Sat 25 Jun 2005
In a different thread, Eisler describes one of my previous posts as “quasi anti-Semitic”. This is a serious charge and, while we try to keep the amount of navel-gazing within limits at EphBlog, I want to formally challenge Eisler to back up his claim. I believe that he is referring to this post, but perhaps it is to this one instead.
And, lest our other readers think that this is a waste of everyone’s time, I’ll note for the record that I engaged in a similar dispute with Esa Seegulam ‘06 a year ago. Since then, Esa and I have become e-mail friends; we had dinner together in Williamstown and I helped him find a summer job in Boston. We’ll be having lunch soon.
So, Eisler, bring it on. I am certainly guilty of “arrogance and intransigence,” but an anti-Semite I am not. Worst case is that we’ll end up as buddies. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
June 25th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
What’s an “anti-semtic”?
June 25th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Fine, I’ll spring the trap. But don’t expect me to remain engaged in this drivel for long. You’ve demonstrated how rigid you are, I just wish you would find a medium that didn’t explicitly involve Williams. Also note this is a typical example of Kane-ish nitpicking- if I had said ‘made statements that fliply invoked the legacy of Jewish discrimination in admissions’ you’d have little recourse. Now I’m forced to try to draw a corollary between that statement and ‘quasi anti-Semitic.’
Notice I referred to it as ‘quasi anti-Semitic.’ Let’s begin by using examining the definition of the word ‘quasi,’ deploying the ‘definitive record of the English Language,’ the OED:
2.b. With adjs., more rarely with advbs. or vbs.: Seemingly, or in appearance, but not really; almost, nearly, virtually.
Your post might not express a genuine feeling of anti-Semitism, but rather it concludes with a statement that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic: ‘Don’t let in so many Jews.’ (If you’re ignorant of how this relates to the mistreatment of Jews in Western history generally, and academic admissions more specifically, your problem, not mine.)
Now, obviously, the context of your post is a limiting factor: you are pointing out that favoring URM status for anything other than a straight tie-breaker involves keeping out others who would gain admissions if URM status were ignored (duh). However, to make this point- to generate interest, I don’t f*cking know why- you end with a statement which accesses a destructive and discriminatory legacy.
You’re not being *truly* anti-Semitic, you’re exploiting a sense of mock or psuedo anti-Semitism to generate interest or appear outre. Thus, *quasi* anti-Semitic. Note the tone and setting are important- the statement is abrupt, brief, lacking softening or limitation. It’s designed to get your attention by feigning anti-Semitism; in another context, it would be very easy to see that statement as explicitly anti-Semitic.
***
I understand you use Ephblog to pay homage to your father. Have you considered that perhaps not all patrimonial lineages have had the same experiences?
My grandfather was prohibited from going to medical school because he was Jewish. It really screwed up his life. Perhaps you understand why, given that personal connection, your decision to use anti-Semitism as a hook in your little blog is a bit offensive, and, perhaps, ‘quasi anti-Semitic.’
Mind you, there are a couple of caveats here:
1) Other groups have undergone great trauma also. I recognize and respect that, and understand why others might have similar reactions to the flip use of historical racial oppression. That said, to claim that I would react to *all* oppression with the same force as I do anti-Semitism would be to negate my own history and experiences, and that seems duplicitous, an attempt to aspire to a type of false universality.
2) Have I had good friends who made Holocaust jokes? Yes. Have I gone ballistic on them? No. Context has a lot to do with it. You make jokes around your friends and around people you like in private settings that you wouldn’t in a public forum, particularly if you essentially run the forum and want it to maintain an air of respectability. This is called discretion; it is the way of the world (yes, I’m aware there is a blackest kettle response here). I’m not a huge fan of the trend toward victimization, but at the same time I’m sort of a fan of respect in public forums.
Too bad you don’t understand that. Or, if you do, too bad you have such a poor ability to evaluate situations, and judge cost and benefit, that you’re willing to invoke a history of oppression and abuse to try to end on a sharp note in your blog. And if you behaved with more dignity, judiciousness, and respect in general, I would likely be less likely to rip into you (don’t ask me to provide a list of examples of this; someone else can do it if you’re too thick to recognize them yourself. I’m already bored of this).
Given the histories here- of both anti-Semitism and your own rhetoric- maybe you dig why I would call your willingness to invoke the legacy of anti-Semitism in such a casual way ‘quasi anti-Semitic.’
June 25th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
That last one was me, obviously. And with that I hope this is done.
June 25th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
A fortiori what’s “quasi-anti-Semitic”?
June 25th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Hmmm. Well, if by “quasi” you meant “in appearence but not really,” then I do agree. The post was, indeed, quasi anti-Semitic. If you meant, “almost” or “virtually,” then I disagree strongly.
Eisler:
Well, yes. Words mean things. I did indeed “invoke the legacy of Jewish discrimination in admissions.” Is that out of bounds? Is one never allowed to refer to this sorry history? Moreover, it seems reasonable enough to refer to this history in the context of Williams own policies.
Now, I don’t want this to get into a dispute over what Williams’ policies should be. And, I am not even sure that Eisler and I would disagree on this. But I maintain the right to speak the truth, to not hide behind the sanctimonious euphemisms of our PC-age. When Williams uses affirmative action to benefit Hispanic (or legacy or athletic tips) applicants, fewer applicants of other, more common, types are excepted.
All the great and good at Williams like to pretend that these rejected applicants, these high achieving high schoolers who want to be Ephs, are a bunch of rich, prep school WASPs. And some of them certainly are. But many of them are not. In fact, a few of them are Jews. Now, it may be rude to point this out, to note (correctly!) that if Williams wanted to go from 10% Hispanic to 15% it would need to reject some students, at least some of them Jewish, who it currently accepts. But is it beyond the pale?
Let us return to the offending passage.
How would Eisler have me rewrite this so that it made the same point — that admissions is a zero sum game and that, if you want the composition of the class to match the composition of the population from which it is taken, you need to penalize more successful groups — in a non-boring fashion?
I mean this sincerely. There are topics that I want to write about and points that I want to make that are uncomfortable ones, both for me and for our readers. I want to be forceful in my writing but not needlessly offensive, provocative but not abrasive. I want to write the sort of things that I would say in a Williams classroom, but not in such a way that it would ruin the discussion.
Consider this a cry for help.
June 26th, 2005 at 1:20 am
Just ignore Eisler. To put this as charitably as I can, he’s even more wrong on this issue than most others.
June 26th, 2005 at 1:22 am
When you play in the mud with a pig, not only do you get dirty, but the pig likes it.
Stay out of the mud, Kane.
June 26th, 2005 at 2:21 am
Stay out of the mud to Kane…how unexpected…
How would one rewrite it without making a “quasi-anti-semitic” reference? Take out the last sentence and replace with: “admissions is a zero sum game, deserving candidates have to lose spots to offer more spots to URM.” I’m sure there are much more powerful ways to say it, but your attempt at powerful not only invoked a history of discrimination, it either played on your ignorance of that history or knowingly made light of said history.
Either way, as Eisler originally called it “quasi anti-semitic”. What’s not clear? And I’ll say that the whole definition of “quasi” applies to this case, even if you won’t Kane.
And you would have said that in a williams classroom?
June 26th, 2005 at 9:41 am
Lowell, as a wise man once said, ‘The problem with Lowell Jacobsohn isn’t that he’s a libertarian, it’s that he’s a stupid libertarian.’ The funny thing is, you’re not just stupid, but fragile. I still remember when ACT brought in a speaker who condemned the war on Iraq, and offered reasonable arguments; I remember afterwards you were almost crying, literally your voice quavering, you were so upset, because someone had offered compelling, essentially irrefutable proof *that you were wrong* and like a small child you couldn’t handle it. [Wow, Rory, you're right, you can't say anything on a blog without coming off as an a-hole...]
***
Anyways, I was thinking about something last night, a scene from ‘Monty Python and the Meaning of Life.’ It’s near the end [minor spoilerz follow], where a cleaning woman and her boss are talking while she’s mopping up piles of vomit. He’s talking about how hard life is, and she says ‘Well, I’m just happy I don’t work for Jews.’ The boss pickets up a cleaning bucket full of vomit, dumps it on her head, and starts apologizing profusely to the screen, saying he had no idea he employed anti-Semites.
It’s a funny scene, and it captures a variety of dynamics- the continual presence of anti-Semitism in a society that still condemns it; class dynamics; the pervasiveness of PC that keeps these conflicts under the surface, and so forth. Is it ‘quasi anti-Semitic’? Maybe, but it’s executed in such a subtle and clever way, with all sorts of limitations in an explicitly comic setting, and done by one of the greatest comedy troupes ever (they have, as it were, a lot of communicative capital), so it’s OK- even good. I think you’d have to be really screwed up to have problems with it.
You, on the other hand, were trying to make a very prosaic point, aren’t especially clever or funny, and do stuff like this all the time. You once called me ‘No Aidan Finley’ (Aidan and I are both thankful for that); you, on the other hand, are no Monty Python.
Likewise, if Mark Lynch said something like that in his blog (which I doubt he ever would), I would probably grant him more leeway, especially if the context justified it (which I bet it would, far more so than your post, if he ever did). He’s got more credit to his name than you do.
How could you have made the point in a more tasteful way that invoked the same ideas? Yes. Trying end snappily with ‘Don’t let in so many Jews’ was just tasteless, dumb, and, given the style, ‘quasi anti-Semitic’. Maybe if this were your private blog, sure. But as we’ve all tried to indicate, your actions represent others, and as such are foolish and potentially destructive. You could have said ‘affirmative action necessarily involves the exclusion of worthy candidates. Ironically, one of the very groups that might be excluded by aggressive affirmative action policies- Jews- is one that has suffered historically etc etc.’ There’s an entirely different debate here- the contrast between positive and negative preference- but if you can’t grasp that I don’t really care.
Think about it, Kane- this was started when you rather hamhandedly implied that a student who overcame great difficulty and was admitted to Williams *probably had it a lot easier than an article you cited implied*. Imagine if you had just said ‘Wow, that’s awesome that she’s gained admissions to Williams.’ (With regards to this, I think of Guy Creese, who has been able to point to interesting information and raise points without being boorishly offensive. I was really happy when he became a regular poster- try to learn from him) Think about this- we could be *discussing something else*.
And this happens *all the friggin’ time*. You say you like to make people uncomfortable- how about sticking to your friends, sticking to a forum where you’re not acting as a representative? And if you’re going to make people uncomfortable, how about at least being clever about it? Take the man you love- Aidan Finley. Wisely, he’s varyingly offensive based on the context of his remarks, and he’s far more succesful at being clever than you ever are.
But really, as a lot of people have talked to have said, you don’t seem to be interested in change or adaptation. All I can do is ask you to take your garbage somewhere where it’s less reflective of Williams as an institution.
June 26th, 2005 at 10:30 am
Is the exercise of high quality humor a defense, in whole or in part, against a well founded objection based on substance? If so, what about low quality humor? What about a spurious objection?
June 26th, 2005 at 10:46 am
My short comment would be, the last time I checked, this was named EphBlog, not DaveBlog. If you want to post self-referential posts, DaveBlog and have those discussions there.
June 26th, 2005 at 11:02 am
Lowell, Kane likes playing in the mud. That is why he nitpicks articles and speeches (which is fine … I don’t think political blogs would exist were it not for such behavior). In this particular instance he literally created the sty by beginning the new thread. Still, I agree with you that I don’t see why he should have opened up the thread in the first place. The post seems more “All things Kane” or “All things Ephblog” than “All things Williams.” Kane acknowledges as much when he describes the post as “navel gazing.” Kane generally does a good job of tracking down stories of broad interest, this won’t go down as his finest post.
Eislerman, Kane may have many faults and some kooky ideas, but he is willing to weigh evidence and be persuaded of points. For instance, I sent Kane an NSF webpage debunking the particular theory he cited on the connection between HIV and AIDS. He described it as “convincing.” There are several other topics, some political some not, where Kane’s tone and substance have changed over a series of posts in response to comments on the blog. He might be on the other side of the political spectrum from you, but he is willing to listen and change (which is rare in this day and age).
Kane, I’ve said it before and I will say it again, the incendiary comments might generate lots of participation, but it isn’t a good publicity for Williams or Ephblog. The discussions aren’t fun. I would much rather be discussing the merits of TIPS, or a professor’s research, or even housing policy, or hearing about people’s memories of Williams.
It is clear to people who read the blog regularly that you were being ironic and intentionally provocative (although not all of us appreciated it). But you should ask yourself why it is provocative before hitting “post.” You knew the comment was on the edge of being offensive, and you still made it because you thought it was sufficiently clever. The forum is public. Try thinking about how a person coming across the blog for the first time might read it. If you think the irony and cleverness would be readily apparent, post it. If you have any doubts, perhaps we’d be better served if you holstered your snappy sign-offs.
June 26th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
David N,
That sounds about right. I’ll admit, I’m being pretty snarky because I’m in a bad mood. Thanks for translating my germane points into more civil language.
Jacob
June 26th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Eisler, the best thing about your rambling comment is that immediately after you call me stupid, you then proceed to misspell my last name.
That’s all I need to say in response.
June 26th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
I still remember when ACT brought in a speaker who condemned the war on Iraq, and offered reasonable arguments; I remember afterwards you were almost crying, literally your voice quavering, you were so upset, because someone had offered compelling, essentially irrefutable proof *that you were wrong* and like a small child you couldn’t handle it.
Wow Eisler, selective memory much?
First of all, it was Scott Ritter. Second, I wasn’t upset at all about the pack of lies spewn by Saddam’s bought-and-paid-for henchman. No, what upset me was the completely unscientific display that ACT had up in Baxter claiming that Depleted Uranium (which begs the question that they failed to answer “depleted of what?”) was “radioactive” and that such radioactivity caused all sorts of birth defects among Iraqis. This wasn’t (and isn’t) arguable — the information on that board was completely factually incorrect.
That display was the scientific equivalent of a hate crime — completely defamatory, confused vernacular with precise scientific language to make totally unrealistic and counterfactual assertions about the cause of various birth defects and the effects of DU. As somebody with a background in science, let alone a physics major, I found it insulting and demeaning to the sciences and completely unworthy of even a community college, let alone the nation’s top liberal arts college. The display is what upset me and where I was upset was in Baxter right next to the display.
Again showing your scientific and mnemonic ineptitude, Scott Ritter didn’t *prove* anything — he made another one of his Saddam-sponsored arguments, and it was hardly “essentially irrefutable”. Setting aside the issue of whether anything he said was reasonable, it certainly wasn’t conclusive of anything other than how deep into Saddam’s pocket Scotty was.
So again, Eisler, you really should get your facts straight because every time you open your mouth you come off like those OTHER deranged socialist jackasses, the ones who wander the streets of NYC and claim that the federal government uses the fluoride in your water to create a chemical reaction with the fillings in your teeth and control your mind to make you think that people actually did land on the moon. As much as I disagree with Rory on just about everything under the sun, at least he manages to make his points without being a Troll.
And speaking of crying, how’d your race against Maria LaPetina go?
June 26th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
a couple of things, in no particular order
1) Scott Ritter is a pedophile, and was caught soliciting sex from a minor less than a fortnight after his talk at Williams.
2) Even a suspected Galloway like Scott Ritter admitted that there were un-accounted for WMDs in Iraq. Unlike Presidents Bush and Clinton, however, he didn’t believe in doing anything about it.
3) The continual subject of how “official” EphBlog is has long ago ceased to amuse me. Kane’s perfectly entitled to his opinions and his site in no way purports to be anything official. EphBlog is not linked from the Williams website and is clearly the work of a passionate alumnus.
4) Again, it is beyond debate that some people have been offended by Kane’s occasionally flip commentary. Fortunately, Kane’s views are clearly expressed, and no regular reader is surprised by positions he takes. That being said, I think David Nickerson does make the point that, occasionally, a more deferential tone may be appropriate. I think we should leave that to authors to decide, obviously, but sometimes it seems that Kane’s initial posts are rougher and less nuanced than his actual positions. After long, multi-comment dialogs, the true position is reached; it might be more efficient to begin with more judicious arguments.
5) In the end, this is fun, not too serious, so folks should just concentrate on having a good time and enjoying their internet break at work. Seriously!
June 26th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Since Jacob Eisler agrees with David Nickerson and I agree with David Nickerson then, by the law of EphBlog transitivity, I agree with Jacob Eisler! And so this thread can end in agreement.
I’d also like to highlight Nickerson’s claim that hearing “about people’s memories of Williams” would be a good thing. I agree! We need more such posts. So, if you have a fun Williams memory to share please either post it yourself or e-mail it to one of the authors. The more posts from someone other than me, the better EphBlog would be.