Major Newspapers, |
Friday, September 21. 2007Stanford Faculty Protest Rumsfeld AppointmentTrackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I suppose you can make the argument that it's political, or at least the professor's perspective is shaded by their political beliefs, but I'm with them.
This isn't a merit-based appointment, it's a traditional University "having this famous person teaching a class (even if they're so busy they only show up 4 times the whole semester) will make us lots of money" appointment. That's not good for the students, politics or no.
I beg to differ that having a famous professor is bad for students. One of my best teachers at grad school at Northeastern was Michael Dukakis.
I was wrong assuming he'd be a professor anyway; but obviously I'm still sore about the PolySci professor I had who was an adviser of sorts with the IL gov. Sure it was only Political Science 101, but it would've been nice if he'd managed to show up for more than half the classes.
There's nothing wrong with a famous professor, as long as they're sincerely invested in teaching.
I don't think Rumsfeld will be teaching; the position is at Hoover.
Sir, If your associate chose to hire a hitman from Chicago to help edit your page; would you not have some "intelligent" discussion about offering a hitman a job? The faculty at Stanford is more diverse than many in the country. You, however; are wont to see boogymen at any college who has a professor who does not agree with your narrow point of view.
In my opinion, Rumsfeld should be under endictment for his tenure at DOD, not teaching at Stanford. (Though I know TE likes him because he went to NT high school. Your problem with teachers who are smarter than you, but do not have your point of view is well documented on this page. This case does not fit your usual rantings. I must agree with the faculty, some of whom probably share your political views but are much better informed on acedemic credentials of which Rumsfeld has none.
Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, especially about Paul having a "narrow point-of-view."
If he had a narrow point of view as you say, he'd still be teaching college courses and start calling himself a "progressive." Your disagreement is all politically based as far as I can tell.
some girl: you're right, not merit based, but so what? Stanford understands power and their need and desire for access thereto.
Ernie, look up the definition of diversity. It doesn't mean 'only hire people like me.' Also, an 'endictment' (sic) requires evidence that a crime has been committed not just a smear based on political motivation. Or don't you think Robert McNamara got off too easy? Finally, where did you come down on the subject of 'acedemic' (sic) credentials when Ward Churchill was in the news? Or are valid credentials defined according to a rule similar to the one you used to define diversity?
My understanding was that Rumsfeld's appointment was to the think tank, Hoover Institution, an entity separate from Stanford but located on Stanford's campus -- not an appointment to Stanford's faculty. Not that it matters, but it would seem that the Stanford faculty would have even less to say about Hoover.
http://www.hoover.org/about
Bleh, you're right. But my only crime is mistakenly assuming something that made more sense than what actually happened: I wasn't warned to look out for professors fighting the appointment of someone who works somewhere else.
Yeah, but we all understand their discomfort with having Bush Administration cooties on campus -- even if it is on the fringe.
Stanford is a top school (like Duke), but it's not Ivy League and certainly not Harvard or Yale. So the snobby faculty types have kind of an inferiority complex anyway -- then something like this happens and now they're going to have to take sh*t from their Ivy League peers who would never let something like this happen. They'd set themselves on fire first. The parallel is the Duke 88 group who were so paranoid teaching in the Old South with any hint of racism that they come unglued with the thought of the stain on their CVs.
"acedemic credentials of which Rumsfeld has none"
He has decades of experience in the areas on which he will be contributing. Are you a credentials fetishist, or is your dislike causing you to invent reasons to object?
Unwarranted harshness, pst314. I see where you're coming from, but I'm unaware of Rumsfeld having any previous teaching experience. That would mean he doesn't have any academic credentials, despite having been involved with the material for his whole career. Experience with a subject, even being an expert on a subject, doesn't automatically make a person able to teach that subject.
Of course, it's been settled that Rumsfeld got a job with a think tank, so it's a moot point. Obviously they're paying big money for that experience, and could care less whether he can convey it to undergrads or not. |
SearchSupporterAlamsed reviewed
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> |