H.J. Simpson know

Let me see, if I undertand this. Dr. G claims to be, an anarchist — and, yet, wants to be part of the education establishment. His posture, reminds moi of that great quote of Homer J. Simpson — “it’s everybody’s fault, but mine!”

Bart Simpson, Jr., Smart-aleck wise-guy at State U/Moo, at 9:57 am EDT on May 18, 2005

Even if it were somehow inconsistent to be an anarchist university professor (and of course, it’s not inconsistent), that would leave untouched the central question: why is Yale getting rid of Graeber? That’s the question at issue here.

Cole, at 12:55 pm EDT on May 18, 2005

Um, Bart, this would hardly be the first time someone has worked for an organization that clashes with their principles. I think anarchism is very silly political ideology, but it’s ridiculous that it should be a factor (if, indeed, it was). And don’t pretend like the French don’t have obtuse political theatre.

Yale has been absolutely brutal with union organizers in the past; it’s just a hunch, but I suspect this may have more to do with GESO than anarchism.

david watkins, at 8:04 pm EDT on May 18, 2005

Don’t have cow, man

“He just wanted to strike a fair bargain for his labor ..”

So .. why doesn’t he (as anyone can, for that matter), start up his own thang .. y’know, like Springsteen, or Dylan, or RATM ..

“And don’t pretend like the French don’t have obtuse political theatre.”

.. except, most of their actors aren’t multi-millionaires (e.g., Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Molly Ivins) .. again, only in America ..

Bart Again, at 4:39 am EDT on May 19, 2005

great news

prehaps we are seeing the beginning of the end “no enemies to the left” mentality endemic in academia. Mr. Graeber is, by normal societal standards, an absolute wacko.people like him are the reason the academy no longer commands the same respect it once did in western society.

w g grace, at 10:58 am EDT on May 19, 2005

Get real, please

“Anarchists .. just oppose the state, the government.”

Sir — how do you think, Democrats feel about GWB’s policies on social issues, and Republicans on economic issues? Do you think that they support the status quo?

“Moreover, just because you have a picture of an ideal society doesn’t mean you have to shun everything in today’s society that doesn’t fit your ideal. It’s OK for libertarians to use the US Postal Service.”

Dr. G & friends complain about a product’s production (e.g., banannas, coffee, maid service), I support them — I stop buying it. It isn’t worth the volume-level.

“In any case, this is all a red herring. The question at issue is why Yale got rid of this guy, by all accounts a solid teacher and scholar. And if they did it because of his political views or his extracurricular activism, then that’s a pretty screwed-up way to run a university”

What do you think the tenure process is about? Some form of voluntary, merit-only decision-making? Like anthropology is like a hard-science area, with firm and reproducible outcomes, as opposed to politically-based outcomes, involving <51 college juniors? Who’s being naive here? Get real, sir. As Ann Landers said: ‘wake up, and smell the coffee.’ After all those years in the academy, if Dr. G. didn’t know the game rules of tenure (i.e., kiss the butt of everyone, until you get it), he really wasn’t paying attention at the office. To paraphrase Dr. S. Fish: you want to save the world, do it on your own time and your own dime. Like, on your day off.

Bart, all grown up, at 7:45 am EDT on May 20, 2005

We really don’t know enough about the specifics of this case, but in general:

1) All universities have detailed tenure and review policies and these are, as far as I know, always based on merit. There are obviously also standards of behavior that must be met, but these are rarely an issue and there seems to be no effort in this case to present a behavioral reason. There is, though, the latest wrinkle, of “collegiality” a gaping loophole that administrators (and faculty committees) are trying to use to can unpleasant colleagues. But in the end, everyone likes to pretend that merit is the only consideration.

2) Administrators are always trying to get rid of troublesome faculty even when they are otherwise highly accomplished professionally (teaching, research, service), and if the faculty member is untenured, can often trump up a “merit” based reason to let them go, as Yale tried in this case with the “questions about your teaching” issue When called on their decision by the faculty member (in a lawsuit) or by other professors/students, they always hide behind the “personnel matter” shield. Only the courts can pierce that shield.

3) It may be that Yale can dismiss a faculty member without cause at certain points in the probationary period. Otherwise I have never heard of an untenured faculty member being dismissed without a negative evaluation forming the basis of the decision.

4) Every administrator and faculty member that serves on a review committee, carries in their head several different “realities” when it comes to evaluating faculty members — there is the strict merits of the case, the reality formed from facts on paper; there is the faculty member’s judgment about what is “really” true about the faculty member’s merits, even if the facts don’t entire support that truth; and finally there is the “do I really like this person being my colleague” level, which of course affects judgments on the other levels. We can get confused about which reality is which, and try to convince ourselves and others that there is only one reality, but in the end I believe that every honest faculty member must struggle to reconcile these different realities with each other and with the tenure policies of their own institution.

5) Yes, administrators and faculty review committees do bad things to get rid of troublesome faculty who are otherwise meritorious. Sometimes the nasty facts can be pried into the open or pressure exerted to reverse the decisions, but sometimes not. In the end we should want decisions that can be openly supported with facts, not silence and secrecy, not with administrators hiding and their hapless spokesmen giving us the “personnel matter” stonewall.

This is the tenure process that has been in place for many years. As the corporate model takes hold in academia, there is more pressure to also consider “are you on the team or not?” but few administrators are ready to come right out and make this part of tenure. Politicians and donors are not so bashful, and grow less and less so each year. This puts administrators in a bind (poor babies!). The first thing I thought of when the Ward Churchill thing broke was how the U. of Colorado president would be squirming under microscopic scrutiny from politicians, donors, the media, and the faculty. In the end, she resigned.

Almost all faculty members, and certainly untenured faculty, understand that they need to be “team players” so as to have the considerable plasticity of academic judgment on their side in borderline situations. Very strong, very independent, very idealistic, or very foolhardy faculty will speak out against their department or college administration, or take controversial political positions, but they invite a fight over their future careers if they do so. Even most tenured faculty will not rock the boat – there are simply too many things they can do to you to make your life miserable, even if they can’t fire you (and don’t think they can’t, either).

Bob, at 12:37 pm EDT on May 20, 2005

Several of the comments are blaming university administrators for the denial of renewal towards tenure at Yale. This is unfair. The story clearly states that it was a panel of twelve senior faculty members that failed to support his application. Privacy prevents them from speaking, leaving any comment to an administrator who can only cite the confidentiality. Don’t shoot the messenger here!

One commentator mentioned “collegiality” and this is very likely the reason behind this denial, or rather, the lack of collegiality. Tenure to an unpleasant person guarantees an unpleasant workplace for the remained of your career. Why would anyone want to saddle themselves with that? Faculty members want colleagues, not problems.

Michael Class, at 11:46 am EDT on May 23, 2005

Graeber Story

The academic environment is filled with Woolworth-like structures. The fear of revolutionary spirits is enormous in academic institutions. Most of the heads of Departments fear young academics that are vibrant, strong, compassionate, and willing not to compromise quality. David Graeber is one of these young people who believed in the truth.

nath Aldalalaa, Dr. at Edgehill College, at 3:00 pm EST on November 23, 2005