From The NYTimes’ book list ..

The book “Freakonomics” is the kind of goofiness you get from sixth-year PhD students. They “mash” something together weird (e.g., NASCAR and goth-metal) and get on the “Today” show. I’ve only read summaries; I could give a rat-butt about its approach, “Beyond Greed” by Shefrin is the classic.

But left out of the farm-village faculty/staff pettiness, is this fact — “Freakonomics” is a national best-seller —

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4844478

its authors NYTimes Sunday magazine columnists —

http://www.google.com/search?num=...konomics+best-seller&btnG=Search

and, until today, no major organized attacks on it.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q...arch=&as_rights=&safe=images

About this — “If the book he had proposed was a Klan title ..” — last time I checked, the Klan hadn’t had an NYT best-seller, in at least the last 75 years. This is the year 2006, rumor has it.

Now, thanks to the cool, enlightened response by some OSU-M faculty, the librarian has defacto tenure. That is, until he retires or leaves voluntarily, any attempt to demote or discipline him would be considered retaliation. Y’know — an icon like Timothy Ayers, or Grover Furr, or Ward Churchill.

And some wonder why taxpayer support for public colleges is declining?

Art D., at 6:00 am EDT on April 14, 2006

re: Can we say open debate?

I have a very serious problem with academics who feel that, when challenged personally, they have to resort to name calling and legal action. This librarian truly needs to be engaged in debate—the merits of his choices (of which I think it has none) need to be addressed versus the limitations (which are great). Why not just say, “Why would we want to ask students to read a polarizing book or questionable quality, which there are much better examples of nuanced discussions of controversial issues?”

It seems to me that so many college students, reflecting their community attitudes, are much happier entrenched in their own little worldviews, and see no need to engage in honest intellectual exchange. The OSU Mansfield faculty and staff are making a mockery of what higher education and the supposed values we all hold dear. If there is no hope of engaging difference of opinion thoughtfully, politely, and less emotionally, where will this take place? Certainly not in the halls of Congress, nor on a.m. talk radio.

The Untenured Observer, at 8:25 am EDT on April 14, 2006

Petty Faculty

The faculty members themselves verify the need for an Academic Bill of Rights. He did not harass anyone, he just sent an email suggestion of a book to read, without any expectation that the left-wingers would actually choose it. Was he not on the committee? Did he not have a right to make a suggestion? Would the book not spark active discussion? In the end, they chose a good book, but shouldn’t ALL of those whose suggestions were not accepted be chastised severely?

This is fresh evidence of the absolute goofiness rampant among some public university faculties. The administration should have intervened earlier and not let the gossip mill roll on.

Have a happy day!

Cal, at 8:40 am EDT on April 14, 2006

The Disgrace from a Conservative Point of View

The disgrace here is that college students are not reading enough “real” books. Books that one could take for granted as having been read by just about everyone have now become known to only “the elite,” or the old-fashioned types. College students can watch the talk shows without paying tuition.

A Real Academic, at 8:55 am EDT on April 14, 2006

An ‘Icon’ recommends Ehrenreich, _Nickel and Dimed_?

Fascism is no less evil when disguised as religion, as it often is. Kupelian’s disgusting book is further evidence — as though any were needed — that there is far too much “conservatism” both on and off campus already. Students should no more be required to read evil like Kupelian than to read _Mein Kampf_.

I don’t understand why “Art D.", a previous poster, called me an “icon". Still, I recommend, for assigned reading to all students, Barbara Ehrenreich’s _Nickel and Dimed_. It will infuriate “conservatives", as does any contact with the truth, and show a few of the horrors of exploitation and injustice in the imperialist USA.

Grover Furr, Montclair State University, at 9:15 am EDT on April 14, 2006

read more carefully

The book which caused the furor was “The Marketing of Evil” (the evil in question being homosexuality), not “Freakonomics.”

FVP, at 9:20 am EDT on April 14, 2006

No Worries

I’m not sure what everyone is uptight about. I’m quite confident the faculty of Ohio State will successfully erase the offending book from the curriculum, the offending librarian from the staff, and the offending ideas from the heads of their students. Isn’t that what universities are for?

Ohio State University: its not for an education, its for a degree.

Steve

Steve, at 10:25 am EDT on April 14, 2006

Both Sides Were Petty

I wonder how much of what went on in the committee and has happened since is the result of personality conflicts.

According to the article, the librarian involved (Scott Savage), seems to have started the entire problem with his claim that “many of the books under consideration were ‘ideologically or politically or religiously polarizing.’” The article continues by saying that “The books he cited that were then under consideration were by authors such as Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver.”

While the article doesn’t mention which other books were objectionable to Savage, and doesn’t specify which books by Carter and Shriver were objectionable in his eyes, let me take a stab at it and assume that the books in question by these two were Carter’s _Our Endangered Values_ and Shriver’s _Ten Things I Wish I’d Known Before I Went out into the Real World—or perhaps her 2005 book _And One More Thing Before You Go_. (I’m assuming that none of her children’s books were under consideration.)

Both of Shriver’s books are helpful-hint/inspirational guides to “the real world.” How would these be “ideologically or politically or religiously polarizing"? And while Carter’s book does criticize Christian fundamentalists, the book’s expression of his more liberal views is nevertheless deeply based on his own fervent Christianity.

So, when these weren’t to his liking because of their alleged polarization, he proposed _Freakonomics_, which apparently received a response; how negative a response might be suggested by the article’s statement that “But his comments to the group against picking an ideological book struck some the wrong way.” (How much of this is perhaps a personality issue? Why did the article make a point of noting that he had volunteered for the committee? Was there perhaps some personal agenda behind his volunteerism—tied into an already existing antagonism with specific faculty members or those that seemed to represent the liberal enemy?)

Then, from what I understand of the trajectory of the narrative in the article, he seems to have retaliated by choosing books by Santorum, Horowitz, and Kupelian—choices which seem to have been more designed to be petty and childish choices in that he had to have known that they’d be strongly objectionable to other committee members.

Given the pettiness that seems to exist, not only on the “liberal” side but also—and particularly—on the poor victimized conservative Savage (given that he may have initiated the entire conflict), it’s unfortunate that this situation is likely going to be more fodder for the Horowitzes in the U.S.

CJO, at 10:30 am EDT on April 14, 2006

Starting the problem

“According to the article, the librarian involved (Scott Savage), seems to have started the entire problem with his claim that “many of the books under consideration were ‘ideologically or politically or religiously polarizing.’”

This is a welcome, because overt, expression of dissent itself as a “problem.” I appreciate the honesty. People need to be clear about the nature and scope of the problems afflicting our universities, and viewing all dissent as a “problem” is foremost among them.

Because this guy Savage dared to cause a “problem” by stating an alternative viewpoint, he is therefore on a par with faculty filing harassment claims and threatening litigation over a proposed student reading? Very telling indeed.

Bad English, at 11:20 am EDT on April 14, 2006

re: Mein Kampf and Mao’s “Little Red Book”

Gary, consider the difference in the experience between yours and the first year students at OSU-M:

“When I attended my undergraduate institution, we did read ‘Mein Kampf’. We also read Mao’s ‘Little Red Book’ and discussed fascism, communism, and African slavery and civil war.”

Where you read primary sources by important figures, these students will get third-tier crap written by a guy who runs a website. Instead of class discussion, many of these students will have unstructured, open-ended “campus dialog.”

jeff, at 11:25 am EDT on April 14, 2006

Bad Oats

It’s a bit of a shame that Quakers—notable in American history for their pacifism, their support of women’s education and political rights, staunch abolitionists, and believers in individual revelation—might now have their name associated with the values of hateful demagogues like Rick Santorum. I’ve never met a Quaker who espoused such views, but no doubt they exist, just as they exist among all Christian denominations. Still, it’s a far cry from the educational legacy that mainstream Quakerism has so generously left us.

Earl Grey, at 11:40 am EDT on April 14, 2006

Forgive Me ...

Please forgive the personal nature of this response ... but it is about books.

I grew up in Western North Carolina under conditions just slightly more academic than those of Charlotte Simmons. There were never any books in our house. I was the fist grandchild on both sides to go to college.

When in high school, I checked out practically every “adventure” book in the school and town libraries and I read them all. I had no idea what good literature was, and I read more literary trash than you could possibly imagine. I loved it all. During my senior year, I read most of Shakespeare’s plays simply because I knew they were “important” ... but I understood very little of what I was reading. I failed senior English and repeated it in summer school in order to graduate.

During my freshman year in college, I ran into a young assistant professor of English who claimed that by the time one was a freshman in college one should have a personal library of 200 books. I didn’t have a great deal of discretionary cash, but I spent most of what I had on books. My professor guided many of my purchases. In retrospect, my most embarrassing moment in college was when I suggest in a class discussion of “Huckleberry Finn” that there was the distinct possibility that Mark Twain wrote it simply for the enjoyment of young boys.

I entered college a very naive, extremely conservative, pre-ministerial student, and I left an incredibly confused mathematics major ... and using and teaching mathematics became my career. Forty-five years later I am wonderfully well-balanced, reasonably well-informed about the world in which we live, and just as confused as the day I received my bachelor’s degree. I would not have it any other way ... and I owe it all to a relatively small number of interesting professors and colleagues and to books, books, books, and more books.

I don’t know how to respond to the situation at OSU-M except that it strikes me as being remarkably bizarre. I won’t call it anti-intellectual per se, but it definitely challenges my notion of what an important educational experience for an undergraduate student should be. Were, I a professor there, I would recommend stepping back from the situation and asking, “what do we want for our students and how can we engineer the culture for learning that is The Ohio State University at Mansfield in a manner that maximizes the probability that we can realize it?” Then, I think, something as trivial as the choice of recommended readings will fall into place rather naturally. What is important, I think, is to “agree on” what we should expect of our students ... and in particular, what we can do to (1) make their undergraduate experiences important ones, (2) provide them with skills that will enable them to be gainfully employed when they graduate, and, perhaps more important, (3) inspire them to devote much of the rest of their lives to becoming educated persons and active citizens.”

And yet here we are, arguing – and threatening to sue each other – over the choice of a book we want them to read? Cut me some slack!

RWH, at 12:50 pm EDT on April 14, 2006

Taking quotes out of context

It is, indeed, “Bad English” to take quotes out of context. Please read carefully and note that I made the comment about Savage’s “dissent” in the context of the specific books that he apparently considers “ideologically or politically or religiously polarizing.”

Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with a concern about polarization being created by a mandated piece of reading. However, first, even if a piece leans to the left or to the right, appropriate discussion of its merits and its drawbacks should be able to avoid polarization. Secondly, I repeat that the Shriver and Carter pieces would seem to be far from polarizing—even Carter’s which, though it does criticize the excesses of fundamentalist Christianity, nevertheless is suffused with Christian principles.

Nor is there a problem with offering reasonable suggestions from a conservative perspective. The problem that Savage created was that especially the Horowitz and Kupelian works are objectionable to, it seems, all but the most unthinking partisans of, in some cases, some unsavory ideas. So, he countered some apparently mild books with outrageous ones, particularly in the Kupelian case. He could have offered more reasonable conservative options, but seems to have chosen these perhaps out of spite. Therein is the heart of the problem.

CJO, at 2:20 pm EDT on April 14, 2006

CJO

For goodness sake, should I have reposted your entire post? Your words are your own; I did nothing to alter them, and their context was a clear matter of record. I merely dissented from your viewpoint.

Oh wait, dissent is the “problem” to begin with, isn’t it? I almost forgot.

Bad English, at 3:40 pm EDT on April 14, 2006

What if

they picked two books, alternative views on the same subject?

KKrassa, at 4:45 pm EDT on April 14, 2006

Offensive

I see the idea of “creating contreversy” and “challenging preconcived notions” ends when a protected special group is criticized. Typical.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 6:45 pm EDT on April 15, 2006

Irrelevant

“The question that remains is how much confidence can there be in a reference librarian—somebody entrusted with referring people to sources—who thinks this counts as a serious book, worthy of proposing as a common core reading?”

These are not grounds for filing a sexual harassment claim or for threatening a lawsuit.

Bad English, at 6:30 pm EDT on April 16, 2006

Dr Duemer:

Homophobia is rife on American campuses, encouraged by antiquated institutions like fraternities & division-one athletic teams.

How are you defining the term, ‘homophobia’, and what functional relationship do you propose between said phenomenon and athletic teams or fraternities?

Anti-gay slurs are the last “socially acceptable” allowable on campus, so that calling someone or something “gay” is an acceptable public putdown even among people who would never use a racial epithet in the same way. The idea that a librarian would propose a book that promotes homophobia is highly disturbing. On my campus, which is quite conservative, such a suggestion would be read as offensive to our statements of mission & values. I stand with those faculty at Mansfield who stood against bigotry.

Did you read or systematically inspect the book?

Why does in count as ’standing against bigotry’ to intiate grievance procedures and dispatch flame mail (the properties of which would be injurious to the reputations of Prof. Buckley et al outside the milieu of an academic department) to a librarian who suggests (upon invitation) controversial literature for a reading list?

Allowing as how the blurbs indicate that the author’s point of departure is that homosexual conduct is a personal and social evil, why does it constitute ’standing against bigotry’ to engage in obnoxious exhibits at the suggestion that students assess and ponder such arguments?

What is your working definition of ‘conservative’? Would the average Republican voter recognize such a definition?

On the subject of bigotry, what is the evidence that Mr. Savage is more closed to argument or bears a more extensive or severe set of animuses than Dr. Furr?

Art Deco, at 5:15 am EDT on April 17, 2006

It’s a bit of a shame that Quakers—notable in American history for their pacifism, their support of women’s education and political rights, staunch abolitionists, and believers in individual revelation—might now have their name associated with the values of hateful demagogues like Rick Santorum. I’ve never met a Quaker who espoused such views, but no doubt they exist, just as they exist among all Christian denominations. Still, it’s a far cry from the educational legacy that mainstream Quakerism has so generously left us.

Politicians with the rhetorical skill to be demagogues are quite unusual in contemporary American politics. I read Mr. Santorum’s bimonthly column in Crisis magazine and can assure you he seldom utters a piquant phrase. Now, what did he say that would qualify as ‘hateful’? (And has he really been so assidious in saying what ever that was that the descriptive adjective could be properly applied to his person as well as his statements?)

Mr. Santorum is a Catholic and likely has little use for ‘individual revelation’ (or pacifism). When has he taken exception to women’s education, women’s political rights, or a free labor economy?

Art Deco, at 5:20 am EDT on April 17, 2006

Espousing homophobia is bad,

How is that defined?

Art Deco, at 5:20 am EDT on April 17, 2006

Why would one committee member’s book recommendation create a furor, regardless of the content? Still, some individuals are exquisitely sensitive.

I would prefer that the august intellects at the college simply let freshmen read the books that they prefer to read, controversial or not. Four years or more of college presents the authorities with plenty of opportunities to engage students with course-essential books of the university’s own choosing.

Marvn McConoughey, at 9:00 am EDT on April 17, 2006

Clarifications for this discussion

May I clarify a few points that may be causing justifiable confusion for readers of “Tolerance and a Reading Selection"?

The Chief Student Affairs Officer, whose idea the book program was, is in her first year at this campus. This doesn’t reflect on her ability or experience, but may have negatively affected the way the book selection process was handled. In addition, “the book” was intended to be read by EVERYONE on campus, not just students; the committee she selected therefore included some faculty, but also students and staff; this may help account for some of the lack of intellectual rigor noted by readers regarding some of the book choices. Several respondents to “Tolerance and a Reading Selection” have therefore incorrectly inferred that the book selection process is a reflection of the intellectual rigor of the faculty on the campus. OSU-Mansfield has some exceptionally well-qualified faculty.

Most respondents to this article (and actually the article itself) assume that the gay faculty members were threatened by the mere choice of the offending book. In reality, the gay faculty members stated that they felt harrassed or threatened only after the librarian forwarded the first gay faculty member’s in-house email to a public, conservative, openly anti-gay, website.

It should be remembered, too, that the skirmish occurred on a regional campus of OSU (not in Columbus where there is a relatively large gay population). Mansfield is a small city where the local newspaper regularly prints anti-gay letters to the editor and gives ample column space to evangelical ministers condemning the sin of homosexuality. The Mansfield campus has only two “out” gay professors, which requires a fair bit of personal courage on their part.

OSU’s administration claims to take charges of discrimination and harrassment very seriously. Their policy actually REQUIRES faculty (or staff or students) to report incidents of SUSPECTED harrassment or discrimination. (Investigators then take over to determine if in fact an offence has occurred; if not, the investigation is dropped; if so, there may be a variety of consequences, the mildest of which is “innapropriate behavior.") Faculty who heard/read gay colleagues saying they felt harrassed were, therefore, simply following university policy. (They were not themselves determining whether harrassment took place; the university’s investigators do that.) The process is intended to be confidential; the only reason the investigation became public is because Savage, the librarian, made it so.

David French, senior legal counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, is quoted in the article and draws special attention to the fact that the librarian is a “Christian.” French perhaps is not aware that two of the faculty members involved in the dispute (one gay, one not) are actually specialists in various aspects of literature and the Bible. One of them seriously investigated the priesthood as his calling before becoming an academic. French’s misleading implication is that Savage, the librarian, is, as a Christian, in a threatened minority on the Mansfield campus.

Colleague, at 2:25 pm EDT on April 17, 2006

Well, I must disagree a bit...with our anonymous “Colleague”

Some thoughts:

It is 6:00 pm on 4/17. No one has told me that I have been “cleared” of the harassment charge. It is now being claimed that “there was no finding of harassment” on April 6.

My four conservative titles were offered tongue-in-cheek after one of the professors on the committee claimed that the book chosen needed to be polarizing on behalf of university policies in favor of homosexuality and against fundamental Christians. I was making the point that some committee members would never accept a book that was polarizing if it went against campus orthodoxy.

I was right about that, eh?

It is disingenious to claim that the supposed “unsafe” comments were due to sending my responding email to “a public, conservative, openly anti-gay, website.” (It was the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which even “Colleague’s” Dean recognizes as a non-partisan, balanced organization defending everyone’s rights.)

The website had nothing to do with the harassment accusations. Read the email from Hamlin in response to my email:

“On the matter of homophobia, I think you should be rather careful, Scott. OSU’s policy on discrimination is not simply a matter of academic orthodoxy, but a matter of human rights. Re. Kupelian’s book, would you advocate a book that was racist or antisemitic, or are you arguing that homosexuals are not in the same category and that homphobia is not therefore a matter of discrimination but of rational argument? And what are we supposed to make of the fact that Kupelian’s Armenian family died in the holocaust? Does this mean that he then has the right to spout bigotry about other minorities with impunity? As for Dr. Reisman, Norman’s response seems sufficient. Your championship of intellectual freedom seems more than a little peculiar.”

Here is Norman Jones’ complaint to my boss:

“Dear Beth,

I feel it important as a faculty member here who relies on the library to tell you that Scott Savage’s decision to stand by his recommendation of this anti-gay book for our First Year Reading Experience, especially based on the reasoning he offers, severely damages my confidence in the library and its staff here at OSU-Mansfield. It will affect not only my use of the library staff in conducting my own research, but also my use of the library staff in teaching and constructing research projects for my students.

With deep regret,Norman”

Nothing there about outside organizations. The faculty assemblies on March 13 and 15 were quite clear in stating it was sexual harassment for me to suggest the book. There is no way to spin it, except maybe by fibbing.

As for whether everyone on campus is somehow obligated to report a claim of harassment, when that claim on its face is patently absurd and clearly violates protected speech rights and academic freedom, I leave for those outside of this Wonderland to decide.

Was I targeted because I was a Christian? Or maybe just because, as a plain Christian the assumption was that I am too “fundamentalist” or stupid to recognize suppression?

Those are interesting questions, and my colleagues have documented their beliefs so well that I leave it up to you, the readers.

You should, however, request of OSU-Mansfield the minutes of the faculty assemblies on March 13 and March 15, in order to have a full understanding of what has happened here. They are public documents, and they truly speak for themselves.

If you have become a disembodied brain chattering away in this forum, please take a moment to reconnect with your heart and imagine that it was you who was falsely and publicly accused of sexual harassment by “Colleague” and 20 of his or her faculty members. Imagine that you have been by God’s grace a faithful husband and father for 16 years in word and deed, and have never in that time told a dirty joke, or accepted it when people spoke hatefully of others. Imagine that on any given day at work you may be confronted by views and people with whom you disagree, but, in the words of those who work with you:

“I witness his work every day in answering reference questions, instructing library classes, collection development and grant writing. His personal beliefs do not enter into his professional life. He is an excellent and highly skilled librarian. His professional actions embody the spirit of intellectual freedom, rather than being influenced by his personal beliefs. There may be those who do not believe this, but there exists not one soul on this campus who knows his work better than I, and as such I hope that will carry some weight with you.” “Colleague” has already read this testimony.

Imagine it is you. Now go home and tell your family what is happening to you. Explain it to your friends and neighbors, all of whom are very religious and are very concerned about morals.

Okay, now go on back to arguing about which book selections are or are not harassing. Meanwhile I will be imagining how one lives down a smear of this dimension.

Scott Savage, at 7:40 pm EDT on April 17, 2006

Free speech for me, but not for thee.

If one were to posit that the purpose of higher education is to provide students with the tools they need to know “how” to think, then no written works — from either side of the political spectrum — would be off limits, and the only preference would be that a balance of viewpoints be presented so that the students would be able to consider those viewpoints within the marketplace of ideas and see the rigor, and failings, in the analysis of each author.

Even though Savage appears to have made his suggestions “tongue in cheek” after his colleagues listed numerous just as polarizing books on the othe side of the spectrum, his comments seem to be consistent with the notion of learning I describe above.

The actions of Savage’s colleagues, on the other hand, seem to be borne out of their view that the purpose of reading liturature is not just to figure out how to thing, but to provide a platform for the intelligensia to indoctrinate the students into WHAT they must think. I believe that is unfortunate.

B. Leonard, at 11:00 am EDT on April 18, 2006

Not True

Here is why Scott Savage has no credibility.

He states that he has not received notice that the charges have been dropped, without informing readers that the Dean of the Mansfield campus sent an e-mail announcement of precisely that on April 14, four days ago. Obviously the decision has been reached and announced; the official report may be a few days in coming, but Savage can have no doubt of the outcome, however much he feigns it.

He asks, “Was I targeted because I was a Christian?” He knows full well that this is nonsense, because many others involved in the discussion — starting with Norman Jones — are Christians.

He states that he proposed the titles “tongue in cheek.” He neglects to say that he defended adamantly the Marketing of Evil title when it was challenged. (That e-mail of his, by the way, is ommitted from the highly selective pastiche his lawyers have posted on the Internet—perhaps because it is deeply embarrassing and would contradict the bogus claim that he had suggested the title innocently?)

He alleges that in two faculty assemblies he was found guilty of sexual harassment, when in fact the faculty’s deliberations concluded precisely in a decision NOT to bring a common charge of that kind. Individual faculty pursued it later, but “colleague” has it right — they did so not necessarily because they believed the case merited, but because people had knowledge of one faculty member who did feel harassed, and because the official policy of the university obligates people to report such matters.

Savage, like his lawyers, does not seem to comprehend that the basic charge in the eventual complaints made was harrassment based on sexual orientation, not sexual orientation. In other words,discrimination was alleged, not sexual harassment. I was, to be clear, not one of those who thought harassment charges were warranted. But at least I can tell the difference between the two charges and policies.

I am among those whose confidence in the library has been shattered by these events. A tissue of oversimplifications, lies, and distortions about this case has been circulated on right-wing blogs by Savage and his legal team, and this posting of his — combined with all the indignant anonymous rantings on IHE by people with very little familiarity with the elementary facts — is just evidence of how little factual merit there is in Savage’s case.

Christopher Phelps, at 1:20 pm EDT on April 18, 2006

Librarian Savaged

What is there to say?

Scott Savage’s conduct amounts to a suggestion of some books for reading material.

The fact that these books are highly controversial is moot.

The behaviour alleged, on its face, does not amount to harassment.

Suggesting a controversial book as reading material is not in itself misconduct of any kind.

Unless there are some facts left out of the public record — Scott Savage has been mistreated, and the left wing professors who have accused him of harassment have behaved inappropriately.

Given the unambiguous state of US Law on these issues I imagine an apology and substantial settlement will be forthcoming.

It will be interesting to see if the University backs the Professors who cried ‘Harassment’ or cuts them loose.

Sam Smith, Tolerance and Dialogue, at 3:30 pm EDT on April 18, 2006

Good Luck Scott!

I am sooooo glad (1) Scott Savage has finally weighed in on this fiasco, (2) he does, indeed, appear to be a perfectly reasonable fellow “playing with the heads” of some of his intellectually challenged colleagues, and (3) he apparently cares about OSU-M as a community of scholars in a way many of his colleagues apparently have difficulty understanding. And I write that knowing that he and I are at opposite poles vis-a-vis politics and religion.

About him, goethe girl – and I think she’s terrific – wrote “I’m glad to hear from Scott that his suggestions were meant tongue in cheek, though I can’t help thinking you were being a little mischievous, too.”

I love that stuff. But within the past twelve months I was fired from a fourth- or fifth-tier (private) university – otherwise not unlike OSU-M — on the basis of writing a satirical essay I shared with only a few friends ... oh, I should mention “and in the presence of ‘colleagues’ whose professional cowardice has clearly purchased them much more than their research credentials ever will.” In my termination interview with the president – I wouldn’t have missed it for anything – he suggested that I get psychological assistance, insisting that upwards of 30% of all college and university professors need such counseling.

Since then I have been trying to warn young, aspiring academics to eschew writing satire, parody, or irony under any circumstance and to avoid making sarcastic remarks, no matter how clever, relevant, or humorous they may be, in the presence of an academic administrator.

In response to a recent article in InsideHigherEd, I wrote ...

“Writing good satire is not easy. One wishes to push the cusp of ‘acceptability’ just about as far as one can – as almost all great humorists do – all the while (1) making things ‘believable,’ (2) making a relevant point, and (3) fooling some of the readers all of the time and all of the readers some of the time. It’s a tricky business and sometimes, even with the best of intentions, it turns out to be sophomoric.”

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/11/09/galef

In response to another article in IHE, I wrote ...

“In any event, I’m leading up to my advice to young faculty members. You young folks in Ph.D. programs and in your first positions as assistant professors, however your structure your careers, do not, under any circumstances, write parody or satire. Eschew irony! Take my word for it, you will be writing in an environment in which sarcasm, biting wit, and paradox will confuse your colleagues, anger your chair and dean, and infuriate your president. And the legislators who vote on bills providing financial support for your university ... well, du-uuh.”

”Deep down in your hearts, you may not want to suffer fools gladly. Do it anyway.”

“Were Jonathan Swift your colleague, ‘A Modest Proposal’ and ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ would forever block his progress toward promotion and tenure. Indeed, I can just see [an upset faculty member at OSU-M], incensed at Jonathan Swift’s modest proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html), firing off a letter to the Dean asking if she knew one of her faculty members advocated that the Irish poor should eat their children ... of course after breast-feeding them for twelve months, at which time they would weigh an average of twenty-eight pounds. No doubt the Dean would share Professor Swift’s essay with a psychiatrist to confirm that he is both mentally unstable and a threat to society.”

“It’s not that these folks object to satire and irony, per se; it’s simply that they don’t have what it takes to understand it ... they are forced to take it at face value ... the curse of the intellectually challenged. We live in a time in which many of the works of Voltaire, Mark Twain, Aldous Huxley, Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Lewis Black, and Dave Chappelle will blow right past your Provost.”

“Perhaps I’m overstating the case, but I’d wager that most of your colleagues can manage only something along the lines of Jeff Foxworthy and Bill Cosby. They probably love the poetry of Edgar A Guest. Some will think the Harry Potter and Lemony Snicket series are subversive.”

“The Language Police have been patrolling outside academe for years. Now they’re firmly entrenched inside ... they are your ‘colleagues.’ As the great Pogo said in another context, ‘We have met the enemy ... and he is us.’ I implore you ... don’t write satire!”

see http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/17/ariz

On our last day of class, my Research Methods for Arts Management students threw a party for me. One of the many quite wonderful gifts they gave me was a pin that stated, “Life imitates art, but does it have to imitate satire?”

RWH, at 3:30 pm EDT on April 18, 2006

Shattered Confidence

Dr. Phelps at OSU Mansfield writes:

<"I am among those whose confidence in the library has been shattered by these events. A tissue of oversimplifications, lies, and distortions about this case has been circulated on right-wing blogs by Savage and his legal team, and this posting of his — combined with all the indignant anonymous rantings on IHE by people with very little familiarity with the elementary facts — is just evidence of how little factual merit there is in Savage’s case.">

These remarks raise a few obvious questions. How is one’s confidence in a library shattered? Did Scott Savage slip counterfeit or forged books into the stacks? Or, does having confidence in a library require that all the library staff and their blog readers around the country share your beliefs about human sexuality?

And this business about “Savage’s case” having “little factual merit” : I thought that the faculty accusers, who had the awful experience of feeling offended and threatened by a book recommendation, were the ones bringing a “case.” (A case, as it happens, which the University found to be without merit.) Do faculty members at the OSU Mansfield branch now put the burden of proof on individuals whom they accuse of misconduct, and expect them to prove their innocence? That seems like a rather abrupt departure from traditional notions of fairness, doesn’t it?

Frankly, this episode has made a laughingstock of the OSU Mansfield faculty, and reading Phelp’s comments, I am beginning to see how this could happen.

Cole Ayeland, Villanova, at 7:10 pm EDT on April 19, 2006

Wallets shattered

” .. I am among those whose confidence in the library has been shattered ..”

As a taxpayer, my confidence in higher education has been shattered by hyper-sensitive complainers whose work output makes me and many others wonder what we are getting for our money. Shattered wallets provide declining amounts of $$$.

Upset about the non-tenured having freedom of speech? Quit. Leave. Go. Leaving wouldn’t cause a problem — dozens of qualified replacements will apply for your position. Stop making yourself and others miserable, just for a paycheck — go somewhere else. Students deserve better — a lot better.

A.D., at 7:00 am EDT on April 20, 2006

Thanks for the reading list

I’m still confused by the chronology of who made what public when. Did this start when one professor sent an email to the whole faculty? It’s hard to judge a situation when I’m not there, and don’t have an inside view of thigs, but one student wrote and said that a student who questioned a professor’s assertions that certain historical figures were gay was shouted down in class. That hardly sounds like a situation that would promote open discussion, and maybe the professors have gotten used to their voices being the only ones heard. I’ve known Scott Savage for years, and he’s not one who goes away quietly when you try to shout him down. Even if the book had been chosen for a reading list, only a few people there in Ohio would have heard about it; now it’s been promoted all over the country. I think I’ll have to buy a copy to see what it’s about, and maybe I’ll read It Takes a Family, and Freakonomics too. Thanks for the suggestions.

Geoff Gilmore, at 5:25 am EDT on April 21, 2006

2 things out of Savage’s book list (and the ones recommended by the other committee members): (1)Is this the trivia college freshmen are reading today? where is the ‘academic rigor’ in any of them? most on the list are just social commentaries. (2) I read Kupelian’s chapter on the gay rights movement. He strings together a series of documented events that present a compelling argument about how the gay rights movement was engineered into the acceptance of homosexuality as a mainstream force. Yet in all of the comments here and elsewhere by those who oppose him, where are the point-by-point rebuttals? All I read is a bunch of shrill name calling and dismissive one-liners. Is he wrong? Prove it! (deafening silence..) Hmmm...seems to me Kupelian may be on to something here and those who bash him or his book are left exposed as guilty of the very things he asserts.

Mark, at 5:45 pm EDT on May 2, 2006