Thu 15 Nov 2007
Am I making up these quotes?
[F]or all the hoopla given to diversity at this school, there is relatively little diversity of thought.
Although I don’t know the views of all the faculty members, I think you’re right. Not just on the issue of Jena 6, but in general. I would like to see an openly socialist professor passionately debating an openly libertarian professor. How come I don’t see that? Everyone would benefit from that. I just don’t see much disagreement at Williams. The more disagreements, the more heated debates, the better.
Seriously, though, it is a shame that there isn’t more diversity of thought amongst Williams faculty. It’s safe to say that their political leanings are predominantly to the left, though viewpoints on discrete issues are obviously much more complex. I would note, though, that there have been debates between professors of different ideological backgrounds. I wasn’t here for it, but one of the more contentious ones occurred between faculty regarding the invasion of Iraq…
So, the last time that a Williams professor publicly professed an idea that might be considered conservative/Republican was, what, 5 years ago? Good to know! Comments:
1) Williams has a problem with the lack of ideological diversity on the faculty. The first step in dealing with any problem is admitting that you have one. When I have brought up this topic in the past, many/most readers have claimed that the lack of professors willing to publicly defend their actual conservative/Republican/libertarian beliefs is a non-issue. Yeah? Tell it to students like Gary Jin, Achbold Battogtokh and Andrew Wang.
2) Previous discussion and related links here, here and here. One reason that no faculty member who is suspicious of the Jena Six will come take the other side at a teach-in is fear of retribution from his liberal colleagues. Or do you think that Professor Kirby was lying when he explained why he kept his (libertarian) politics to himself.
I did keep my views entirely to myself, but not because I was advised to do so. I had seen (on separate occasions) a senior faculty member make positive comments about a leftist job candidate and disparaging comments about a Republican student in department meetings, and these comments yielded assent from other faculty members. As a non-tenured libertarian these and other subtle signals scared me. I thought it prudent to keep quiet.
Indeed. What is the upside for a faculty member going to a Jena Six teach-in and arguing with the usual progressives? Not much, other than their undying enmity. Have fun with that! Even a tenured faculty member is stuck with these folks for decades to come. Who needs the hassle?
3) This has little to do with what goes on inside a Williams classroom and everything to do with political dialog in the Williams community. 98% of classroom teaching is not affected by ideology. (And it sure is fun to mock the remaining 2%!) The key issue is the campus conversation, events outside of class. Why was no conservative faculty member present at the Jena Six teach in? (My personal opinion is that, more or less, the Jena Six have been treated fairly by the justice system.) Was no conservative faculty member invited? If so, shame on the organizers! That’s not a teach-in; it’s an indoctrinate-in. Or was no conservative faculty member willing to speak out, or even available? If so, shame on Williams.
4) My opponents on this will point out that, as with finding more African American faculty, there is a problem with the small size of the pool. If all the political science Ph.D.’s are liberal, there is no way that Williams can expand the ideological diversity of its faculty. There is some truth to that. But the people who run Williams have no interest in ideological diversity even when they have a chance for it. Evidence?
First, we have the Iraq War teach-in from last year. I e-mailed Professor Singham to see if either a) pro-war speakers were invited and/or b) if she needed such speakers, I might attend. She was not polite enough to reply. Now, it’s a free country and Professor Singham does not need to reply to my e-mails if she does not want to. But if Gary Jin, Achbold Battogtokh and Andrew Wang are wondering why there are no non-students, much less faculty members, at these sorts of events at Williams, it is because of faculty like Singham. She has no interest in ideological diversity.
Second, I have applied to teach at Williams, on several occasions and in multiple departments. Nothing but rejection so far (although something might work out for Winter Study 2009). But this topic provides another opportunity, so I just sent Morty an e-mail (and cc’d those three students). See below for a copy.
Now, these rejections are almost certainly not driven by my politics. The MATH/STAT department wouldn’t care if I were a Marxist. But, at the same time, the fact that my politics don’t count in my favor is evidence that no one in power cares about ideological diversity. Being a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Eph Division may not count against me but it certainly doesn’t count for me.
Consider a hypothetical: What if I were African-American? Would Williams let me teach a one semester class? I am pretty sure (contrary opinions welcome) that Williams would, that it values racial diversity enough to make that happen. Ideological diversity? Not so much.
Morty,
Hope that all is well with you and yours. There is an interesting thread on WSO about ideological diversity among the Williams faculty. Three students (cc’d above) mentioned that they would like to see more of it. I am here to help! As you may recall, I mentioned teaching at Williams to you a few years ago. On that occasion, your (good) advice was to try to find some faculty who were interested in my application. Well, I have tried and gotten some interest, but, alas no offers. So, I thought, given the concerns expressed by these students, that it was worthwhile to raise the issue again with you.
I would like to teach a semester class at Williams. I would be happy to do so for free. I require neither salary nor benefits. I am flexible about department and topic. Here is the syllabus that I worked up a year ago:
http://www.ephblog.com/archives/images/rhetoric_syllabus.html
But, again, I am flexible. As you may recall, I am qualified to teach such a class (Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government; former member of the Harvard faculty; current Institute Fellow). I continue to be active in academic affairs, giving a talk at the Joint Statistical Meeting last summer and organizing a panel for next year. Relevant links include:
http://www.kanecap.com/publications.html
http://www.iq.harvard.edu/People/people.php?info=166I could put together a much more formal application and CV, if that would be helpful. I can also provide references, both from my academic colleagues and former students.
Of course, just having someone teach another class does not solve Gary Jin, Achbold Battogtokh and Andrew Wang’s problem with the lack of (public) ideological diversity among the faculty. But, if I were on the faculty, I can promise you that I would make my politics loud and clear, that I would attend (if invited) events like the recent Jena Six teach-in and provide a different viewpoint, always within the context of open-minded and respectful discussion, just like the ones that you and I had in ECON 401 exactly 20 years ago.
I can’t solve all the problems in the world, but I can solve the problem of the lack of ideological diversity on the Williams faculty.
Your former student,
Dave Kane ‘88

November 15th, 2007 at 10:14 am
While my views tend to fit in with the typical liberal Williams student, I definitely agree that we need more ideological diversity here. Whenever I see protests or awareness campaigns (i.e. the “wear green for the Jena Six” day), they always strike me as incredibly one-sided, like I’m missing a chunk of information. Having grown up in a similarly liberal community, I have to admit I’m fairly used to that, but I admit I’m a little disheartened that it extends to the Williams community.
On another note, that class sounds fabulous. Any chance of it happening this year?
November 15th, 2007 at 10:50 am
I believe that the college would be more likely to take you on if 1) you could do a Winter Study first as a sort of a trial run — and it sounds as though you may be going that way; and 2) you emphasized the discipline of rhetoric — which I believe the college would do well to reintroduce — rather than the particular ideologies you perceive yourself as bringing to the college.
As I see it, your emphasis on ideology is standing in the way of your being considered to teach rhetoric. The faculty may all (or mostly all) lean another way than you do, but I think that many of them act on a working assumption that their views are “neutral,” “average,” “commonly held,” “open” or the like. Aggressively waving the flag of ideology is a turn off and threatening and may well be perceived as unprofessional. They would want to know that rhetoric would be taught with a truly open mind, but coming in with an emphasis on your ideology and arguing that you should be taken on because of your ideology go counter to that, or at least seem to on the face of it. My perception is that, while someone may be hired as a [insert discipline] teacher with a Marxist approach, for example, he or she is hired as a [insert discipline] teacher first and foremost. Get yourself hired as a teacher of rhetoric, and don’t scare away potential rhetoric students or colleagues by overemphasizing your ideologies.
If you are on the faculty and opportunities present themselves in which you add ideological diversity to the discussion, very well and good. Don’t hide it, in other words, but let’s get a stringent, disciplined rhetoric class (that is perceived as not having any bias in any direction) going.
Good luck to you.
November 15th, 2007 at 10:51 am
David: I would audit that, provided that the professor approved.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Not that I can help you with the specifics, but your presentation does feel a little bit like your underlying goal is to teach your way of thinking, rather than celebrating and exploring different ways of thinking.
Maybe you could re-examine it with that in mind…
It’s also possible that I am just reading that into it based on the past posts that you listed. But since you seem more than qualified, maybe that is what is getting in the way.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:36 am
oh david. how’s that tilting at windmills going?
your sample size was 3. I started writing more, but I want to focus on that. your sample size was 3. this is a tired, tired argument of victimization you’re making for a group that isn’t victimized.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Ditto Rory. Also, there could be a ton of “ideological” or philosophical diversity that you’re not noticing because you seem to be judging purely on a left-right, Dem-Rep, lib-con spectrum. And the way that spectrum is ordered and positions on it are calculated can be arbitrary, ill-defined, and at times totally nonsensical from an academic perspective.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I would not conflate, David, your personal lack of an invitation to teach at Williams with a disinterest on the part of the college with having some other conservative professor teach a similar class. Just by nature of maintaining this blog, and in particular because of some of your most notorious posts on it (public critiques of prospective and undergraduate writing, the false accusations / intimations in association with the Lalalien controvery, etc. etc., using specific high school seniors as examples for one of your diversity rants, etc.), I would guess that you have burned a lot of bridges among faculty and administration alike. Accordingly, you are probably far too hot-button of a personality for the college to invite to campus as you request, politics aside.
Plus, while your offer is very generous, should the college accept it might set a precedent that would probably be less than thrilling to faculty who teach at Williams for a living. Now will any alum with a Phd who wants to teach at Williams for free for a semester be so permitted? If not, what will be the criteria? And how will that criteria be applied in such a way as to not upset potential deep-pocket donors who might also have an interest in teaching at Williams?
November 15th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
rory: It appears that liz at 10:14 is another student who took the time to write. Just because they’re not writing doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of others who feel the same.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Well, now we’re up to four, I guess. Much bigger. Give me a more meaningful example of bias, a more meaningful sample of students, and then we can talk. Until then, David continues to tilt at windmills.
Plus, on the wso thread, the original poster claims David misrepresented him now! So we’re back to three!
Professors aren’t hired for their personal views, nor should they.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
That student also says:
“My major problem with the teach-in was the rigidity of the liberal opinion. I have nothing against that opinion; I do think race relations is still a major issue in this country. Yet, I don’t think that racism should be discussed under the a false context. As the AP article shows, there is more the Jena 6 incident than the bullet points we, as a collective whole, have been bombarded by. It was that unwillingness to consider that the Jena 6 issue wasn’t so clear-cut (even the issue of whether economics and poverty could be a bigger issue in Jena, LA than race) that I have major concerns with.
I started this thread about the resistance against different opinions and new information that ran counter to the existing ‘happy consensus.’”
November 15th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I agree with most of the above.
1) My activities on EphBlog are one cause of why (some) professors don’t want me to be on a faculty. (I had an honest department chair tell me this directly.) But, interestingly enough, the issue there was not so much the topics that Jeff cites as my campaigning against giving money to the local school. That makes (some) professors very angry.
2) My politics are not that extreme, at least in the context of the college-educated US population as a whole. I am a registered independent but did vote for Bush. No member of the Williams faculty, as far as I know, has given money to any Republican candidate or publicly defended any major Republican/conservative position, at least since the start of the Iraq War.
3) My class itself, as the syllabus makes clear, has nothing to do with my politics. I think we all agree that, ideally, it should be impossible to tell who a professor voted for based on his behavior in class. When I taught at sophomores 10 years ago, they began the semester thinking I was a strong leftist because I did such a good job defending a Marxist point of view they found unconvincing.
4) What sort of evidence would convince Rory that there was a problem? Do the students need to have a hunger strike or sign a petition?
5) What evidence would convince Jeff that the College has no interest in hiring faculty who might, outside of class, go to something like the Jena Six teach-in and argue the other side? I am not claiming that the College is biased against such applicants, but it seems obvious that there is no particular effort to find them. Can Jeff point to a single example of any administrator at Williams claiming the contrary? No. Williams has no more interest in finding conservative faculty than it has interest in finding Denver Bronco fans. If a faculty applicant likes Denver then, fine. That won’t hurt him. But it won’t help either.
6) Pace Andrew, I am sure that the Greens and the Peace Activist on the faculty have all sorts of interesting debates among themselves. That is not the topic today. The issue is specific students wanting more diversity from the faculty. What do you say to those students, Andrew?
7) I appreciate Liz Weinberg’s interest in the class. Thanks! I also think that the class would be fabulous. Alas, it looks like it won’t happen anytime soon. Morty responded to my e-mail by pointing out (correctly!) that departments, not presidents, hire faculty. So, if I can’t interest a department in my class, I am out of luck. So far, I am 0 for 4.
8) Rory thinks that professors should not be “hired for their personal views” but that they should be hired for their race. I will need to think on that a bit . . .
November 15th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
The faculty diversity article in The Record made me a)glad that my Eph is an alum; b)glad that my Eph was a math/science person; c)convinced that Morty and Mimi are moving back to California soon, and he is getting all of his PC ducks in a row for the new job application. What a load of garbage.
“Liberal” bias regarding “diversity” on the campus is a huge problem all over, and anyone who doesn’t see that has their head up their sand (mixing metaphors to be polite.)
David posted this wonderful bit of investigative blogging a few years ago regarding former Williams history professor KC Johnson.
KC Johnson’s writing partner (on the subject of the Duke non-rape scandal), Stuart Taylor, had this to say just a few days ago.
Speaking of Duke, and the alleged lack of ideological bias on campus, try this on for size, do you think the Williams history department would be any more welcoming of Mark Moyar than they were of KC Johnson or David Kane?
November 15th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Dave,
I like your syllabus. I would be interested in taking your class. But there is too much emphasis on statistics, R, and other topics that really are not related to a class on ‘rhetoric’.
While I see that statistics is your forte, and I understand that statistics can be used in support of an argument (whether oral or written), there is enough to be learnt in the art of rhetoric that this approach can safely be ignored.
There are many advantages to removing the statistics component from your syllabus. First, there are enough students who would be fantastic candidates to take your course, but really are not interested in statistics. As a Math/Stat major myself, I frankly couldn’t care less about having more statistics interspersed into an unrelated class. It would be a distraction.
Please consider this. If not because of the rationality of my argument, at least because it splits your syllabus into two separate parts with diverging goals and thus hinders your chances at getting support from any one department to help you teach this course at Williams.
November 15th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Arjun is right. And if you drop the stats, the bundle can be better sized to fit a Winter Study slot, which is your best bet and where you might be able to find a faculty sponsor (more likely, at least, than finding departmental support for a semester course). To put the pedal to the metal, Morty, as a faculty member, can sponsor you, alumni teachers are not uncommon for Winter Study courses, and Winter Study topics fly further under the radar than semester ones do.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
The Economics Department of the 50’s was quite diverse. Emile Despres, the chair had plenty of experience of the real world and had buddies on Wall Street. Roy Newberger, founder of the Neuberger-Berman family of mutual funds (sold recently for 1 Billion) had Despres on his board. Stan Wellisz, the econ dept lefty could not decide which was worse the US in the 50’s or Poland of the same period.
Tho dissent could get you in trouble. When some of us supported Estes Kefauver in the Democratic primary in 1956 over Stevenson faculty members stopped us on the street to complain. They thought Estes was too country in a time and place that country wasn’t at all cool.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I would guess that the Econ department remains the most diverse in the college in terms of political views. I know that there are some libertarians, though this is not surprising.
November 15th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
An add-on to Henry Bass’s note:
1. I had Econ 1-2 in ‘53-’54 with Kermit Gordon, another economics faculty member in the 50’s and later a member of the Council of Economic Advisers (1961-1962), Director of the Bureau of the Budget (1962-1965), chairman of the Health Insurance Benefits Advisory Committee (1965-1967), and member of the Advisory Council on Social Security (1968-1971).
He may be noted as having roots in political realities, although as I was fighting my way through micro and macro in the ‘dismal science’, I was too confused to hear any cant.
2. On the plus-side of economics, according to Bill Potter ‘56, his uncle Roy Neuberger is alive and well at 104. While Mr Neuberger was astute enough to have good board members and later invented the no-load mutual fund, he is, to me, better known as a leading collector of modern art and his firm Neuberger-Berman is the major sponsor for the traveling Chuck Close Graphics exhibit which is stunning. Any readers in the Portland OR vicinity should drop by PAM for an afternoon on the need for collaboration in the creation of work for lithography, etching and other graphic arts media as well as very up-close (pardon me) looks at the detail of the works themselves.
Well, such is the view from Hood River, where everyone is named ‘Dude’.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Dear Dick,
Thanks so much for the add-on on Roy Neuberger. So glad he is still alive. I knew he was an art lover but did not know about his association with Close. Sue and I were in Hood River last summer.
Because many of my friends are pacifists I have sometimes been asked about socially responsible mutual funds. I’ve recommended the Neuberger Social Responsible mutual fund. My friends have been delighted with the results.
I, also, studied under Kermit Gordon. He was a good realist. Being a liberal from Kentucky I considered writing a thesis on TVA. Kermit smiled and told me that he had thought about writing about the TVA himself. But, that after studying it a bit, he had discovered what a mess it was. This was long before most liberals had spoken other than glowingly.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
David,
you’ve now purposefully misrepresented me again. I have never said faculty should be hired for their race, only that race should be a consideration. Evidence would be of the specific harm caused by the lack of political diversity within the classroom or in the research of the faculty. Anything outside of that is and should be separate from any hiring decisions for a non-protected identity (such as political ideology).
As for the race vs. personal views issue, we went over that tired argument in the last thread on this issue. you might want to go through the comments there instead of rehashing it again.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:44 am
I honestly don’t see a difference here, Rory, unless you insert the word “solely” after “hired”. But any time you make something a “consideration” you make it right to say you accepted something “for” that thing as for any other criteria, with some scaling acknowledged.
If race is properly only a “consideration” and political ideologies are to be treated differently, do you argue then that a prof’s political ideology should have no weight in the decisions process? Or is it simply a much lighter consideration and, if so, what direction is proper?
It’s true, David does talk too much about this. It seems an important topic to you, Rory; why not make a post on it and stop playing defense against Dave?
November 16th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Jonathan,
A valid interpretation of a very minor seeming critique of David. The difference between “a consideration” and “for”, in the case of hiring, however, is actually a key consideration. Though your critique, when applied to actual situations, is probably just there is a problem.
Saying “for” in this case is a coded and powerful manner of arguing that affirmative action hires or admits don’t deserve their spot in terms of their other qualifications. They got it because of their race (we’ve all heard this in some form or another). Saying consideration does not have the same implication about their other qualifications.
I’ve avoided posting all this time. David’s rants won’t suck me in that easily! :)
November 16th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Should we check the students and faculty for left-handedness? Red-headedness is easy to check.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Kane,
Since you are often kind enough to offer writing tips to undergraduates, I will suggest the following edits to future letters seeking to teach a course:
Dude, this is PRECISELY why Williams won’t take you up on your generous offer to teach a course for free. You want to use Williams as a soapbox to defend your views and convert undergraduates. Colleges are unlikely to hire anyone who expressed goal is to advocate rather than educate. The fact that some of your views are out of the mainstream (e.g., your suspicions on the link between HIV and AIDS) much less mainstream among college professors hurts your candidacy even more.
For someone who wants to teach a course on rhetoric, this was a really bad move. You didn’t downplay the biggest flaw, you highlighted. Knowing your audience and what they will respond to is an important part of rhetoric.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Rory writes:
This is not what I meant nor, I think, a fair interpretation of what I wrote. Consider three claims:
The first is a word-for-word quote from Rory. How shall we parse these three?
1) We can all agree that c) is false. Of course professors at Williams are hired, at least in part, for their teaching ability. Being a great teacher is not, alone, enough to get hired, but it sure does help.
2) We can all agree that 2) is false as an empirical matter (and most of us, even me, will agree that this is also a good thing). Being African-American, like being a great teacher, is not, in and of itself, enough to get hired by Williams. But it sure does help! How much it does in fact help (and how much it should help) are difficult questions, but there is no doubt that race plays a role.
In fact, as a rhetorical device, I can just repeat 1) above with a few words changed as so:
3) I agree with Rory that a) is true as an empirical matter. Being an outspoken conservative, someone who would be willing to attend an event like the Jena Six teach-in and give your honest appraisal of the situation, does not help one get a job at Williams. If anything, according to Professor Kirby, it might hurt your chances. Rory and I, however, disagree over whether or not your personal views should matter.
Of course, if you just keep your personal views to yourself, then they shouldn’t matter. But, if you are willing to enter the campus dialog on topics like Jena Six, and you bring a very different viewpoint than other faculty, this should count for you, as a form of community service/engagement, in hiring and tenure, even if your teaching and research have nothing to do with such issues.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:02 am
“Faculty DIversity” is short in the long picture of our change agents in administration. Diversity is a deconstructionist attitude. Looks good on the books.
Larry Fink, whose fund management firm BlackRock helped create the market for mortgage-backed securities, and a present leading candidate as Chief Executive of Merrill Lynch (after Stan O’Neal was ousted after being forced to admit that mortgage-related losses had ballooned to $7.9 Billion) should preside over our “Faculty Diversity” initiative, since Fink knew how to get everybody to DRINK from the well of creative investment vehicles and the ability to have our global banking system buy into such “inflatables”.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Different opinion should not count as an aspect of hiring, even in the modified minor form you argue, David. The school is not, as an instition, capable of deciding which different opinions should be considered beneficial and which ones not. The example of intelligent design in a biology department that was used in the last long thread on this is a very good example. Should that intelligent design advocate gain points toward tenure because s/he believes in an idea antithetical to the fundamental beliefs of the field? No. Parsing faculty opinions and judging them is exactly what tenure was designed to avoid!
November 16th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Political diversity is not the only kind of diversity. How diverse is the physics dept. on string theory? On the new cosmology?
November 16th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Hell - we ought to have at least one member of the faculty who counts on his fingers and toes. Or since we are on the general subject, who is polydactyl!
November 17th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Who is going to DEFINE diversity?
That would settle the issue.
Until then, it is meaningless.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:20 am
From time to time and at any time, with or without public or other notice or participation, for any reason whatsoever or arbitrarily and capriciously the College administration (retroactively, currently or prospectively) fails to define, defines, redefines, or interprets or reinterprets its definition of, “diversity” as it, in its sole and absolute discretion, then sees fit - all without incurring any past, present or future obligation, commitment, liability or other responsibility on its part to any person, entity or other party. You moron, what’s wrong with you - isn’t that definition crystal clear to you? We who are sagacious, farseeing and astute (and incidentally political) certainly think that it ought to be.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Phinney Baxter the president in the 40’s and 50’s hired Red Fred Schuman to come to Williams. Schuman had been forced out of Chicago by the very conservative CHICAGO TRIBUNE. When asked by his Trustees why he had hired this notorious Commie, Phinney laughed and said, “I think its good to have a few teachers that will shock the boys”. He also hired Don Antoio to head the Spanish dept. He was a young fellow, who was the Spainish Republic’s Ambassador to the US. He was stranded in Washingto when Franco overthrew the Republic, who lots of folks considered Red. On the other side, the Poli Sci dept had Fred Greene, who even in the 50’s was such a hawk that he was already saying we had to fight in Vietnam. I talked to Fred last June and he has not mellowed one bit. He would be called a neocon and minced no words about the liberal interpretation of the Viet War.
I suspect that the current administration does not have a commitment to going out and finding faculty who will be suffiently diverse that they will shock the students.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Fred Greene is my father in law and I have known him for ten years. I am a student of the Vietnam War so I know Fred’s position on the Vietnam War quite well; not through personal conversations but through actual documents. He has written his own memoir, In the Shadows of War, so anyone can go read his own thoughts if they care to do so.
Fred is in great health, but I fear he would die immediately of a heart attack brought on by excessive laughter/bemusement at the comments of Henry Bass. As someone who has listened to Fred criticize the Bush administration relentlessly from day one and who was opposed to the Iraq war from the start, he seems an unlikely candidate for neoconservative status. In fact, I am not sure that I have ever heard Fred say a positive word about any figure remotely associated with conservatism or the Republican Party.
Mr. Bass is not being malicious and I would just like to clarify where he is coming from because it shows the problems of taking current terms and applying them to the past. In today’s discourse, every Democrat from JFK to RFK to LBJ would be seen as a hawk or a neocon. All believed in the Cold War and in resisting the spread of communism. Cold War liberalism was not the liberalism of today, which is often understood as multilateralism and a great reluctance to even contemplate the use of force. If you want to understand Fred’s views or categorize them, you could probably describe them that way although Fred himself is not a big fan of simple labels.
As for Fred being critical of the liberal interpretation of the Vietnam War, that is even easier. He is skeptical–as are most scholars today–of the idea that the Viet Cong were simply an indigenous, non-communist force within Vietnam who would have established a peaceful and democratic order if left to their own devices. The Viet Cong were led and controlled by communists and the idea that you could draw a distinction between the insurgents of the South and the communist regime of the North was and is a complete and total myth. Most honest scholars of the Vietnam War–including those who see themselves as quite liberal–would agree with this assessment.
I hope this is helpful. I would say the chances of Fred ever reading Ephblog are slim and none, but this would be an overestimation of the actual prospects. I thank Mr. Bass since I believe he meant his comments as praise, but they do not do justice to the actual facts of the matter.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I did not say that Fred supported the Iraq War. We did not discuss it. He was a hawk on Vietnam in the mid 50’s. He said in his courses that it was Vietnam and not Korea that could be a domino. Since Korea jutted out into the Pacific and had only Japan as a neighbor and Japan was not in danger, but Vietnam was in the center of Southeastern Asia.
Not all of the neocons are equally bad. Jacob Heilbrun is about to publish a book on them.Out in January to provide a more balanced but critical account. Saying that someone has neocon tendencies is not to call them a bad person. I discussed what I had learned in his course 50 plus years ago at my reunion in June. Maybe he was just being polite but he told me that he thought I had understood quite well.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
They seek him here. They seek him there. Those EphBloggers seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven? Or is he in hell? That damned elusive…McAllister. With apology to Orczy.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Needless to say, I did not say that Mr. Bass said that Fred Greene supported the Iraq War. What Mr. Bass said was that “he had not mellowed one bit. He would be called a neocon and minced no words about the liberal interpretation of the Vietnam War.”
Unlike Mr. Bass, I have no idea what Fred might have said about Vietnam in a class between 1953-1957. But saying that Vietnam could be a “domino” at any time between those years certainly would not make anyone a hawk or put them outside the mainstream consensus. The entire American government and the overwhelming majority of academics, with only a few exceptions, would have said that Vietnam was an important country and that if it were lost then all of Southeast Asia might have been lost. It is not an accident that the American commitment to Vietnam was begun by Harry Truman, continued by Dwight Eisenhower, and extended into a real war under Kennedy and Johnson. My point remains the same as it was earlier: If Fred Greene is a “hawk” or a “neocon” because he thought South Vietnam was an important interest in the 1950’s that should not be surrendered to communism, then the same label equally applies to JFK, RFK, and Lyndon Johnson. I know my current students have a hard time understanding how liberals in the 1950 could be fervent anti-communists, but I am not sure why Mr. Bass has a hard time understanding this fact. Surely Red Fred Schuman was not surrounded by dozens of faculty members at Williams who saw the world as he did? By the way, I have never heard a single faculty member or student of the 1950’s ever say a dismissive word about Red Fred Schuman and I have heard many glowing reports. It is to Williams’s credit that he was here.
To end this on a more productive note, I would love to hear more about Mr. Bass’s views on the campus political atmosphere more generally during the period between 1953-57. Phinney Baxter sounds like a great president who understood the need for a college to have the kind of diversity that is arguably the most important: political diversity and a real willingness to accept conflicting views. That might be an old school definition of liberalism rather than the modern one, but it is still the one I accept.
This is the kind of interesting material that brings me back now and then to the world of Ephblog.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Mr. McAllister,
I should confess that I was far to the left of your father-in-law, when I took his course. During the Vietnam War my wife and I ran a peace/draft resistance center in Atlanta, Georgia sponsered by the War Resisters League. I did not believe in the domino theory, even in the 50’s. I greatly respected Fred Greene and regarded his defense of what I thought was the mistaken policies of the cold war, the best that I had heard. Greene was a much better teacher than Fred Schuman. Fred Schuman was not as good in Poli Econ 19-20 as he was in Poli Sci 3-4. Indeed, I was very disappointed with him at this level.
Schuman was very supportive of my anti-war work. I had wondered whether your father-in-law had regarded Vietnam and the history that followed its fall as a refutation of the domino theory. I regard it as a refutation. The whole of Southeast Asia did not fall. I did not get around to asking Greene that. I told him what I remembered from his course. I did not tell him that I disagreed then and now. From the drift of the conversation I guessed that he was not going to recant and so I did not go further.
I was careless to use the phrase “neo-con”. I now realize that in the present political climate that phrases like that are explosive. And that
such a level of levity can get you in trouble. I am sorry if you found my remarks out of order.
November 18th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Vietnam was an anti-colonial war. The Vietnames were no more interested in communism than capitalism. You get guns where you can get them, and the Russians were able providers and our defense contractors and war machine were happy to engage in another profitable venture.
The Neo-Cons are con artists. Several of them were “Trots”, that is former Trotskyites. They were not Republicans, conservatives or whatever. They simply used the Republoican Party for ennabling PNAC and micromanaging a dissentive minority within the Republican Party.
Education should be more about discernment rather than ideology. About learning how to distinguish fact from fiction. About how to live a harmonious existence and work for a future we all can support.