I’ve often wondered — if Prof. Shanks is so unhappy with the caliber of students at Williams, why doesn’t she apply for a position elsewhere (like a D1 school — there’s the ticket! ha)?

There was this announcement, buried in today’s Daily Messages:

“Info For Those Planning to Join Televised GameDay Crowd

It’s important that all who intend to join the visible ESPN GameDay crowd at this weekend’s telecast read this full message for details.

MORE: http://www.williams.edu/messages/show.php?id=4231
from James G Kolesar, Office of Public Affairs

Message details:

Here’s what those wanting to be part of the visible GameDay crowd need to know. Rules for the rest of the tailgate remain as always.

On Friday from around 4:30 to 6, the cast and crew will tape segments to appear on that evening’s SportsCenter. They would like to have fans in the background. It’s important that people planning to attend these tapings not bring cars. No cars can be allowed in Weston at this time except for those that Williams Security will escort into place, by prior arrangement, in preparation for Saturday tailgating.

On Saturday morning, the gates to Weston Field will open at 8. Anyone arriving before then will line up outside the Gargoyle Gate on Latham Street. At 8, people can enter Weston and the GameDay area. At around 9, the caste (sic) and crew will produce several segments promoting the actual telecast. The telecast itself begins at 10 and ends at noon, when the game (which will be televised on New England Sports Network) begins.

No bottles or cans are permitted in Weston. Also prohibited for safety reasons are signs on sticks, poles, or planks. In the GameDay area, GameDay security will enforce the show’s rule of no profanity–written or spoken.

Enjoy.”

David–I think you are missing the point of homecoming tshirts. They’re supposed to be vaguely lewd, simple-minded, and inappropriate. I think most Williams students wear them with irony (which is why “Amherst Sucks” is quite possibly the perfect slogan–nobody believes that Amherst actually does suck, so the pure simple-minded idiocy of the phrase is deliciously ironic).

Any shirt that took itself too seriously–as most of your suggestions do–would miss the point.

From today’s Pete M blog at si/cnn:

“Williams-Amherst preview: You can throw out the records and bring on the clich??s when these archrivals meet in the Biggest Little Game in America. Saturday will mark the 122nd meeting, with Williams (5-2) leading the alltime series over Amherst (4-3) 68-45-5. Expect a full serving of schmaltz on College GameDay including coverage of ‘The Walk,’ in which the Ephs stroll down Spring Street (the only street on campus, natch) in full uniform to stop at St. Pierre’s Barber Shop for victory cigars, a full-throated rendition of the college fight song Yard by Yard and some shaved heads.

That only happens after a Homecoming victory, though, so the Ephs are counting on the likes of quarterback Pat Lucey and running back Brian Morrissey to ensure they can walk their Walk. Amherst likely has some fine fellows on their squad but I’ll be darned if they’re going to get pub in the 10 Spot. And as if the stakes could get any higher, the Little Three title is on the line since both teams already trounced perennial also-ran Wesleyan (sorry, Martel). Be sure to catch GameDay, as well as my account of the Saturday craziness in Monday’s 10 Spot. Go Ephs!”

Classy to take a pot-shot at one of the college’s most respected professors like that. You sound like those people who sit around watching a blizzard and for some reason say, “this is all Bush’s fault.”

It is not becoming when others use random occasions to take out their ax to grind, and it is not becoming when you do it either.

In 2001, Prof. Shanks told the Record “of course, this isn’t a college. It’s a Nike Camp with enrichment classes”

Prof. Shank’s statement was hyperbolic and inflammatory. Her criticism of the college was masked criticism of Williams’ students she assessed as malingering under-performing students that do not take their educations seriously and that do participate on Williams’ intercollegiate athletic teams. By advancing this rhetoric, a large number of EXCELLENT student-athletes at Williams take it on the chin from one of their own professors. As a political scientist, hell, as a professor, Shanks own conduct in the debate IS relevant.

More likely Prof. Shanks’ immoderate and disproportional criticism of Williams (and Williams’ under-performing student-athletes) is her own frustration of reaching unmotivated and disengaged students, and her sense of injustice about that. I believe She does care about their educations but I also believe she has given up on them and that she unfairly blames their participation in athletics.

There is inevitably a tension in elite undergraduate colleges between scholarship and student activities, especially athletics. Professors would be better served to raise their concerns without insulting the institution or the students they care about.

Vermando… the Hurrican was not Bush’s fault.

Putting an Arabian Horse trader in charge of FEMA, was.

Does my peg leg count as a stick, pole or plank?

The T-shirt could have been a bit more clever…

And what happened to “Ephelia”? Why did she transgender into a well-hung bull?

Why not a well-endowed “Ephelia”?

Some things never change.

Vermando claims that Cheryl Shanks is one of the “college’s most respected professors.” Good one! Evidence, please.

There are 240 odd professors at Williams. Is Shanks one of the top 5% most respected, i.e., among the top 12? Hah! Her comments on athletes put her out of the running for that immediately. Don’t believe me? Ask some coaches. Top 24? I have my doubts about this as well. To be widely “respected” as a professor at Williams, you need to be active as a scholar. (Whether or not this is a good standard is a side issue.) Has Shanks published much of anything in the last 6 years? Not that I can see. (She wrote an article that got her a job at Williams and a book that got her tenure. Since then, nothing.) That alone puts her out of the top 1/3 when it comes to respect, at least among her professor peers.

Is she below the median? Tougher to tell. She did serve as chair of the political science department. If she were a total loon, she would not have had that job. Is she a good teacher? I don’t know. What does FacTrak say? My understanding is that some students like her but that she is not at the top when it comes to the popularity of her courses or the evaluations she gets from students. (McAllister and Crane are among the elite in political science by these measures.)

So, if she doesn’t publish and her teaching is only average, then there is no way that she is one of the “college’s most respected professors.” And that’s before we even get to her statements about athletes.

That all said, I like Shanks! Really! I wish that more professors participated with elan and verve in campus debates. I want Professor Shanks to give voice to the opinions of many of her colleagues, that the College should further downplay athletics in both admissions and college life. I just wish that there were faculty who would voice contrary opinions as well.

The more diversity of opinion among professors on all topics, the more that those professors focus on Williams and participate in campus debate, the better.

Was Shanks’s comment relevant to bring up? Of course! The topic is: Why isn’t there a link about GameDay in the College’s main page? Do you have an better explanation than an undercurrent of anti-athlete, especially anti-football, sentiment among (some) professors/administrators?

Balance.

David–

Vernando is guilty of clichéd speech that many rely on, using the phrase “one of the most” to be able to praise anything in about any way you choose, with minimal data.

But this was not an indiscretion that makes a good target for aggressive refutation by you. Honestly, when people accuse you of “grinding axes” and “getting personal” I’m generally on your side, as I don’t see as much that I object to as people allege. But what you did above is wrong. Shanks only voiced a feeling that many professors hold but keep silent on. Your attack went beyond simply refuting Vernando, but questioning her fitness, impugning her professional worthiness.

This is not convincing and not befitting. I can tolerate your reminding the community of a years old quote, though it suggests an apparent lack of belief on your part in the ability of people to learn and change. (Has she reaffirmed this view since?) But your practice of using such “relevant” quotes becomes deplorable when you launch from such thin promontories into issues that were not in question.

I am not “questioning her fitness, impugning her professional worthiness.” Shanks was more than qualified to be hired by Williams and more than qualified to be tenured. Williams is not Princeton. But I don’t like it when Vermando pretends (or, more likely, actually believes) that, among her Williams peers, Shanks is one of the “most respected.” She isn’t. I explained, for those who don’t understand how the currency of respect is measured at a place like Williams, why this is so.

Even if all 240 professors at Williams are wonderful (and the vast majority of them are), some are more respected than others. I wouldn’t have felt the need to explain the facts of the matter if Vermando hadn’t misstated them.

But you are probably right that I should have just let this slide. I, like Jordan Tacher, need to work on my manners.

By the way, judging from the people I have spoken with, Shanks’s opinion is unchanged. She, like a majority of professors, would like to see less emphasis on athletics.

David:
You have a beautiful quote on your Quote Wall by M. Esa Seeglum, that seems relevant to this discussion.

And while I don’t know the professor in question, and don’t mean to imply anything about her in particular, any educator that feels he/she has a disproportionate amount of “unmotivated and disengaged” students, especially at a school like Williams, should take on some of the responsibility for it.

Cheryl Shanks comment was a joke! A joke. Surely with all the bright and tough jocks the present Williams claims to have, some one could come back with an equally clever and funny retort. Or has Williams gone soft.

I am with Henry on this one… countering politically correct nonsense with politically correct nonsense in the form of an attack is just obsurd. “Please help me, I am the oh so opressed and insulted College Athlete who goes to Williams.” What nonsense.

If anything, I think Davids attacks on Tips show a stronger prejudice against current Eph star athletes than what this prof said. Especially football and Hockey players. Not that it matters. She has her opinion, just like David, and both of them are allowed to express it.

Henry: I’ve always regarded the oft repeated Shanks’ quote as a joke - and a better than average one at that. Perhaps some of our fellow bloggers are getting old, hypersensitive, humorless and downright crabby.

Frank,

I assumed you knew it was a joke. But many of our very young bloggers are humorless and crabby. This was not always true of Ephdom. And I’m sure you will agree that this is too bad.

We have all too few Shankses at the Village Beautiful today.

Prof. Shanks’ factrak reviews are actually strongly positive, with the exception of one guy who didn’t like her grading. A representative quote:

“Wonderful professor. A little bit crazy, very opinionated, super smart, and really makes you think. Taking a tutorial with her was definitely the most valuable academic experience I’ve had so far.”

All good points above. Only points to clarify:
1) My data for thinking well of Professor Shanks was that she was universally beloved and respected by the students whom I knew in the political science department during my time there. Her international law class was always oversubscribed, with students describing it as one of the best classes they ever took.
Of course, these points are anecdotal - included in my sample are many athletes, hard drinkers, and others whom people on this board seem to suppose would have a problem with Professor Shanks, but in the end, it is as Mr. Landsman describes, cliched speech.
2) The cliched speech denotes, though, that I think that the person about whom I was writing is, as a professor, worthy of the respect of at least not being the subject of pot-shots by bringing up old quotes in the context of an athletic event about which she has been utterly and innocently silent. The result of the pot-shot was predictable - people immediately began to pile on Professor Shanks when she has said and done nothing in the context of the event to draw attention to herself.
Such pot-shots are fine tactics - I worked in politics, so I have used them myself to imply things about opponents and to bring up experiences which they would prefer to forget. It is, though, conduct with which one treats an opponent, not a third party who teaches at a school which one professes to admire. I would consider it crass if every time a racial incident occurred posters said things like “perhaps he had been speaking to former baseball coach _______” when in fact the former baseball coach had nothing to do with the incident.
Similarly, I do not think that Professor Shanks should be dragged into this discussion here - it is a gratuitous pot-shot taken at her when she is not involved. Moreover, it distracts from the real issue of ‘why the heck wasn’t the college promoting the ESPN college gameday festivities on its web-site’. The opportunity to get to the bottom of this good question (truly anti-athletic bias? person in charge of headlines not on top of things? no system / process in place to ensure that top stories are where they should be?) was replaced by a reflexive wave towards an old axe about which there was no evidence and which (possibly, depending on the actual reason for the lack of a headline…) distracts us from the real source of the problem (assuming that we all want the college’s home-page to be top quality).

I never cease to be amazed at how pathetic you are, Kane. Is the fact that Prof. Shanks made a disparaging (and very humorous comment) about the place of athletics 6 years ago and the fact that a former student praised her in these comments reason for you to mount a nasty attack on her scholarship and the level of respect she enjoys among her peers at Williams?

You write: “‘Shanks is one of the “most respected.’ She isn’t. I explained, for those who don’t understand how the currency of respect is measured at a place like Williams, why this is so.”

1) How the hell do you, as someone who was a student at Williams many years ago, have any idea of “how the currency of respect is measured”? Have you polled faculty members at Williams? Do you have any evidence that their level of respect for other profs is based primarily on the number of publications they have. I can promise you that it’s not.

2) The negative comments you make on her teaching are based on absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE! Do you have access to that data? Of course not.

I find it pathetic that someone who runs a fund that lost his 84% of his investors’ money last year could be so critical.

Wait, is that not true? Sorry, I have no idea how well you do your job, but since I find you so obnoxious I decided just to make something up! What fun! Compared to the public face your comments on this blog give to Williams, the shit smearers come out looking good.

1) It was a “joke” in the sense that Shanks meant it to be funny. And it was! Indeed, it is one of the best lines in all of Ephdom in the last decade. But the context was an interview on the (over)emphasis that Williams places on athletics, in Shanks’ view. How do I know? I had lunch two weeks ago with the Record reporter who did the interview and wrote that story! Perhaps Vermando could ask Professor Shanks if she has changed her opinion . . .

2) I never denied that Shanks was “universally beloved and respected by the students whom I [Vermando] knew in the political science department.” Indeed, I have heard good things about her teaching from others, especially those with similar viewpoints. Good stuff! I would much rather Williams have good teachers like Shanks instead of mediocre teachers who do more research. But, again, it is my understanding that, within the political science department, several other professors have more student interest in their courses and better student reviews. How many students enroll in most of Shanks classes?

3) My qualifications to evaluate Shanks research in relation to others? I have a Ph.D. and am a member of the American Political Science Association.

Do you have any evidence that their level of respect for other profs is based primarily on the number of publications they have. I can promise you that it’s not.

Ha! You don’t know what you are talking about. The primary currency in academics is research.

By the way, check page 106 of the course catalog.

POLITICAL SCIENCE (Div. II)

Chair, Professor CATHY M. JOHNSON Professors: CRANE**, C. JOHNSON, MACDONALD, MAHON, MARCUS, M. REINHARDT*, A. WILLINGHAM. Associate Professors: M. DEVEAUX, M. LYNCH, MCALLISTER, PAUL, SHANKS. Assistant Professors: MARASCO, MELLOW, MUNEMO, THOMAS. Adjunct Professors: JAMES, K. LEE**. Stanley Kaplan Visiting Postdoctoral Fellow in Political Science and Leadership Studies: ROVNER.

(Full) Professors have higher status than Associate Professors. This does not map perfectly to respect, but there is a correlation. I believe that Shanks is the “senior” associate professor. That is not a sign of “respect” from the people who run Williams . . .

Note that I could be wrong about this. For example, Shanks homepage lists her as a “Professor.” Perhaps the catalog is mistaken. It could also be that Professor Shanks is about to publish another book. That would generate plenty of respect from her academic peers.

And on dragging her into this for no reason? Just asking because everything else you say seems reasonable.

As I said above, I think it would be improper to mention the former baseball coach every time a racial incident occurred, and I think it is improper to dredge up her old quote in this context. Indeed, it distracted from the point of the post, inviting readers to take up the old ax being ground, which the first commentator predictably did.