arguments. So as the ghost of Strunk leaves my body, I hope he finds his way over to yours, Mr. Waligore, to leave his red pen marks on your screen instead of mine.


Posted by Anonymous at 10:31 PM | |

 
Lefty Questions About the War?

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"

Is this quote from one of the rare dovish democrats willing to question what Bush's post war plans are? Perhaps such a brave soul as Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy? Or maybe this is from Susan Sontag? Nope. It's from Dick Cheney in 1991 when he was Secretary of Defense. Check out these and other quotes by Cheney in the mid-nineties, leading Tim Noah of Slate to wonder why Cheney isn't still asking these questions. Considering that the administration is composed of many of the same people who decided not to go after Saddam in 1991, why are they not even addressing these concerns in any extended manner?


Posted by Timothy at 8:18 PM | |

 
Blind About Postmodernism


John Stevenson still has not said whether he favors getting rid of statistics on race that are needed to enforce civil rights law and track racial profiling (or Indian reservations). Are you all willing to go that far to transcend race? (What do you all think?). If he's not, then he's not fully color-blind and he needs to develop a more nuanced position than he has thus far. I want to say more on that, but hopefully John will respond in the meantime.

For now, I will note that I think John continues to make weird, illogical comments about Marxist ontology and I can't understand how his statement that critical theory is part of postmodernism is anything but false. John responded to my criticism of his weird statement about 'diversity advocates', "Nietzschean in its methodology, Marxist in its ontology, and Foucaultian in its analysis," by saying: "When I was writing this post, I found it quite simple." Yes, I am sure you all understood him very well of course, but I must again conclude that he does not know what he talking about, as he confuses me more when he says:

?Nietzschean methodology refers to Nietzschen idea of the ubermensch (over-man) leading the herd trapped in their slave mentality to something better. Marxist ontology refers to the way the see the world organized: in large groups of people: classes, races, genders, et al. Foucaultidian analysis refers to the theoretical tools used to analyze the world (the world is represented by the word "ontology"; analysis refers to one's epistemology)."

You can read this statement above and realize it contradicts itself. John notes the world is represented by 'ontology.' Sure, ontology refers to a theory of being (of what actually is). Yet as Stevenson surely knows, Marx thought that in the world, class was the only thing we should care about. He did not have an 'ontology' of race or gender. In fact, he and mainstream Marxists been criticized on that score. So diversity advocates, or whatever you want to call them, are NOT using a "Marxist ontology," as John says. They are using Marxist ways of looking at things to ANALYZE totally different things in the world BEYOND "Marxist Ontology," groups based around gender and race. It is fine for John to mislabel things, but he does not inspire confidence by getting things backward and then defending that claim in an illogical manner. On a less assured note, I am not clear how the idea of the ubermensch is a methodology (it seems on first glance to be closer, if anything, to being an ontology?) and also I am not sure how the idea of the ubermensch connects to a theory that minority groups are being oppressed, though here I can think of some possible connections. You could make a better case that Nietzche's geneology is aking to a methodology used by 'diversity advocates.' I'm not sure about this, but something is nagging me about John's description of Foucault in that I wonder whether, as John states, Foucault would separate the tools from how we analyze the world from what actually exists in the world is. I know some PoMos deny this distinction between how we view and world and what exist: I bet this a big debate among Foucault scholars; John, do you know? I'm not denying that Foucault (and therefore his influences like Marx and Nietzsche) has influenced at least some 'diversity advocates,' but I think John's jumbled up what is going on here and does not quite know what he talking about. That's fine, as long as he admits he got it wrong and the implications of that for the other things he said in his post or show why those errors do not affect his criticism, which is possible.

Why is this important? A good deal of the debate among PoMos and other 'left' academic and mainstream perspectives is whether ontology is prior to epistemology. If John gets his basic terms wrong here in such a simple manner, I wonder how much he really knows about the important differences among 'diversity advocates' who rely on different philosophical arguments. Now, I realize most of you don't care about this stuff, but those lefties who John seems to lump all together sure do. And John seems to care, and if he can't talk about epistemology and ontology in a comprehensable manner here, I'm skeptical as to whether he understands the much harder debates that take place among other 'leftists' against postmodernists. John is attributing thoughts to people he disagrees with, so I would hope he would try to get it right, especially since there is a greater diversity of thought on the 'left' than he seems to either acknowledge or know about. If you are going to make your opponents out to be a monolithic bloc, at least attribute to them something that at least part that group thinks. I think his use of academic jargon only serves to obscure his thoughts (or lack thereof) rather than make clear what he's (not) saying; for someone who projects the aura of knowing about 'postmodernism' he misuses and misunderstands basic terms. I personally don't pretend to know everything. But in this case I know enough to tell when someone is just wrong.

But also important, Stevenson wrongly labels people who are not postmoderns, leading to further confusion. John Stevenson says: "Postmodernism is perhaps a useful tool in moderation. Critical theory, a part of academic postmodernism, is useful in analyzing how we say what we say... Critical theory allows one to account for more complexity and thus form better theories and explanation of how the world works."

John, if you mean Critical Theory in the sense of the Frankfurt School, you are dead wrong. One of the most famous Critical Theorists, Jurgen Habermas, has fought against Foucault and other postmodernists (calling them the Young Conservatives of Postmodernity). Habermas critiques modernity as it is, but ultimately sees himself in the tradition of the Enlightenment in that reason is still important to him (though it should be noted that his form of communicative reason is not the same as one that I suspect many 'liberals' (in the broad Enlightenment sense) in America would endorse). So Critical Theory in this sense is NOT part of postmodernism.

If you mean critical theory in another sense, such as it is sometimes use to refer generally to anything that ?critiques' mainstream thought, then you are again wrong. I guess you could say postmodernism is part of critical theory (no caps) in this sense, but not as you said that critical theory is part of postmodernism. But is this sense, critical theory doesn?t mean all that much except that it is theory that is critical.

So I challenge you John, what sense did you mean it? Is there another sense which I missed? Because all I can make out from your post is that critical theory helps us build better theory and explain things, which tells us NOTHING about what critical theory is, since that is something most mainstream thinkers would hope a good theory would do (I would think...no?)

This criticism may seem arcane, but John has criticized the views of the academic 'left' and if he's wrong on this and what they actually think, then I am not sure I trust that he understands it. Sadly this type of stereotype is widespread. This is not a case of disagreement on what their positions entail or logically lead to, but just a fundamental misunderstanding of terms. It is often very hard to understand things like postmodernism. And we all misunderstand things or type things in haste. But why does John spread and defend those misunderstandings? Whether his criticisms in earlier posts are harmed by these misunderstandings. (On another note, he still has not said whether he has actually read his beloved Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations). I leave it you to judge, as that is not necessarily the case, but I thought I would point out that maybe you should wonder whether and when this critic of 'postmodernism' has no cloths.


Posted by Timothy at 2:07 PM | |

 
I love being right. See how we're backing down on Iraq now, with no word from the Administration about what it plans to do vis-a-vis North Korea?



Posted by Anonymous at 4:36 PM | |

 
Now here's an interesting article:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/286/focus/The_red_and_the_brown+.shtml

Further evidence that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" don't mean much nowadays...

Posted by kungfuzi at 6:48 AM | |

 
Holy F*cking $h!t

North Korea admitted to pursuing nukes despite treaty obligations.

So what do we do now? Can't you hear the talking heads on Al Jazeera inciting the Middle East by claiming that we are not threatening to invade North Korea (we won't), even though it's possible that they already have nuclear capability? We only want to kill Muslims and take their oil...God, I can hear it now. I plan to follow US corporate strategy and relocate to Bermuda. Later suckers.

Posted by Anonymous at 10:02 PM | |

 
Anyone want to help me write an anti-war series in the D?

Posted by John Stevenson at 9:29 PM | |

 
I think Chien Wen's excerpt #4, below, concerning Amiri Baraka, belies an extraordinarily juvenile understanding of morality and logic (on the part of Baraka) of which some on the Far, Far, Left seem to be in possession. This merely gives credence to the hypothesis that some "artists" were just too stupid to be anything else, and celebrating their work is exactly analagous to lauding a fingerpainting, or, to put it in terms for Mr. Baraka, cherishing the feces of a very small cow smeared upon the wall.

Posted by Anonymous at 5:19 PM | |

 
New Jersey Poet Laureate Amiri Baraka responds to the criticisms directed at him:

http://www.counterpunch.org/baraka1007.html

Some select quotes from this article:

1) For all the frantic condemnations of Terror by Bush &c, as the single International Super Power, they are the most dangerous terrorists in the world!

2) The poem was never saying anything else, i.e., why didn't the other slaughtered Americans know? I WAS NOT SAYING ISRAEL WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTACK, BUT THAT THEY KNEW AND OUR OWN COUNTERFEIT PRESIDENT DID TOO!

3) Bush says he wants "regime change" in Palestine, he wants to oust Arafat, now in Iraq, and he wants to oust Saddam.

4) How is it the US and its allies (except the Chinese) can have such weapons, but no one else can. The answer to that, of course, is White Supremacy and Imperialism. And what should be the growing understanding by the American people and the democratic people of the world, is what the far right Bush coven wants is a military dictatorship of the world.

5) It is unfortunate that Governor McGreevey has been stampeded by paid liars, and apologists for ethnic cleansing and white supremacy, bourgeois nationalists and the dangerously ignorant, to be panicked into joining in the ADL's slander, belittling my intelligence, and insulting not only my person, my family, my fellow artists and activists who know all this is just the feces of a very small cow.


Posted by kungfuzi at 1:25 PM | |

 
Brent Kesler writes:

John Eisenman asks "Why does only one woman write for the Observer? Food for thought."

I find myself in an interesting state of mind. I haven't followed the Observer as much as I would like in recent weeks, mainly because of my classes. So, I haven't read that much of Mr. Eisenman's work, and haven't yet pigeonholed him into my political spectrum. So I can't quite figure how this food for thought should taste.

...

So, can I have a hint? Is this a rotten tomato or a tasty burger?

To this I have 3 responses:
1. "Jon," not "John"
2. I would posit that I haven't been pigeonholed yet because although I've been posting to The Observer for a matter of months, not weeks, I tend to espouse viewpoints of both the Left and Right in what perhaps seems an inconsistent manner. To make it easier, though, I am a Democrat by vote, a Shaheen campaign volunteer, and a former (and hopefully future) minion of Senate Democrats.
3. I think that the best questions are the ones to which the expected answers aren't already known.

Posted by Anonymous at 9:40 PM | |

 
John Eisenman asks "Why does only one woman write for the Observer? Food for thought."

I find myself in an interesting state of mind. I haven't followed the Observer as much as I would like in recent weeks, mainly because of my classes. So, I haven't read that much of Mr. Eisenman's work, and haven't yet pigeonholed him into my political spectrum. So I can't quite figure how this food for thought should taste.

On one hand, perhaps he is accusing the Observer of alienating women, either by its political leanings or its debate style. Or perhaps he wants to suggest that the Observer really provides an excellent forum for women to discuss the issues of our years, and we should try to attract more woman writers.

Or, quite possibly, he writes in the context of some ongoing Observer debate that I've missed. In that case, my yammering about what he could mean merely distract from the debate.

So, can I have a hint? Is this a rotten tomato or a tasty burger?

Posted by Anonymous at 3:20 PM | |

 
Zeta Psi: The Idiocy Continues

Having created earthenworks around my desk for the incoming 88 fire I expect (I hope you all appreciate the allusion), let me first state my position on the derecognition of Zeta Psi. I opine it should not have happened. I would offer for consideration (although I suspect none of you will give it any, since by now I am sure you all have opinions equally justifiable) that although what Zeta Psi wrote in the now-infamous Zetemouth may be seen as some egregious trespass against women everywhere (I personally just see it as idiocy, not indicative of some serious problem - which is not to deny that a problem of date rape exists - merely to be dubious of the fact that the Zetemouth serves as its corollary, precursor, or side effect), and although many of you may have great disdain for my love of parenthetical asides, the removal of a ripped and vomit soaked copy of The Zetemouth by one individual lampooned in its pages and the resulting persecution of the Zeta Psi fraternity was a ludicrous overreaction to frat boy stupidity. The response, of course, is to offer a contrary opinion to that I snuck into one of the previous asides: that in fact there is a tangible correlation between the contents of The Zetemouth and the unfortunate problems young women face from sick, reprehensible individuals. A common retort that surfaced at the time of The Zetemouth controversy was that many - if not all - men and women of this age very often say things that are equally distasteful. The response to that: putting such things in print, despite the limited audience, gives the statements an different ontological value. For the sake of my post, I will sustain that argument. Heresay, rumors, jest, and humor-in-poor-form, take an ontologically different value when written, and the parties responsible for disseminating such materials in print form should be held accountable in ways that those that speak them should not.

In my perusal of last Friday's issue to The Dartmouth, I came across this interesting letter. I have quoted it in its entirety below to make my post seem more substantial:

A Sincere Apology
by Katherine Rue '03

To the Editor:
Rumors abound on college campuses. BlitzMail is an easy way for rumors to be forwarded and go from being merely opinion to something people accept as true without verifying their sources. I sent an email to a group of friends which was then forwarded out to the campus, although I had no intention of it going past my original list of recipients. This email stated that Zeta Psi fraternity was implicated in recent campus sexual assaults. The head of the Women's Resource Center recently stated in an article in The Dartmouth that there have not been any reported assaults of this nature this fall.

This was information I had gotten from what I considered to be a respectable source, but who has subsequently stated that there is no evidence supporting this. I want to apologize to the members of this house for the fact that my email was forwarded past my original list of recipients, and that negative feeling has resulted from the dissemination of this email among students at Dartmouth. I did not send this email with malicious intent towards Zeta Psi; in fact, most of the email does not deal with them -- but the fact is that women need to help other women stay safe.

In sum, the email that some of you may have read was not intended to be forwarded to anyone, and Zeta Psi has not been implicated in any wrong-doing. I apologize for any confusion my email may have caused among the Dartmouth campus at large.

I'm sure, in context, it is apparent to this educated audience where I am going with this. I'll say it anyway. This girl has perpetrated an act of the same sort against Zeta Psi (nevermind the fact that they are technically nonexistent [wink wink], making this even more puzzling) that Zeta Psi was derecognized for perpetrating against some individuals. In fact, the very nature of Blitzmail made it quite likely that her communique would be disseminated beyond her "intended recipients," and I feel safe in saying she has either convinced herself that she never thought this possible or was truly in space when she sent the blitz. The girl has taken a rumor - an item that purports to be true - and perpetuated it as fact to, apparently, some large body of people. Contrast this with Zeta Psi, which printed a poor joke, never alleged any truth, and dispersed said material in a form unlikely to reach other recipients and directed to an audience who knew that the ontological value of the contents was zilch (In fact, even if one assumes that portions of The Zetemouth were true, such as those in which members tallied the women with whom they had slept, I have seen with my own two eyes such tallies kept by females on this campus. While I find the value of keeping track of such things negligible, I also find the harm done, as such, to be negligible). Zeta Psi was accused of libel by some students, although in fact they did not publicly distributed false claims against anyone. The individual who originated the charged of sexual assault against Zeta Psi, on the other hand, is guilty of libel.

So, if you're still reading this, enraged women, you may wonder why I titled it "The Idiocy Continues." Perhaps you have concluded that the "idiocy" of which I spoke was merely my opinion, which followed. Sorry to disappoint. In fact, I will conclude that this letter, the argument that I have drawn from it, and the original Zeta Psi controversy are all idiocy. I will not give the original controversy any sort of primacy by establishing with any public display of vitriol (beyond this) the miscarriage of justice in the Zeta Psi case, nor do I wish to reference this incident to display a hypocritical society (although in some small way, I wonder if that is what it indicates). Rather, I write of both to make this comment: people, especially college students, do stupid things sometimes. Am I saying this should unburden them from the consequences of their actions? No. Am I saying that people should not act as adults if they wish to be treated as adults? No. (By the way, I came to the realization that the gamut of "adults" begins at the maturity level of high school freshmen). I am saying, though, that many times people make battles for themselves where none exist. Hell, that's what this blog is for. This, however, is all academic. The execution of this particular melodrama, in grand scale on the Hanover Plain, though, seems to me a satirization of the reality of any of the debates it was seen to encompass. And now, back to my more unpleasant reality: thesis writing.

As an addendum, I should like to point out that for Dartmouth students who read The Observer, I still welcome your comments via blitz. My email address has been removed from this page for reasons outlined in a previous post. I hope that some of you might offer some resistance to some of my posts, and I welcome it.


Posted by Anonymous at 6:01 PM | |

 
The Dartmouth Controversy

In the post below, Ryan Samuels says of The Dartmouth: "As far as I know, the leadership of the newspaper made no effort then to consult its staff, a member of which I considered myself at the time, before publishing such politically contentious opinions. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that this editorial board now would tailor the words of a member of its staff to fit an academic leftist agenda." First off, I don't believe The Dartmouth is funded by the college, though it is officially recognized and receives favorable terms for its lease. Mr. Samuels does not understand that editorial boards across the country have no responsibility to seek the advice of their staff when making statements, whether controversial or not. Some papers seek staff's opinions as a courtesy, but this is by no means the norm. The Dartmouth is perfectly in line with the practice of every or virtually every newspaper across American on this score.

Why is this being turned into evidence that "this editorial board now would tailor the words of a member of its staff to fit an academic leftist agenda"? Can someone explain to me how the unedited version of the article was suddenly edited to become raging lefty propaganda? I think the real issue is whether the editors inserted an inaccurate quote. When the unedited version of the article was posted here (where is it now) it did not look substantially different to me (what do you think Chien Wen?) What is the egregious leftist cause here?

Emmett Hogan on Dartlog.net comes close to some rationale about how the story was slanted with this comment about President Wright: "He's worried because the petition only mentions Jewish kids, and what about those poor Muslims? He would willingly sign it, if only itall of the Left's favorite groups, and not just Jews!" Since when should caring about Jews and Muslims evidence of being on the left? If this is true, it's an indictment of conservatism and the mainstream center for not caring about these groups, not the left for caring about them. I bet that had the petition been about violence against Muslims, The Review would have protested it on the same grounds that Wright reportedly refused to sign it for, namely that it didn't mention all groups affected. (I see the
headline and argument now if Wright would have signed any such petition: Wright panders to one favorted minority group, showing hypocrisy of liberals) incidently, would The Review think not signing the petition was the right thing to do? Do you all?

I fully agree that The Dartmouth has a lot to answer for in its journalistic practices, but let's make sure we criticize them for the right reasons. Here are my somewhat incomplete thoughts on this. Andrew Grossman on Dartlog.net notes that The D has to make no apologies for editing a writer. I applaud the consistency of The Review here, for not preaching against what it practices. Not all publications operate on this principle that the writer must see all changes. But I will note that The Dartmouth Review has been called out for much more extreme editing, such as adding bylines where an author had nothing to do with the piece. But in the context of seeing the unedited versus the edited article, Vassilia Binensztok's complaints need further explaination and justification. If The Dartmouth has operated under the understanding that it will edit within reasonable limits, I don't see where the complaint is, at least here. There can be no absolute principle that every single change, including the placement of commas and the arrangement of paragraphs, has to be sent to the writers for approval. But editors can exceed their mandate as well and it be tough where to draw the line. I have never worked in daily journalism, but in magazine journalism where I have worked, even under deadline pressure, you send any substantive changes to the article back to the author (or at least to outside contributers) for legal reasons at least. The truth lies between what The Review has done and what idealized world people have drawn from the statements of The former D reporter Vassilia Binensztok.

Part of Vassilia Binensztok's complaint seems to be that she never saw the final version and is being unfairly smeared and if it were true that bad facts were inserted into the article, I can understand why she feels upset and would disassociate from the article. I'm curious whether Vassilia's previous articles been sent back before press? In this case, I want to understand why the writer feels this way, when the editing arguably appears to be part of a normal editing process for any daily paper. Of course, if the facts that are inserted into a story are not facts, that is a problem. That's a fact-checking issue and larger institutional issue. One way to possibly deal with that is to send changes back to the writer, but there are additional ways as well (like not having editors who would insert incorrect facts, if that is the case).

Now is the story distorted? Are there misquotes? I don't know... Seeing the unedited version gave me no reason to believe so. (Can anyone point to the details between them that suddenly made this story different in its point?). I was inclined to believe the reporter has a complaint; now I want to know why the reporter feels the edited version was changed so drastically, because my quick glance when it was posted here did not catch those major differences. I changed my mind when presented with evidence of the unedited version of the article, so I admit I’m only going on what I know. I am open to changing it if presented with more details. Unlike my first impression, I now can have some understanding why The Dartmouth said Vassilia would have to apologize or be fired. That doesn't mean The Dartmouth should not use this opportunity to look at their procedures, which in my experience have led to bad reporting in other cases.

P.S. I thank John for his response on postmodern conservatism. I will get around to responding after my midterm, but in the mean time, I will note that he didn’t address any of the examples I gave of how the U.S. government uses race as a category (such as in enforcing civil rights law, measuring racial profiling, the Voting Rights Act, and in regard to Indian reservations). Does John think those things should be stopped? If he doesn’t, how does this square with them with his philosophy of transcending race


Posted by Timothy at 2:37 PM | |

 
John Stevenson swears that he is not a conservative, but subscribes to townhall.com. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." I am just giving you a hard time, John. I would much rather listen to you than to Tim Algore, I mean, Waligore.

Posted by Anonymous at 8:53 AM | |

 
Prof. Boyce-Davies of the Florida International School gave a lecture during the Race Matter conference entitled "decolonizing the Univeristy." In this speech, which was horrible at best, she criticized Dr. Condi Rice for restricting the Af-Am and Women's Studies Departments at Stanford and condemned a facist government's (referring the Bush-Cheney administration) "censorship" of the racist and anti-Semitic Amiri Baraka (the poet formerly known as LeRoi Jones).

Also a great piece on Glenn Loury, the former black conservative.

Posted by John Stevenson at 11:26 PM | |

 
We should all attend this:

MOSAIC

Meeting MONDAY
@ 7:00pm in 101 Collis

Topic:
-What does it mean to be American?
-Who fits this classification?
-Can we identify with multiple identities?


Posted by John Stevenson at 1:32 PM | |

 
Political Liberalism and a Restatement of the Theory of Race

Tim Walligore writes: "Nietzschean in its methodology, Marxist in its ontology, and Foucaultian in its analysis." What does that mean?? Please enlighten those of us who don't know what these philosophers believe, or those of us who think your knowledge of Nietzsche, Foucault, and Marx come from ignorance (I don't know what you're saying, and I suspect you do not either if you cannot explain how it makes any sense to talk about picking and choosing different philosopher's 'methodology' and ontology')"

When I was writing this post, I found it quite simple. Nietzschean methodology refers to Nietzsche’s idea of the ubermensch (over-man) leading the herd trapped in their slave mentality to something better. Marxist ontology refers to the way the see the world organized: in large groups of people: classes, races, genders, et al. Foucaultidian analysis refers to the theoretical tools used to analyze the world (the world is represented by the word "ontology"; analysis refers to one's epistemology). Their analytic tools consist of the idea of structures of power and domination. Power is the concept that links all of the philosophic worldviews: Marx, Foucault, and Nietzsche.

I also would to clear up some confusion: I am not a 'conservative'. If one were to limit my thoughts to a political spectrum, which I do not try to do other than for taxonomic purposes, I would fall in the center-right. What does that mean? That means I highly sympathize with the values of right: capitalism, freedom, and individuality, et al. tempered by a leftist critique of the excessiveness of those values. Too much freedom, too much individualism, too much capitalism is bad; a center-rightist is, at best, a hesitant capitalist et al. Leftist ideas of equality, social harmony, and community also fit into my framework and temper any dogmatism that I might have, though I allot them a lower value than those values of the right.

Postmodernism is perhaps a useful tool in moderation. Critical theory, a part of academic postmodernism, is useful in analyzing how we say what we say. Thus, when one speaks of 'simplistic binaries' one could actually be on to something. Critical theory allows one to account for more complexity and thus form better theories and explanation of how the world works. Postmodernism outlives its usefulness when it is applied to the substance rather the structure of the debate. I will, then, take this moment to reiterate my theory of race: it is not primarily a sociological nor social phenomena; it is psychological in its essence and has, as a psychological tool, outlived its usefulness. If we are to be responsible academicians and public intellectuals, we must advance the idea of the post-race world. Just as race was invented so it must transcended.

Thus my critique of 'progressive' politics becomes more evident: in so far as it promotes the primacy of race (or any group) over the individual it has engage in treason against the ideas and values embedded in our regime and is, at best, problematic, and ultimately, fatal. Any honest and proper analysis of the economic, social and cultural realms will led the honest seeker of truth to realize that race is an undesirable psychological construct, and not at all an adequate casual factor in the American experience any longer. Focus on race is not at all progressive and has the philosophical effect of promoting the ideas of the original post-Reconstruction segregationist and validating the rhetoric employed by that wretched pantheon of Southern governors that fought de-segregation. This is the idea that I, and my honest friends, gave to the New York Times reporter who visited on Thursday and Friday and advocate to the administration today. Viva la Resistance!

Posted by John Stevenson at 1:30 PM | |

 
Let's not be too hasty to bash the D. Even though the Dartmouth is notorious for issuing left-of-center opinions on such hot topics as the Arab-Israeli conflict and race, we must remember that the college audience to which they cater is either progressive or slightly left-of-center. I, too, was once on the staff of America's oldest College newspaper and resigned over their policies that limit members of their staff from writing for other newspapers. However, at no time did the D engage in substantially rewriting my op/ed pieces; many of them are linked at the top of the page here. If one would take a minute to peruse them, one of which (The Local Gods) was given to the Office of Public Affairs and a visiting journalist from the New York Times, one could clearly see that my opinions are not left-of-center but are rather a center-right type of argument. We do know that some comic strips have been banned from the D, ostensibly for published in a rival newspaper, most likely for their political message but it would be a bit much to allege that the D engages in predatory practices to fit some agenda. That's giving them too much credit.

Just a Note: The Dartmouth Observer itself was formed in response to the D; we (ChienWen and I) felt that the format of the D was not conducive to true analysis. Some subjects required more than 800 words to discuss and the D was not the outlet for that.

Posted by John Stevenson at 12:56 PM | |

 
The Daily D

The Dartmouth, the official newspaper funded and housed by the College, in the interest of objectivity forbids its writers to contribute to other publications on campus, and yet in the space of one day, September 27, its editorial board pontificated, "The ongoing debate over war with Iraq has not been a debate at all. In the absence of such discussion, the country must halt its current path toward a military campaign against Saddam Hussein," and "College President James Wright emphasized racial awareness in his speech at Tuesday's annual convocation. In recent years, such a speech might have rung hollow by touting diversity for diversity's sake. This year, however, Wright avoided this cliché, tackling the matter in a more substantive way." As far as I know, the leadership of the newspaper made no effort then to consult its staff, a member of which I considered myself at the time, before publishing such politically contentious opinions. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that this editorial board now would tailor the words of a member of its staff to fit an academic leftist agenda.


Posted by Anonymous at 3:54 PM | |

 
I'd like to draw your attention to the following notice, which some of you may have seen posted on walls and bulletin boards around the College (thanks to Dartlog for the link). The gist of it is: an '06 wrote an article on Jim Wright's refusal to sign the "Tolerance Petition" for "intimidation-free college campuses." According to her, The D completely re-wrote it without ever consulting her. Moreover, they skewed the information and misquoted the people she interviewed. When she protested, The D fired her.

More information is necessary before extensive commentary is possible: I'd like to read her original article that got skewed. I also expect a response from the editors of America's oldest college newspaper - and it had better be a good one, because the charges she levels are pretty serious.

However, some things can already be said. This is by no means the first time The D has become a news item: The Dartmouth Review emerged because of a quarrel over the editorial policies of The D [read about it here]. And of course, we all have personal gripes with The D. For instance, read through this article on a lecture delivered here over the summer. Notice how the professor's name changes from "Manzotta" to "Manzetta" midway through the article? His actual name is Mazzotta, by the way. I can find no excuse for such errors.

Posted by kungfuzi at 1:58 PM | |

 
Why does only one woman write in The Observer? Food for thought.

Posted by Anonymous at 4:30 PM | |

 
Belated Response on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations

This is responding to when John Stevenson posted praised this article in his post a few weeks ago on Sept. 16. I didn't post this before, because Jon Eisenman, if I remember correctly, did a good job responding. But since I'm engaging in deserving John-bashing anyway (see the post below), here's some gratutious comments:

John Stevenson says: "If after reading this article, you question whether greedy capitalist can make things better, I encourage to read Smith's Wealth of Nations or listen to this pre-eminent economist on Real Player or read the transcript."

I wish people would actually read Smith rather than using them for their ideology and putting them on their recommended reading lists. Smith also devloped a theory of moral sentiments, and even in The Wealth of Nations, Smith's concept of self-interest was not quite the rationalist economic man that forms the paradigm of micro-economics. There is one quote from Smith that every libertarian free-market lover has memorized (the one about the butcher feeding you not out of his own benevolence), but this does not support the idea that Smith espoused the motto of Wall Street "Greed is Good" Smith thought that each time bankers meet they collude against the public good (he's got some pretty nasty things to say about mearchants-- even if Smith thinks government should not interfere, he would NOT praise the individual merchants by saying their actions were beneficial). Also, that oft-quoted invisible hand quote is such an isolated part of the book; it clearly does not occupy much of Smith's argument to anyone who has read the full Wealth of Nations. I am doubtful that Stevenson has not read all of the Wealth of Nations. So John, if you have read Smith (and not just skimmed it or seen quotes of him), tell me when and where and how long it was, what statements of Smith are you basing his post on, rather than just people's impressions of Smith? And how do reconcile this with other interpretations of Smith? (By the way, I'm talking about the entire 1000 page version. The abridged version that is less than 200 pages doesn't count: John's an intellectual after all!)


Posted by Timothy at 1:09 PM | |

 
Postmodern conservatives

John Stevenson says we should "I think we should issue a call, or a start a petition, asking anyone at Dartmouth who owes their position at the university and therefore in society to race or racism to step down from their positions at once." I'm confused as to why Stevenson is attacking the system of tenure here. He wants old white male professors to resign?? That's the logic of what he's saying (Or does he think they weren't helped by the lack of competition from people that were excluded?) Or did he have some other, of course less deserving people in mind? The idea of white privilege is to realize the benefits that result from others discrimination; unfortunately it's not easy to tell the counterfactual of what would happened without racism.

Stevenson says: "A compelling case can then be made that pink-skinned people (especially those with penises) undergo unnecessary ritual abuse because they are the only ones who cannot claim minority status."
I'm not sure why this is so compelling as no argument is made. (Incidently, replace a few words and Steven's statement could about female genital mutiliation-- which I think is the level to which some think white males suffer at the hands of affirmative action). But I have heard too much bullshit that white men are now the most discriminated against in our society. I hope, and do not think, that Stevenson holds this view, but many people I have met do. Does anyone honestly think that this is true? And does anyone doubt that conservatives have constructed precisely this victim mentality? Even if this has a kernal of some truth, sometimes, it's way, way, way overblown. More to the point, if minorities still suffer the most discrimination (deny this if you like, let's argue), shouldn't we admit that whites benefit from this? (and therefore have undeserved advantages?) I don't particularly like the language of privilege, but for different reasons: everyone should have the same equal opportunity; but it's valuable because it helps us whites to realize that if there has not been equal opportunity, we have benefited.

A few more comments on John's post. Sorry, our nation is not founded on Kant; as you know, Locke's the big inspiration (as well as some other Scottish philosophers; perhaps even the Iroquois? heh.). Plus, we do allow group based considerations, as long as they meet a strict test of scrutiny (I would think that that is NOT akin to what you represent as Kant's claim of strict individuality; I doubt 'compelling state interest' would overrule this). Nowhere is Kant's specific brand of rights written into the constitution. Equal protection began to be applied to race on the basis that in a democracy discrete and insular groups were uniquely vulnerable. How a history of racism justifies never taking race into account is beyond me (that doesn't mean that all race based distinctions are valid).

Plus, at least one type of formal (as oppossed to social) groups that exist in America: Native American tribes (want to go back to the termination, assimilation, and civilizing periods, John? Just how far do you want to take this notion of absolute Kantian individuality? That is what consistency would demand, John wouldn't it? Let's move beyond race, but getting rid of it in governmental policy? Without an answer on this, you're totally unconvincing.)
It may objected that with some justification that Native Americans are a special case because they have sovereignty-- sort of group rights-- but that begs the question of why have rights for just Americans, one group of people- how can a polity uphold such an individualistic view at all-- keep in mind before you say that all polities must have boundaries is that the very discimination most groups faced is because they were excluded from participation. Why have different states/nations at all? And why isn't recognizing group differeniated rights within a nation as acceptable as having separate states?

Is John honestly saying race is never useful in determining governmental policy? More on formal groups: let's try anti-discrimination laws. We keep track of statistics, not just 'affirmative action' but to see about race-based discrimination. If we didn't categorize people into groups, we would be blind to how they are being discriminated against. We have busing in schools to counteract historical segregation. Evidence of past discrimination Same thing with the Voting Rights Act: we are race concious because others are. Race may not exist; race may be a social construction. But SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS ARE REAL IN SOCIETY (hence 'social') and ignoring them ignores social reality. Culture is also a social construction, as are a whole hell of a lot of things, but it is unwise to ignore social constructions that have very deep roots for whatever reason. So we shouldn't collect statistics on the races of people stopped by cops (to check racial profiling) on the basis that race is not real? Culture is also a social construction, but I don't think we should be blind to cultural differences and say it has no value. Social policy should take into account social facts. Conservatives often say we should get rid of affirmative action and rigorously enforce civil rights laws: but how are we going to do that without the category of race on which discrimination is based?

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying thus far. Being race neutral has other defenses and you argue whether the best way to get to a race blind society is to be race blind. You can still be against affirmative action while believing the concept of race is still imporant in society. But John seems to be arguing that since race is a social construction and has no basis in material fact, that the reality that many in society think it is real and act accordingly does not matter. On the contrary, as long as a lot of people treat race as real, and the historical effects of racism have real legacies, we cannot afford to be blind to it. Our reactions may differ, and perhaps in some cases we must be neutral. Again, maybe you can argue that race neutral policies are best, but that would require a different basis than this post-modern conservatism. Stevenson is truly is using his cheap $2.95 derrida machine with a little reactionaryism thrown in.

Stevenson says that race "is also a psychological worldview (like atheism for example) that one superimposes upon the neutral facts to make interpretation easier." Once again: huh?? Atheism doesn't make interpretation easier; if anything it makes it harder. it's a doctrine that denies the existence of something. You could accuse it of escews attempts at finding order in this chaotic world. It doesn't try to superimpose itself on the natural world to make interpretation easier; the main think motivating atheists is that they think the theists have been imposing the concept of God on the world to make interpreting the world easier. But atheism is like color-blindness: atheism is rigid dogma that is reacting to theism, its only tenet is a belief that something does not matter. Theistic gods as interpreted by many religious groups are ludcrious as well.
Atheists, to my mind go to extremes, just as advocates of 'race blind' governmental policies do as well. Simply because the otherside is wrong (racism) does not mean the extreme opposite (total race blindness) is right.
Total race blindness is blind to the complexities of the real world.

So I have to ask: What's the point of John Stevenson's last post?I realize he probably thinks of himself as a thinking man's conservative, but he has this really weird mix of post-structural-esque thought and conservative values in him (as far as can tell by his postings) as if he's a postmodern conservative or something else unintelligeible. Stevenson denigrated "people, who othereise might be intelligent people" for challenging paradigms of white privilege in a manner that he says pretended to be about democratization, but was, he claims, "Nietzschean in its methodology, Marxist in its ontology, and Foucaultian in its analysis." What does that mean?? Please enlighten those of us who don't know what these philosophers believe, or those of us who think your knowledge of Nietzche, Foucault, and Marx come from ignorance (I don't know what you're saying, and I suspect you do not either if you cannot explain how it makes any sense to talk about picking and choosing different philosopher's 'methodology' and ontology') Stevenson appropriates the language of the 'left' when he says "However, let's suppose that we wanted to move beyond the simplistic binaries of left/right in racialized world." "simplistic binaries" is something post moderns and bored structuralists seem to talk a lot about. I hope this is satire. I suspect not, but I hope Stevenson's at least aware of the sources of his thought and what he's doing, because I can't quite understand him.




Posted by Timothy at 4:49 PM | |

 
Just added to the site A Brief Case for Invading Iraq by one of our newest contributors, Hong Shi.

Posted by John Stevenson at 10:48 PM | |

 
Dismantling White Privilege

This past weekend at the Race Matters Conference, people, who otherwise might be intelligent people, challenged paradigms of white privilege and power in the university system. Without mentioning the value of education, teaching, students and student-teacher interaction, the junior varsity radicals and revolutionaries proceeded to criticize the academy. One particularly horrid woman gave a speech about "decolonizing the university" which was myopic in its overview of Western history. While pretending to be about education and a mysterious force called "democratization", the pundits outlined a plan for the university that was Nietzschean in its methodology, Marxist in its ontology, and Foucaultian in its analysis. This junior varsity team of polemics, (I say polemics because for the first two panels, more comments were made about national politics and foreign policy, the natural jurisdiction of Humanities and Literature Profs, than about education in the academy) rattled off a collection of adjectives that simply decorated normative (not empirical) judgments and concealed advocacy of a political choice. (The only exceptions to this rule being Hortense Spillers and Cornel West who actually took on the burden of considering the university and an academic curriculum.) The call to end white privilege, however, though condemnable in and of itself, begs the question of for what is it most condemnable?

One option could be: this is an example of racism against whites that is sanctioned by the PC-culture in force since the late 80s. A compelling case can then be made that pink-skinned people (especially those with penises) undergo unnecessary ritual abuse because they are the only ones who cannot claim minority status. Then one could go off on a tirade about multiculturalism and the deification of difference in the modern academy with a pit stop to affirm the Western Canon, complete with an after-dinner game of left-bashing.

Another option could be to: acknowledge "white" "privilege" but suggest that these loons have taken a good concept to far and proceed to deconstruct structures of power complete with your own portable Foucault and Derrida for just $2.95. By doing so, you could condemn morally insufferable radicalism without reverting rightist jargon and showing your leftist credentials.

However, let's suppose that we wanted to move beyond the simplistic binaries of left/right in racialized world. Suppose that we were more concerned about the world than about the dissonance of clashing ideologies. To adopt this approach, we have to realize not only that race is socially constructed, but is also a psychological worldview (like atheism for example) that one superimposes upon the neutral facts to make interpretation easier. (Very similar to using literary theory as a substitute for the true reading of the text.) Then the problem is not the racism but the race-ism of the idea of abolishing the white race.

My main problem, and I hope your main problem, is the concept of race itself. The idea that merits and punishments should be distributed along lines of "race" is fallacious. Not just because it is ultimately impossible to determine who is of what race, but because our political regime is prefaced upon a strong, comprehensive, Kantian view of individual moral autonomy. Formal groups do not exist in America, though social ones might. It is our responsibility then to abolish race-thinking and race-theorizing from the very fabric of our society or it will destroy the regime that has permitted our lives to be so great.

I think we should issue a call, or a start a petition, asking anyone at Dartmouth who owes their position at the university and therefore in society to race or racism to step down from their positions at once.

Posted by John Stevenson at 10:36 PM | |

 
I note, with chagrin, that my name has been removed from the list of authors merely because I requested my email address be removed. This is a highly unsatisfactory arrangement (that is, myself not being included as a contributor), and one that I hope will soon be rectified by the powers that be.

I also note, however, that while my name may have been removed, my posts have not. I think in my last few posts I have more than satisfactorily addressed (without, in fact, adequate response) John's Question #1 below. I am sorry if Mr. Stevenson doesn't like the response, but I think the onus is now on him to continue the debate. If I recall correctly, the last pertinent remarks on the question of the UN were made by Laura Dellatorre and myself.

While I'm blogging again, I'd also like to look at John's Question #5. It is most certainly a pointed question - a) does the school strengthen student's moral character and b) what are the attitudes toward religion among students and staff. A thinly veiled line has been drawn connecting moral character and religion, and so I think the answer I will provide will be unsatisfactory to the inquistor who framed the question. The school certainly cares somewhat about the moral character of its students, and in fact offers many "character building" experiences for them. Does the school care about religion? The school is indifferent toward religion. It has provided facilities for the free exercise thereof, and that is all the caring that is necessary. If the suggestion is being made that people should receive religious indoctrination as part of their moral education, something is rotten in the Town of Hanover, aside from (and including) the water.

Now if the gentle reader will excuse me, I am off to gripe about the damage I did to my vehicle today while spreading the good word throughout the Upper Valley. I can look forward to big industry milking me for the cost of repairing my car.

Posted by Anonymous at 3:09 PM | |

 
Classes, it seems, have knocked us all for a loop. Later today, hopefully, I will provide my summary/analysis of the the Race Matters Conference, each of the "distinguished" panelists, and reply to Tim's reality check. Am I crying racist to often? or have I just become tired of the lies and deception? As a rational, thinking person, there is only some much racism, race-ism, and good ol' wrong-headedness that I can take and remain sane. However, I still have homework to do so I will be back later.

Here is a summary of some of the questions that were asked and never adressed (along with some new ones):
1. How long should the US tolerate the UN? How long should Israel tolerate the UN?
2. Is diversity, and the progressive forms of racial social justice, a form of racism and if not a form of racism, then a form of paternalism?
3. Is Daniel Pipes' Campus Watch a form of McCartyism and intimidation?
4. Is this statement true: Conservative perspectives on issues of gender tend to have the preservation or recentering of traditional family values at their core in ways which directly (or indirectly) bolster sexist attitudes and behaviors. Definitions of conservative and "sexism" welcome.
5. "Does the school (not just Dartmouth but any you are familiar with) attempt to strengthen the student's moral and ethical character? What is the attitude towards religion among students and staff? Are you happy with the education you are receiving?"
6. The eternal question of Ethnic and Gender Studies: Are they good or bad for the curriculum and the mind of the student? Corrolary: Should the curriculum be centered around the "Great Books" otherwise called the Western Canon, or does the distrubitive requirement adequately cover this question?
7. What makes a good teacher good? What makes a bad teacher bad? What qualities should we look for in a teacher and are race/class/gender and other such ne0-Marxian identifiers, relevant to this question?
8. Is the lack of intergration among Dartmouth students a problem? (For reference, try The Local Gods)

Posted by John Stevenson at 11:25 AM | |

 
I don't want to hear John Stevenson in the future say liberals cry racist too often if he going to talk about the "amount of racist speech on thought prevalent on campus this term, included but not limited to the upcoming visits of Evelyn and Cornel and the President's Convocation Speech..." (I wouldn't have said the same had his only example been the New Jersey Poet laureate) I'm not sure what to make of conservatives adopting the victim mentality and cries of racisms they typically associate with the left after all these years when conservatives have complained these tactics are unfair. Does it not seem hypocritical?

Check this out on Israel (via altercation).

As for what I have to say about The Nation, it will still be worth reading my article later expected later this month (if they get around to editing it)! I think Hitchens was tolerated (or accepted) very well at the magazine in the sense that he was allowed to say whatever he wanted, as that last column attests to. I don't think the top people wanted him to leave, so it is not like the public spats reported in the media at other opinion magazines in the nineties, some of which involved displeasure with editors who have praised Hitchens. Hitchens has chosen not to associate himself with the magazine: that says something about him and his view of the magazine, but what does it say about the magazine and their view of Hitchens? They clearly are sad to see him leave, though I'm sure some readers are happy with it. The Nation is not so obsessed with being anti-Ashcroft over the war on terrorism that they would refuse to print Hitchens. Considering columnist Eric Alterman was also pro-war in afghanistan, it hardly seems clear to me the decided bent of The Nation. I think the Nation rightly takes a more ecuminical view. If Hitchens think those views are too outlandish, well, it's his choice with who he should associate with: after all, being ecuminical means bringing different viewpoints together, and if you no longer see the point of that... I think it is more Hitchens that has changed than The Nation. But I think it is a testament to The Nation that however far Hitchens 'strayed' and adopted different, and usually typically conservative viewpoints, it wasn't a question whether they would keep him on. There are few publications with that amount of integrity.

Posted by Timothy at 4:36 PM | |