mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Higher Education Watch
Suicide by Self-Importance
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • North Carolina Reader

    Articles such as this need to be spread far and wide so that the truth of the liberal agenda (straight from its own mouth) can be seen clearly for what it is: unmitigated intolerance of anyone who differs or anyone who dares to question the self-righteousness of the academy.

    • DiogenesDespairs

      The humanities are WITHERING?! This is the first I’ve heard of that. It is very good news, indeed, considering what the “humanities” have been producing.

      More, please, on this withering.

  • Pait

    I read the petition. Your article picks and chooses from the items, and cites them out of context. As you cite them, the petition sounds quite absurd; read in context, it raises issues of governance and attitude towards the intelectual discipline that may be quite relevant and valid.

    To form a well grounded opinion would require a lot of knowledge and effort; you wrote an article taking sides without doing your homework. I am far from the discipline and university involved and cannot reach a conclusion concerning the merit of the appointment or of the opposition to it; however this biased and un-researched article makes it clear that your opinion should be discounted.

    Jason, sorry; articles like this make me question whether a subscription to this magazine serve any purpose.

    • Jim__L

      Why are you assuming he didn’t do his homework? Seems like a stretch to me.

      • Pait

        I’m not assuming anything. I read the petition linked.

        It contains a lot that is questionable, but seems a lot worse out of context. And it contains items not mentioned in the post which are quite reasonable and cannot be easily decided without a lot of inside knowledge.

      • f1b0nacc1

        It is more than a stretch, but you shouldn’t be surprised.
        Go over and read the petition and the open letter, aside from some inside-baseball about the opacity of the appointment process (and as a former academic, I can say without any fear of contradiction that there isn’t any appointment of consequence that doesn’t occur as the end result of an opaque process) there is very little other than special pleading by a group of whining lefties about how ‘he isn’t one of us’ and ‘ex-military is bad’! Obviously For bonus points, take a look at the open letter’s signatories…basically a rogue gallery of the Grievance Studies crowd.
        Given that Eikenberry is a contributor to TAI, I suspect that Willick has in fact done his homework, and that our knee-jerk leftie commenter is in fact beclowning himself again…. Not much of a surprise.

        • Pait

          Considering that it is very unlikely that you are familiar with the work of the signatories, I conclude with large margin of confidence that you are attacking them on the basis of their departmental affiliations.

          The post reads as if it had been designed to appeal to people who have formed an opinion before reading the facts. Or at the very least it gained their knee-jerk support, intentionally or not. It was useful in alerting to the fact, but not in helping form an opinion.

          • f1b0nacc1

            You really do rise to the bait easily, don’t you? (grin)….
            As for the signatories, given their affiliations (Grievance Studies departments at a university known for its leftie bent), I would be willing to bet quite heavily that my assumptions are safe and reasonable. Or do you really want to suggest that this is a mistake? Would you be any less willing to show a knee jerk response if I posted a comment from the members of the Heartland Institute, for instance? Sometimes stereotypes are in fact entirely correct, and I would bet the farm that this is one of those.
            Read the open letter itself, it’s is damned out of its own mouth.

          • Pait

            Yes, it’s a waste of time. Thanks for pointing it out.

            Thanks also for confirming that you imputed motives to the signatories solely on the basis of their department affiliations. That indeed makes discussion unprofitable.

          • Angel Martin

            “…solely on the basis of their department affiliations. That indeed makes discussion unprofitable.”

            Yeah, because there is such “diversity” of opinion in the Dept of Transvestite Studies, the Institute for the Pulchritudinously Challenged and the Center for Narcorrido Appreciation

          • Pait

            You are assuming what you wish to argue for – using the “fact” that there is no diversity as a hypothesis to “prove” there is no diversity of opinions.

            It may well be the case that there is no diversity. But you only proved that your argument is junk.

          • seattleoutcast

            I would like to see a hyphenated American program that isn’t obsessed with race, gender and sexual preference and rather, relies on the Constitution.

            Since one does not yet exist, one can safely assume that they are leftist progressives with a Marxist bent.

            And yes, you can make the same assumption that pro-lifers are usually religious.

          • Pait

            You are making the assumption that some departments are ideologically homogeneous and intolerant, and then using this assumption to support the argument that some academic departments are ideologically homogeneous and intolerant.

            That may well be the case, however the argument is a logical fallacy.

          • seattleoutcast

            No, I know they are ideologically homogeneous and intolerant. I know a car works if I put the key in the ignition and start it. Is that a logical fallacy?

          • Pait

            The latter is s statement. Could be true or false (I don’t know about your car).

            The fallacy is that you used the assumption to prove the point: “Academia is biased because all professors who signed the petition have the same ideology. I know they have the same ideology because they are all professors.”

    • Angel Martin

      If you think this an isolated instance of college campus PC craziness, you must have been living in a cave since the early 1980’s.

      • Pait

        I only said that the argument was poor and unconvincing. I repeat what I wrote above: “Your argument by invective using crude words is even less convincing. This reinforces my point: that the original post was claptrap for people who do not need and would not read a reasoned argument.”

        • Beauceron

          Well, no. You said:

          “Your article picks and chooses from the items, and cites them out of context. As you cite them, the petition sounds quite absurd; read in context, it raises issues of governance and attitude towards the intelectual discipline that may be quite relevant and valid.”

          Which would be fine in a regular comment post– but in a post that accuses the author of taking quotes out of context, bias and not doing their homework, it’d be best to provide support for your own positions. For example, what exactly is the author taking out of context and why is it out of context?

          I’d remind you that, in terms of bias, you will rarely find anything more narrow minded than campus agitprop. The petition itself and claims by graduate students and faculty should be read with as much or more skepticism and its various claims questioned as well.

          • Pait

            The article quotes out of context and picks items from the petition, while ignoring others that may be more relevant. Look at the petition and see for yourself.

            From the last phrase I infer that you have a fixed opinion and would not let mere facts influence it. The article seems to be designed to please people such as yourself, confirming immutable opinions without actually uncovering anything. That is why I alerted the author to the fact that this type of reporting serves no useful purpose.

            By the way, I do agree that some sectors of academic have an unproductive and inexcusable bias. It has to be discussed objectively. A post inviting thoughtless generalizations doesn’t do it.

    • Fat_Man

      Devil, you say. All their whining means is that they want to keep the faculty closed to anyone who is not a card carrying dues paying member of the academic guild, and of course, anyone who might tell the the students that the ridiculous twaddle the guild members emit is indeed bovine dejecta.

      I have in the past made substantial financial contributions to Northwestern University. I will not do so again.

      • Pait

        It may well be the case that the petition is self serving and not well supported by the facts. The post doesn’t make a convincing argument against the petition, because it picks random points and cites them out of context.

        Your argument by invective using crude words is even less convincing. This reinforces my point: that the original post was claptrap for people who do not need and would not read a reasoned argument.

        • Beauceron

          “The post doesn’t make a convincing argument against the petition, because it picks random points and cites them out of context.”

          But then, of course, your counter cites no points in support. You simply make declaratory statements about how much sense the petition makes to you.

          • Pait

            No I did not. I said the petition raises points that may be may be valid, and that it is hard to decide on their validity without a lot more knowledge of subject.

            I know this doesn’t deter some people from expressing definitive opinions. I wish that TAI would do a better job, otherwise it becomes as useless as, say, reading the rants by some habitual commenters.

          • http://endofpatience.blog.com/ EndOfPatience

            You wrote that “the petition raises points that may be may be valid”. Please, list them, and explain why you think they’re valid.

          • Pait

            I don’t have the patience.

            You can read it yourself.

          • http://endofpatience.blog.com/ EndOfPatience

            You raised the issue. Now you can’t back it up.

          • Pait

            I don’t work for you. Go read the petition if you are interested.

          • http://endofpatience.blog.com/ EndOfPatience
          • Pait

            A troll in wolf’s clothing. Just “won” his argument without going to the trouble of reading what was argued about. Enjoy your “win”, just spare me from wasting my time detailing things that you would be neither willing to read nor able to take into account.

          • http://endofpatience.blog.com/ EndOfPatience

            You’re the one who makes assertions and calls people “troll” instead of backing them up.

            Go tell mommy a bad man on the inter tubes gave you bad feelz.

            ROFLMAO

  • Beauceron

    But that’s just it– do you see any substantive backlash brewing?

    I do not.

    The author speaks of growing frustration at an “increasingly insular, elitist, arrogant, and illiberal” university system, but from what I have seen, academics are merely angry the students are focusing their ire on the Leftist professoriate and not on the proper targets– the rubes in racist America who, as our president put it, cling bitterly to god and guns. As the author points out in this instance– and many others– professors have actively participated in much of this frivolous nonsense. And voters have little ability to change this and most don’t care– or even support it. Do you see any legislative movement even in conservative states to curtail this madness even at public universities?

    Our voters have changed. Our demographics have changed. Don’t like it? Well, it’s a bit late for that now.

    • Jacksonian_Libertarian

      State Governments, Parents, and Students are increasingly refusing to pay for the maintenance of these leftist institutions. Enrollments are way down, Students are increasingly unwilling to take out student loans to pay for the 3rd or 4th rate education they will get from the leftists.

      • Beauceron

        Enrollments are down for the 4th straight year, which predates the current mess. The lower enrollment, excepting certain exceptions like Mizzou, are probably due to a worsening job market for college graduates and, as you say, higher education costs rather than the insane radical groups.

        • Techtor Gorch

          It predates the current mess, which began festering in … what … the 60s?

      • Angel Martin

        my preference wrt college campus craziness is to do nothing for the moment.

        College education in the USA is a giant bubble – it is overbuilt every bit as much as Chinese real estate or coal fired power plants.

        the current size of the “higher education” industrial complex can only be maintained by increasing numbers of students taking on more and more unsustainable debt.

        A dramatic downsizing is coming, along with the inevitable demand for a federal bailout (if GM got 80 billion, why should the many Departments of Transvestite Studies be deprived?)

        the more stupid and irrelevant the college campuses become, the easier it will be to deny them a bailout and finish them off once and for all.

        • vb

          Let transvestites pay for this department. The same goes for all the other “studies” departments. How do parents allow their kids to participate in this ignorance?

      • seattleoutcast

        Hi Jacksonian,

        I really want to believe you. Do you have stats on this? The ones I see claim enrollment is down because the economy is picking up. That might be true for some people (especially those in their 30s and 40s), but I doubt it is for all.

        What I would like to see is reduced enrollment for 18-24 year olds.

    • Techtor Gorch

      Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your president is a racist? That’s a novel idea.

  • FriendlyGoat

    Perhaps the people at Northwestern understand that a three-star is marinated in a command-structure culture not necessarily suited to a global affairs institute. This man is not being treated any worse than the political right is treating Merrick Garland.

    • JR

      Some may not consider this to be minor league. It’s just an example of growing intolerance on the part of the Left to anyone who dares dissent. This is happening, whether you choose to believe it or not.

      • ddh

        JR, FriendlyGoat agrees with the protesters at Northwestern and shares their viewpoint. I don’t doubt that he thinks Columbia University made a terrible mistake when it hired Gen. Eisenhower to be the University’s president.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Right-wingers these days think harassing “different” people in bathrooms is “not minor-league”.

        • JR

          You may want confused men in bathrooms, I don’t., Government regulating who goes where to pee is the definition of totalitarianism.

          • FriendlyGoat

            It’s hard to express how nutty this has all become. I know you are a true believer, but that does not keep you from being properly characterized as petty—-together with your whole tribe. That this kind of thing is being dragged from the political sphere into the churches—and it is—–is to the great detriment of both religion and our country.

          • Angel Martin

            I entirely sympathize with women who don’t want transvestite creeps in their bathrooms. I don’t want them in the men’s room either.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Curiously, some of the men of America are more worried about all this than most of the women are.

          • Angel Martin

            the difference is women won’t get arrested for the “Crocodile Dundee” test, while men certainly will ! LOL!

          • JR

            Liberals always try to paint those who oppose their nutty ideas as some crazed Other that must be pushed out of the public sphere. Human beings have been peeing without government intervention for eons, and nobody thought we had a problem. Now our progressive elites are telling us we must do what they decided is the next thing to be enforced. Sorry, not on board. If that makes me a part of some tribe, than so be it.

    • Angel Martin

      Merrick Garland? never heard of him ?

      Is he a televangelist ?

      • FriendlyGoat

        No, those all went to Fox News and Talk Radio—–for better remuneration.

        • seattleoutcast

          I laugh at your foaming rabidness at the mere mention of televangelism. Just to let you know, that religious “meme” won’t be going away anytime soon.

    • White Knight Leo

      “America’s entire political right is treating Merrick Garland?”
      .
      Erm, what? Merrick Garland is not being heard by the Senate because the Senate has decided to give the voters a say in the next SCOTUS Justice. Nothing of significance has been said by the Right about Garland himself by anyone except the NRA, who reject him as anti-2nd Amendment.

      • Techtor Gorch

        Why should anyone be talking about Merrick Garland?

      • FriendlyGoat

        The Senate leadership is composed of partisan hacks at the moment who are denying the Constitution. Every Republican in the country is lying through their teeth on this issue and polluting half the church members in the country to become liars with them. No need to tease here.

        • White Knight Leo

          “Denying the Constitution”? How exactly? I’ve read the relevant passage in Articles I and II, and the phrasing is not complicated: the Senate has the authority to “advise and consent” to Presidential nominees, but it has no obligation to even give it’s “advice”, much less “consent”.
          .
          The Senate can, if it chooses, literally ignore anything the President does, including his nominations. They could even decide to leave the 9th SCOTUS seat empty in perpetuity if they wanted, and there’s no Constitutional mechanism or provision to stop them, not since the passage of the 17th Amendment anyway, apart from the ire of the electorate.
          .
          Senator Chuck Schumer agreed with this notion in 2007, and he was absolutely correct when he said it then; he has no business pretending otherwise now.

          • FriendlyGoat

            From Article II Section 2:

            He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,…..

            The president has the “power” and the Senate has the obligation to advise and consent on SOMEBODY put up by the president. There is no provision that the Senate may delay indefinitely until they get a president more to their liking to do the appointment. You know it, I know it.

          • White Knight Leo

            “the Senate has the obligation to advise and consent ”
            .
            I don’t see any obligation in “and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”. “Consent” doesn’t mean anything if they have an obligation, and if they don’t have to consent then they don’t have to advise either. Moreover, the Senate has ignored nominees to every other position that the President picks people for in the past; SCOTUS was the only exception until Garland. In fact, the Senate refused to hear many of Bush’s nominees to lower courts in 2001; Michael Moore even went to far as to mention that in his anti-Bush film “Fahrenheit 9/11”.
            .
            Further, we’ve gone longer with an 8 Justice Court before. And, again, there’s plenty of precedent for the Senate literally ignoring Presidential nominees; the only thing new here is that it’s SCOTUS.
            .
            But if you really want to advance this argument, then you are saying that Chuck Schumer was asking the Senate to go against the Constitution when he said that they should not consider any more Bush nominations to the Court in 2007? Because he actually did say exactly that he didn’t want Bush to nominate any more Justices. We’re not facing any “extraordinary circumstances” at this point in time.
            .
            Here’s the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8&feature=youtu.be

          • FriendlyGoat

            It is a great inconvenience to both parties that SCOTUS nominations are contentious. To his credit, Obama did not try to saddle the right with a pure leftist and put up a solid MODERATE——but, nooooo, that isn’t good enough for those who insist on a pure rightist. For this reason alone, there is a stink upon McConnell’s position. I’m not too stupid to see it and cannot bother to spend all day arguing it with you.

          • White Knight Leo

            “It is a great inconvenience to both parties that SCOTUS nominations are contentious”
            .
            And who was it who made it contentious? Joe Biden. He was literally the one who started this fight over Bork in the 80s.
            .
            “Obama did not try to saddle the right with a pure leftist ”
            .
            Because he knew damn well that they would shut down any leftwing nomination. Seriously now, a moderate is the only thing he could conceivably have gotten through and he knew that. It wasn’t a “consideration”, it was strategy and everyone who saw it knew it.
            .
            “nooooo, that isn’t good enough for those who insist on a pure rightist”
            .
            It’s not about Right or Left. Scalia was a textualist, which is only a Right position because the Left has abandoned the idea that there are things that the government simply does not have the Constitutional authority to do. Garland also has a history of simply siding with whatever the government wanted to do.
            .
            But again, the only political activist group that actually objected to Garland himself was the NRA – which, as with textualism, is only Right because the Left has abandoned it.
            .
            And you still didn’t answer the question: if what Senator Grassley has done is somehow unconstitutional – and It’s Grassley who has decided not to hear Garland, not McConnell, since it’s Grassley who’s on the Judiciary Committee – then why wasn’t what Schumer said the same thing?

          • seattleoutcast

            I think someone forgot Bork.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Bork was not a moderate. Garland is. That’s not insignificant.

          • seattleoutcast

            That is irrelevant. Kennedy stepped over the line.

          • seattleoutcast

            Funny, you lefties forgot that when it came to the Iran treaty (which is not a treaty.)

          • White Knight Leo

            He even specifically said he didn’t want Bush to name another Roberts or Alito to the Court; so he was literally saying he didn’t want Bush to nominate any more Justices because he didn’t like Bush’s politics.

          • rosetta_stoned

            There is no provision that the Senate may delay indefinitely until they
            get a president more to their liking to do the appointment.

            Nor is there a provision stating the Senate must approve said nomination according to the left’s timetable.

            I know it. You, obviously, don’t.

          • FriendlyGoat

            It’s okay with me if you mess around and get Hillary’s Clinton’s nominee instead, but you should have had enough sense to know that Obama was offering you a fair deal.

        • seattleoutcast

          And Harry Reid is the epitome of objectivity.

    • steves_59

      Nonsensical post. Eikenberry is eminently qualified to lead Northwestern’s global affairs initiative. As are, undoubtedly, hundreds of others.
      What you’re missing, unsurprisingly, is the standard Leftist slant of the protests… disrespect for the uniform, derision for anyone not cut from the same academic cloth, and the oh-so-typical disdain for anyone who’s not willing to toe the “America sucks” line.
      I’m curious as to your understanding of what type of command structure a LTG “marinates” in.

      • FriendlyGoat

        The military is not the “only” model for leadership. It is ONE, but not the ONLY one deserving of respect. I would suggest to you that Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerburg, Michael Bloomberg, Billy Graham, Warren Buffett and even Rush Limbaugh (if you like) represent other models. There is NO compelling reason for a military man to be a “shoo-in” for a leadership post of anything other than a military subdivision.
        In the military, a commissioned commander at any level is expected to “command”. That’s what officers are “marinated in”. It may be that there are people at Northwestern who would rather have a visionary of ANOTHER STYLE lead their institute.

        • steves_59

          It’s clear to me that you know little to nothing about how the military actually works. You’d understand that by the time an officer receives his third star, he’s typically a master of strategy, tactics, logistics, running organizations from small units to entire corps, budget, motivation, morale, decision-making, and I could go on and on. I was a serving member of the US Army, so I believe I have a clearer view of it than you ever will.
          You made the nonsensical point that a three-star “marinated” in some sort of military-industrial oligarchy that, unfortunately for the Progs in the ivory tower, isn’t always in accordance with insulated Progressive academics. And that point IS nonsensical. As is the stupid protest.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, many officers have broad skill sets—–all subordinate to the idea of subordination. Your military experience would certainly qualify you to understand that feature of the armed forces culture. I suspect the protesters don’t want their institute to have that particular culture. And, as was pointed out in the article, some are most concerned that a military leader will skew the research agenda—–in other words, re-define the mission instead of executing the mission.

          • steves_59

            You’ve got zero evidence for that point of view. Zero.
            You may have one point… the protestors don’t want ANYTHING to do with that particular culture. In other words, they’re exclusionary, rather than inclusionary. Not a word about his qualifications, only the fact that he’s ex-military.
            The comment about a “former” military leader (oh, and US Ambassador and member of a think-tank, but why screw up the narrative, amirite?) is absurd.

          • FriendlyGoat

            A man who says he has been in the armed forces who says there is zero evidence for the culture of subordination in the military? You’ve really got to brush up on Credibility 101. There is a subsection in that course, I think, on “Realistic Spinning”.

          • steves_59

            It’s not called subordination, you tool. It’s called “chain of command” and the military runs on the authority that flows down through the chain of command.

            If you knew anything about the US military you’d also understand that the “chain of command” also flows upward.
            Finally, moron, you haven’t once yet acknowledged Eikenberry’s other substantial qualifications. He has many, but people like you just can’t wrap their brains around the fact that a retired military GO might actually have ALL the right kinds of experience for the position.
            But that would require you to think outside your tribe, and clearly, you cannot do that.

          • FriendlyGoat

            It’s called “chain of command”, and it is expected that everyone is subordinate to the superior officer(s) under threat of court martial for insubordination. Generals MacArthur and Patton were quite familiar with the concept.

            It’s not my job to prove whether Eikenberry is the best or is not the best candidate for the position. There could be dozens of others for consideration and we don’t even know who they are. It’s my job to recognize that this article is off base and overdrawn. Eikenberry’s own statement that the protest against him is “an affront to any veteran” is indication enough to know that he probably is not the right fit and that the protesters were correct.

          • steves_59

            Seems the majority of the commenters here thoroughly disagree with your assessment. As a veteran myself, I disagree with your assessment and throw my hat in with GEN Eikenberry.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Of course you do. As for the majority of commenters here, they nearly always disagree with my assessments of anything. That’s because most of them are conservatives including TAI itself, and I’m not.

          • steves_59

            Of COURSE you’re not. There’s no doubt of that. And given your post approval ratings, I’d say your opinions aren’t particularly appreciated pretty much anywhere you post.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Low numbers of “likes” is the price for a liberal making comments in conservative places. If I cared about that, I’d get a social media account instead of knocking myself out nearly every day to make sense where sense is hard to come by.

          • steves_59

            You may be many things, but you’re certainly no Liberal. Sense from people like you is like teeth from a chicken.

          • rosetta_stoned

            You’re not a liberal. There’s nothing liberal about you.

            You’re an authoritarian, totalitarian, fifth-column leftist.
            Nothing more.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You have a nice day too, honey, okay?

    • Techtor Gorch

      As far as I know, and I’m a founding member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, we’re not treating Merrick Garland. At all. Should we be?

      • FriendlyGoat

        That’s the trouble with you founding members of the conspiracy. You’re founding members of a conspiracy. To answer your question, YES, you should not all be lying—-to a man—-about the stonewalling of a legitimate nomination to the Supreme Court.

        • Techtor Gorch

          Stonewalling? The Senate has no requirement to act on anything the president sends to it. By ignoring the nomination the GOP Senate is just following Harry Reid’s lead when his Senate refused to pass a budget for, what, six years?

          • FriendlyGoat

            From Article II Section 2:

            He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,…..

            The president has the “power” and the Senate has the obligation to advise and consent on SOMEBODY put up by the president. There is no provision that the Senate may delay indefinitely until they get a president more to their liking to do the appointment. You know it, I know it. Only the founding members of the conspiracy maintain otherwise on Merrick Garland.

          • Techtor Gorch

            Congratulations. You can copy and paste. However, I don’t see where it says the Senate is obligated to do anything. Can you show me where that word is?

          • FriendlyGoat

            The president has the power. It’s pretty simple that the Senate role is secondary.

          • Techtor Gorch

            You’re absolutely right. Article I says the president shall nominate/appoint. That is the president’s authority. Again, I ask, please point out where Article I says the Senate is obligated to do anything.

            The reason you’re having trouble with that is because it’s not there.

            Hint: Look at Article II. Maybe it’s there. Oh, darn. Nope.

          • Techtor Gorch

            BTW, Article II addresses the executive branch. The Senate is still in the legislative branch (can you name the third?), I think, which is governed by Article I, which I believe is not the same as Article II.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The third branch is the judiciary—-but it would not surprise me if you were peddling the state legislatures as a branch—-or some other bullsh*t. (Pardon me for sounding testy, but I get bullsh*t shoveled at me regularly).

          • Techtor Gorch

            For one who can’t tell Article I from Article II, you shouldn’t be jabbering about my lack of knowledge.

            It’s hard to take seriously somebody with such a faulty understanding of Civics 101, which is probably the reason you think you’re getting BS shoveled on you regularly.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Oops. Boxed yourself into a corner and resorting to taunts. The usual GOP behavior. Don’t need your riddles to solve today. Off to pet my dog—-a better use of time.

          • Techtor Gorch

            How neatly you avoid the problem.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I have learned from LONG experience to AVOID you guys who are “problem(s)”. Besides, the dog really is nice.

          • Techtor Gorch

            You started it, sport. If you stay out of conversations you don’t understand, you won’t have to run to your safe space to “pet your dog.”

          • FriendlyGoat

            Did you know that going back to edit your posts and add things after a reply is a$$hole behavior? I’m not your “sport”, darlin’, and I seriously do not give a damn what you think I understand or don’t. As for your advice over my free speech—cram it.

          • Techtor Gorch

            That didn’t take long. How does your “dog” feel? Fully released, I hope.

            I’m still waiting for you to show me how Article I obligates the Senate to do anything.

            If you want to contribute to conversations, please do. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, keep quiet. Otherwise you will only confirm what people think of you.

          • seattleoutcast

            I think you just avoid the hard problems and stick to your talking points.

          • seattleoutcast

            The Constitution clearly states that those powers not in the Constitution are left to the states. So, the next time you quote our founding document regarding approval of a supreme court nominee, you might want to consider that you have a habit of cherry picking.

            Bullsh*t enough?

    • seattleoutcast

      This is a nice distraction.

    • rosetta_stoned

      Speaking separately to the “tone” of this article, should we suspect no
      one here has heard of how America’s entire political right is treating
      Merrick Garland?

      Still have a problem with ‘advise and consent’ leftist?

      • FriendlyGoat

        I mostly have a problem with you.

  • Blackbeard

    As a citizen and a taxpayer I wonder why we support these institutions either with federal grants, student loans or tax exempt status. Perhaps this is something President Trump could address.

    • ARMSTROB

      It all goes back to why we send any money to DC except what is determined by the Constitution. Over the years we have allowed DC to become the corrupt middleman who then threatens not to return the money unless we cave into their demands. In this case subsidizing elite colleges who basically hate those who are sending them money. When did the clowns in DC become the great know-it-all’s of everything? From building roads to teaching?

  • yossarian

    Don’t be too hard on these professors. Hey, if you had a cushy job where you worked 10-15 hours a week for about 7 months of the year, before fawning students you might want to sleep with, spending summers at scrumptious conferences in Portofino, publishing obscure, meaningless drivel that not even your colleagues really want to read, you too would feel threatened by a 3-star general who wants to join the club, open all the windows, and let some fresh air in.

  • yestradamous

    Why do people think military men are all war mongers? Such an idiotic stereotype.

    The very last people who WANT to go to war are the generals, etc. It’s a last resort, not a first one.

  • Scott

    Full disclosure — Karl is a classmate. He has a first class intellect, perhaps not reflected in a credentialed terminal degree, but one he’s put to superb use in public service — as Attache to the PRC, command of American and coalition military units, and Ambassador of the US in a “tough neighborhood.” If I may speak for him, he seeks to “do” not to “be,” so the credentials don’t matter as much as the application. I think he “gets” the international system, and the role of the US and the humanities in it. As for his quote the detractors use about putting the humanities at the center of US policy — I read it differently. It is not to bend the humanities to serve US interests in some crass or evil way, but to ensure that values of the humanities infuse and inform policy debate, formulation, and decision. Final thought: “The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.”

  • RedWell

    A post unbecoming an outlet seeking to be a responsible voice in our republic.

    First, Northwestern is private institution.

    Second, the Faculty Senate–in other words, the body representing all of the faculty–voted to support Eikenberry.

    Third, Eikenberry rightly complained about unfair stereotyping, yet this piece–and many other on this blog, really–paints an utterly lazy picture of “academic-left contempt” and a preening, disengaged professoriate.
    Fourth, extrapolating broad lessons and trajectories from specific instances or anecdotes is flawed argumentation. Any philosophy undergrad can tell you that, assuming the escape the evil cabal of leftists attempting to teach critical thinking.
    I could go on. TAI can and should do better.

    • Pait

      I made the mistake of making a similar point above. Got as reward a dozen comments by people who didn’t bother to read any of the links, making circular arguments to the effect that the fact that academia is biased proves that the petition is unfair, and so on.

      I start to suspect that TAI publishes this sort of claptrap as clickbait – to attract commenters who will just vent in duty against academic bias without much need to read the facts in question. Well it’s their right – the publishing environment can be challenging – but doesn’t do much for TAI’s credibility.

      By the way, I don’t doubt that the candidate was very qualified and that some of the objections arise out of faculty bias.

      • FriendlyGoat

        If you hang around TAI, you will indeed get a whiff of the venting done against so-called academic bias by the regular comment writers. TAI has not been very successful in attracting people of a more-balanced view.

        • seattleoutcast

          Balanced meaning far left. I should start hanging around the Huffington Post and cry foul when I see the left-leaning comments on that site. I would of course, in my hubris, be the voice of moderation.

        • Pait

          I frequent some lefty media as well. The fact same phenomenon happens. The commenters know the truth and the whole truth; any attempt at actually examining or discussing the facts at hand brings in the vitriol.

          I don’t know when to trow the towel either. Whenever I write something, I’m left with the feeling that I wasted time and fed the trolls.

          • Anthony

            You never waste time when you make a valuable contribution (whether any agrees or not). Stay in the idea business as I’m sure you will!

          • FriendlyGoat

            Years ago I spent some time at Common Dreams dot org, which then had a Disqus feature. Some of the far leftists there were complete idiots and beyond rude and I don’t think their comment section even exists anymore.
            I don’t like “lefty media”. I like balanced media with balanced comment sections—–both hard to find. TAI, to its credit, often tries to throw in some moderate disclaimers in its articles—-before shooting us leftists.

        • Anthony

          FG, your presence at TAI adds insight via seasoned experience (let alone intelligence).

          • FriendlyGoat

            Why thank you. (Please imagine that spoken in the famous comic tone of Curly—-of the three stooges.)

          • Anthony

            Got It (and you’re quite welcome – spoken in tone of respect).

      • RedWell

        Agreed. It’s pretty depressing. One irony, I can tell you personal experience, is that this kind of anti-intellectualism only deepens the problem. It convinces conservatives in academe, for example, that they are not welcome on the right. Another irony is that you could quote Thucydides, Madison, Tocqueville or even Reagan in opposition to this fury and they would all agree that it clearly and only applies to the left.

        It’s deeply irresponsible, politically unethical and dangerous. At what point, though, do you throw in the towel?

        • Anthony

          Don’t throw in the proverbial towel; keep up the intellectual fight – reason, facts, appreciation of “other’ view, and recognition of Kruger-Dunning.

    • Username1

      1) Northwestern floats on a sea of Federal Student Loan Money and Federal Research and Fellowship Grants. Like a hospital which gets most of its funds from medicare, medicaid, and subsidized Obamacare patients there is a question being ‘private’ mostly in name.
      2) In the end Eikenberry is not there.
      3) Like the Medieval Catholic Church Academia is an institution is in need of reform. Like the Medieval Catholic Church it has its defenders who are convinced that since the Academy is full of intelligent people the complaints must be from those who do not get it.
      4) This Anecdote resonates because it reflects the reality of nearly everybody who spent serious time at a University and did not peruse a merely technical degree.

      • seattleoutcast

        This is correct in every respect. Remember how VMI was required to allow women because they received federal funds? Why can’t this work both ways?

  • jim

    This is why universities are investing in their medical, business, and engineering schools and turning the humanities and social sciences over to adjuncts at $2500 a course.

  • Dhimmystified

    Northwestern = Mizzou…

  • rosetta_stoned

    There is simply no way we can continue to exist with the left in this country.
    It’s time for the grand experiment to end.

  • ebbflowin

    I agree that the myopic view of veterans is ridiculous, and the arrogance of academia is nauseating. I also contend that the general’s underlying assumptions were showing in the last part of his quote, “you have to compete for market share.”

    Competition is one thing, and it requires a military-conditioned moral compass to consider American militarized norms of competing as acceptable. We compete as no other nation on earth competes. And inside our exceptional American vessel we call it normal.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service