Mon 17 Nov 2008
This is a pretty unbelievable get for a college like Williams:
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and 10 members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) will join in a discussion of “Race and the New Congress” on Monday, Nov. 17, at 8 p.m. in Chapin Hall on the Williams College campus. The event, to be moderated by 60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl, is free and open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis.
“What an enormous honor it is for Williams to host the largest number of Congress members ever to gather on our campus,” Williams President Morton Owen Schapiro said, “and what a great privilege for students, faculty, staff, and local residents to hear first-hand from caucus members so soon after the historic presidential election.”
The gathering will be the first of CBC members since Congress recessed for the election.
“I’m excited to take part in such an important discussion at a particularly auspicious time for Congress and the country to advance issues of race,” Stahl said. “It’s especially newsworthy to assemble so many of the CBC members who hold leadership positions.”
The caucus members so far expected to take part are:
James E. Clyburn (S.C.), Democratic Leadership Majority Whip;
Robert. C. Scott (Va.), Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security;
Bennie G. Thompson (Miss.), Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security;
Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Chairwoman, House Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure Protection;
Danny K. Davis (Ill.), Chairman, House Subcommittee on the District of Columbia;
John Lewis (Ga.), Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means;
Diane E. Watson (Calif.), Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs;
Hank Johnson (Ga.), Member of the House Committee on Armed Services;
Donna M. Christensen (V.I.), Member of the House Homeland Security;
Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), Member of the House Committee on Education and Labor.The event was initiated by Visiting Lecturer in Political Science Bernard Moore. Executive Director of the non-profit think tank Second Chance for Social Justice, Moore is a policy advisor to caucus member Danny Davis.
In January 1969, newly elected African American representatives of the 77th Congress joined six incumbents to form the Democratic Select Committee to address legislative concerns of black and minority citizens. The Committee was renamed the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) in 1971.
The vision of the founding members of the CBC, to “promote the public welfare through legislation designed to meet the needs of millions of neglected citizens,” continues today. Its members have been at the forefront of legislative campaigns for human and civil rights for all citizens.
A reception in the Paresky Student Center will follow the discussion.
The event is sponsored by The W. Ford Schumann ‘50 Program in Democratic Studies. the Office of the President, Africana Studies, the Multicultural Center, and the Claiming Williams initiative.
Congratulations to Bernard Moore and everyone else who helped to pull this together.
Will any of our readers be attending? Please report back with your thoughts and impressions in the comments thread below (keep discussions on-topic, please).
Will video be available, maybe from C-SPAN? I don’t know. It’s a shame there isn’t a prominent link to a live stream included with the press release.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Ronit,
Thanks so much for posting about this. I wish I could be there.
I would love to hear from students about the goings-on, in town and on campus. Is there a a lot of press? How big of a crowd is expected and how difficult will it be to get in?
November 17th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Are they going to have a feed to an overflow space? Will there be video made available to the public?
November 17th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Will Slack ‘11 mentioned the event here. Questions:
1) How expensive is this? I assume that the congressmen and the governor have their own budgets and that Williams is not paying for their travel or accommodations. Correct? Otherwise, we are talking major dollars. I also assume that Williams needs to pay for Stahl, both expenses and a fee. (Or will this be made into a 60 Minutes episode?)
2) If I were a student with only thirty minutes to devote tonight, I would skip the Chapin talk and go directly to the reception afterwards. Do you think that Chapin will be that interesting, what with every representative wanting to get his 15 minutes in? Ever listened to C-SPAN?
The reception, on the other hand, might provide a unique opportunity for some one-on-a-few time with a real law maker. Pick one or two, read up on their interests and backgrounds at Wikipedia, and then try to meet them at the reception. You can never network too much!
3) Kudos to Moore for setting this up.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
The event itself won’t take all that long, and being there in person could be fascinating. Standing in the line in the cold to get inside Chapin may be another matter. I suspect there may already be folks waiting outside even as I type.
As to how much it costs to bring all these people in, I haven’t looked at the list of sponsors, but it may well be that this is one of the events for which there are dedicated speakers series funds, including funds to feed and house the speakers. There are a lot of those dedicated programs (many of them initially set up by alumni), and they certainly contribute mightily to the offerings at Williams. Depending on how the gifts were structured, it may well be that the funds can’t be used for other purposes and so there would be little savings gained by not spending them (unless the funds can be shifted to funding speakers in areas where there is no dedicated funding but that Williams would otherwise use operating funds on this year).
I am so grateful for those who had the foresight to give or leave money for the outstanding lectures, performances, concerts, exhibits, and other special events that Williams puts on each year.
I very much hope that this evennt will become a 60 Minutes episode. I also hope that some prescient person or group will give significant funds to Williams to allow more of these special events to be videoed and made available to a wide audience.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
The news release provides the sponsors and none of them are of the must-spend-this-on-some-talk variety. So, this spending is discretionary. (It may be true that the budget was set for this event months in advance, so the College has little choice but to stand by its invitations. And, again, I hope that the total cost is so small as to not be worth worrying about. I just hope that the Record reports the cost.)
November 17th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
This is an amazing event for Williams.
It’s priceless.
For this esteemed group to choose to come to a highly regarded college in a bucolic setting far from D.C. is quite a coup.
Yes, kudos to Bernard Moore. For a visiting lecturer, he has brought much.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Agreed with Parent ‘12. Kane’s cynicism notwithstanding, I’m bet 95 percent at least of students and alums are excited about this event, which is valuable on so many different levels.
If Moore’s teaching and scholarship are up to snuff, he most definitely sounds like a keeper — hope Williams works hard to do so. (And if he is able to bring Barack to campus, as suggested in one new article, then I’d even let him slide on the scholarhip front :)).
November 17th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
David, I don’t believe the Record has a practice of reporting the cost of other campus lectures, strange that you suddenly suggest they do so for this one. Even in the outer reaches of what this could possibly cost, it is well worth it. What other event can, all at the same time, (1) claim to be a historic event at Williams, (2) shine a national spotlight on Williams, (3) be listed in promotional materials for prospectives as the type of event that Williams can host, and evoke a real “wow” factor, especially among minority prospectives, (4) excite / engage a substantial percentage of campus, again, particularly certain segments of campus that at times have apparently felt marginalized, (5) and be incredibly timely / topical, all at the same time? This should be a great event, the kind I wish Williams would try to hold at least once per year, if not once per semester.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
One of the sponsors of the event is the W. Ford Schumann ‘50 Program in Democratic Studies - I think this actually is dedicated funding for bringing in outside speakers/sponsoring events, despite what David claims (although if you can link to something that proves me wrong or otherwise back up your assertion, please do). A quick search turns them up as sponsors of Secretary Albright’s visit in ‘02, Bernice Johnson Reagon in ‘06, the recent judicial roundtable on sentencing, and another panel on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with outside speakers…as well as George Lakoff, Thomas Friedman, and a conference on voting rights. I know I remember seeing notices previously about them sponsoring outside speakers on a variety of issues (and if I had more time to sift through press releases I’m sure I’d see more).
The only other reference with any details about the “program” itself was a Visiting Professorship and the Faculty Fellowships linked below:
This link from 2003 seems to indicate that the faculty fellowship position entails at least some funding for bringing in such speakers, because Prof. Willingham didn’t fly those folks in on his own dime. And this link from 2005 also mentions the faculty fellow as a coordinator of the visiting speakers program. Every mention in press releases on the Williams website that I have found shows them sponsoring outside speakers or conferences/events involving substantial outside-of-Williams involvement. So pardon me if this sounds like funding of the “must-spend-this-on-some-talk variety.”
Personally, I think this event would actually be worth it, even if there weren’t dedicated funding. It is great exposure for Williams, timely, and gives students a chance to network and show off their cocktail party skills - newly learned with the young business professionals of Pittsfield. In other words, it has educational value.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Indeed, it certainly does not appear that the Record generally reports lecture costs in its write-ups …
November 17th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
‘01: Thanks for documenting my point. Schuman money can be used for visiting professors as well. So, my claim stands.
Ben: The fact that the Record has been remiss in reporting on event costs in the past is no excuse for its continued sloppiness, especially since, you may have heard, there is a budget crunch at Williams.
Parent ‘12: “Priceless?” It’s that sort of magical thinking toward costs that has led Williams down the sorry road to a hiring freeze.
Jeff: “95 percent at least of students and alums are excited about this event” is an example of projection. 95%? Give me a break. Not everyone cares about politics, even in the age of Obama. People who are “excited” about something show up. You really think that 1900 students are lining up at Chapin right now? I’ll take the other side of that bet.
I am sure that hundreds of students are excited about this event and I am glad that Williams is hosting it. My advice on time management (go to the reception; skip the 2 (?) hour presentation) stands.
One Eph’s “cynicism” is another Eph’s realism. This event would be much better if it were just Deval Patrick or John Lewis speaking. A panel discussion will be indistinguishable from C-SPAN coverage of a congressional hearing.
Again, I believe that this event is cheap ($500 for the reception costs alone) or reasonable ($5,000 for Stahl fee and arrangements). But, if it is $50,000, I start to wonder at the cost/benefits. Is there no dollar cost that would make Parent ‘12 or Jeff concerned?
Surely we have a reader who can tell us if US Representatives normally pay their own way to events like this . . .
November 17th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
David - sometimes it’s okay to enjoy a significant event, for its own sake. Everything in life has costs, that doesn’t mean that cost needs to be the primary analytical framework for valuing and judging everything in life.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Actually, didn’t prove your point at all but good try.
And your complete lack of self-awareness is astonishing at times. The throwing out of a random percentage of students who may be interested in something with absolutely no proof or support is a hallmark of yours. Did you miss being gently made fun of??
Lack of self-awareness point #2 - you said:
And here I thought I’d seen posts ad nauseum from you about the wider economic circumstances and (in your opinion) poor investment decisions leading to the hiring freeze. My mistake.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
OP clearly did not intend “priceless” in quite the sense David employs; there’s a lack of distinction here (which is then followed by a mocking personal attack and inflammatory phrasing).
I tend to think there’s something to David’s argument that Williams has not been entirely wise in its spending; but it’s hard to follow up the idea, and make anything practical of it, when his tone
November 17th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
smh…the W. Ford Schuman money has always sponsored a speaker as part of its funding. it had previously paid for a current professor at williams, that money then shifted to funding a visiting professor instead.
it’s an amazing event, its a wonderful opportunity, and only a complete misanthrope would:
a. not publicize it (you’ve made many negative posts since Will first mentioned this program, david)
b. immediately ask about the cost.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Just a minor point. There were lines to get in all the way to the community church and Brooks-Rogers is also filled to capacity with people watching the event on a video feed. There is no doubt that it is the most well attended event in my last twelve years at Williams. I have no idea what the event cost, but I have no doubt it was far less expensive than many of the events we have put on here and this one–regardless of your political perspective–is far more unique.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I agree, David. Way to welcome the Caucus.
It is truly embarrassing that you take this approach at this point in time.
SMH as well.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Professor McAllister thanks so much for the update.
I talked to my son yesterday who expected as much. He and his friends had a whole plan to go very early so they could get in. I hope he succeeded as he was very excited about this event.
Kudos to Williams for pulling this off!
November 17th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
“Thanks for documenting my point. Schuman money can be used for visiting professors as well.”
Technically, yes, but it is pretty clear that the program was set up to fund a visiting professor or a series of shorter-term visitors, in each case in the field of democratic scholarship or leadership and that, if it is one professor in a given year or semester, it was envisioned that that visitor would use some of the funds to sponsor a visiting speaker or speakers, also in the field of democratic scholarship or leadership. So, the money may not have to be spent on a speaker or speakers but it is dedicated money that doesn’t just slip into operating funds if it isn’t spent. If my readng is correct, I would say that ‘01 probably had the better of the argument as I believe that his or her argument went to the larger point of whether Williams would have saved/freed up money for other uses if it had not sponsored tonight’s events. (That is, of course, assuming that all of the money came from the Schuman fund or other similar dedicated funds; to the extent that funds are being spent from the general operating budget, yes, Williams could have saved and diverted that portion of the expenditures by not holding tonight’s events. My suspicion is that such a general operating funds expenditure is but a relatively small portion of the outlay for tonight, but I could well be wrong. If I am right, however, not spending a large amount of dedicated funds for a big, long-planned event tonight to save a small amount of operating funds would seem rather foolish to me, particularly as the supporting operating funds expenditure was probably a part of the semester’s budget.)
November 17th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Allow me to pile on here as well, as it took me a while to eat my dinner and get back to my comment below in #14.
And thank you for the update in #13, Professor McAllister. Some of us are very excited about the event and wish we, too, could be there.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Professor McAllister - You probably are not the appropriate person to whom such a request should be made, but we are really hoping that the video will be made available to those of us who can’t be in Williamstown (and those who could not get into Chapin or Brooks-Rogers). I would think that the students who are studying away would be particuarly appreciative.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Yes, thank you for the update. I, too, hope that the video will be available. There are also current students who have classes Monday evening at Williams.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Now, come on Ben. We all know why David wasn’t worried about the costs of the Swift event — which featured a white Republican — as opposed to an event featuring a bunch of black Democrats. Hopefully McCallister’s comment shut David up for good on this thread, but I am sick and tired of anything and everything related to diversity being attacked by DK. It is so sickeningly predictable; I was just waiting for the negativity from Kane as soon as this thread went up, and I’m sure I’m not alone. Even if David is occasionally right (and this is one case where he is demonstrably wrong about the level of campus excitement), the repeated focus of the attacks, their very predictability, obscure any kernal of truth that could possibly be contained in any of them.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Jeff, trying to prove his moral superiority, writes:
That’s right, Jeff. I must be an eeevillll racists. Why else would I ever disagree with an ace SWPLer like yourself? Only an idiot would think that the Swift event, featuring a one independently wealthy, out-of-office, local resident would cost so little as to not be worth discussing.
Why would McAllister’s comment “shut” me up? I predicted “hundreds of students are excited about this event.” Sounds like I was right!
I realize that it is hard for you to understand that someone might disagree with you and still not be an eeeevil racist, but try to keep an open mind. Last time I checked, no one had done more than me to lobby for a) increasing international admissions (and, guess what, most of those folks are not white like you) and b) devoting more Tyng Scholarships to African American applicants.
But, please, don’t burst your cozy bubble on my account. I am not a liberal Democrat, so, by definition, I must be against “anything and everything related to diversity.”
November 17th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
David,
I don’t think you’re racist, but I do think you see ‘controversy’ on EB, as some sort of measure (of it’s success or importance, or whatever)… to the point that you go out of your way to insure the controversy, by saying things, and timing posts, and placing hook and bait, at the expense of too much else.
You need a little ‘controversy’ rehab, IMHO.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Sophmom,
I see the number and involvement of our readers and authors as the primary measure of EphBlog’s success. I think some of our most popular posts have every few comments. Now, it is true that I love a good controversy and that I am drawn to controversial topics. But that just happens to be my preference. It is a common interest among some readers but it is hardly universal.
The tricky question, as you note, is what this comes at the “expense” of. I have no good answers for that. My controversial posts attract some readers and drive away others. (I still miss reader “&” and hope that she returns someday. I hope that JG will post again.) It is hard to strike a balance.
I hope that you would agree that the optimal number of such posts is not zero, that there is a place for such a discussion in the Williams community, especially when so many authority figures at Williams have so little sympathy for some of the political views that I hold, along with a small but meaningful percentage of students and alumni. Do you really think that EphBlog would be a better place without posts like this and this?
As always, my answer to this real dilemma is that we need more authors posting more posts on other topics. I am especially excited to see all of LG’s recent posts on athletics. Now, it’s true that athletics is not really my thing and that I don’t post very much on that topic, but I think it great the LG is doing so and that so many readers enjoy it. The same applies to Dick’s art or Frank’s comments.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Dave- I actually prefer your more “sober” posts, like this one. Perhaps, SophM’s rehab comment stuck a chord. I’m now waiting for an image that brings to mind AA.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Dave,
There is no question that you bring up good points, and encourage hearty discussion. But try doing it without including topic, criticism, and inflammatory remarks, all in the same initial post or comment. When you do that, the thread begins with other bloggers coming on to counter your inflammatory remarks, rather than discuss the topic.
Just post the topic without so much criticism at the start, and see what happens. And then chime in along the way like everyone else. You might be pleasantly surprised at the depth and breadth the discussion will reach.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Here’s something that Kane’s shabby, narrow-minded bile cannot obstruct: it was a great event. I got there at 6:45 and waited in the cold for half hour until the doors opened. We got good seats. The delegation was greeted by a standing ovation, and their comments were many times interrupted by applause. Stahl was quite good. She first asked each of them, all nine, to describe how they reacted, emotionally or analytically, to Obama’s election. To hear Bennnie Thompson express how he felt, as a black man from Mississippi, was stirring. And, of course, John Lewis is an historic presence. It was a moment to bask in the unprecedented moment of a black president. Stahl then turned to some more substantive questions. What will be the legislative agenda of the Black Caucus? Clymer, the third ranking member of the House answered. She asked how, as legislators, they would deal with the accretion of executive power that has occurred over the past eight years. Governor Patrick asked what legislative business relating to race they might now pursue. Danny Davis talked about the horrendous numbers of young black men in jail and Donna Christensen talked about health care disparities. A number of students asked questions but the most memorable was the last: a young man queried them on gay marriage, a touchy subject in the African American community. John Lewis himself talked of the civil rights struggle and how he (obviously differing with some of his colleagues) understood the gay marriage movement in the same terms as the civil rights movement. The hall exploded in applause (this is Massachusetts, after all; indeed, Williamstown may be the bluest town in the bluest county in the very blue state). There were many townspeople there. A bus came in from the local nursing home; a van came over from MCLA in North Adams.
I was able to introduce my daughter to the Governor and to John Lewis. It was great that she was there to take it all in. It was inspiring, it was fun, it was interesting, it was a great night.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Sophmom,
Well, isn’t that precisely what I did in this thread? I don’t see how my first comment could be any more mild without becoming uselessly anodyne. How should I have phrased a question about cost or a suggestion about the benefit of the reception in such a way as to not be inflammatory.
I am honestly looking for advice on this. (And I can see that later comments by me in the thread were, obviously, inflammatory.) How would you have written the first comment that I made in the thread, making the points I wanted to make?
November 18th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Sam,
Thanks so much for the account. I honestly wish I had flown in!
I haven’t yet talked to my son, but I had a message on my phone machine from him, and the excitement in his voice just stopped me in my tracks.
I am so, so proud that this event, one that so beautifully marks the beginning of a new era, took place at Williams…and that my son, and so many other young people, got to be a part of it.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Well, for starters, David…
Considering the historical significance of the event, I would not have…
a) made my first question about the expense, and
b) my second point, a recommendation that the event should be skipped!
LOL, David…c’mooooooooonnnnnnnnnn!
November 18th, 2008 at 12:20 am
From your initial comment:
To now play that as a “suggestion about the benefit of the reception” and not an insult to the quality of the panel discussion, and frankly the motivations of the panelists, is dishonest. Blatantly dishonest. So I’ll start with a suggestion about your final comment: please try not to lie when attempting to seem sincere.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:32 am
^^^ flown in: the same ;)
November 18th, 2008 at 12:33 am
I’d'a separated the points. If you want to feature or tout an event, you feature an event. If you want to talk about cost excesses or other issues, you talk about cost excesses and cite examples.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:43 am
‘01: Well, given that what I wrote is above for all to see, do you really think that “lie” is a fair description? Anyway, I am happy to do a close textual analysis.
I stand by this as a true statement. It is way cooler to shake John Lewis’s hand then to listen to a talk from 100 feet away. Now, obviously, if I were a student with a lot more free time and a significant interest in the topic, I would attend the speech. Surely, there were hundreds of students who did not attend, and not all of them are racists. So, I like to think that my advice was useful to them.
I’ll stand by that as well. Just how “interesting” was Chapin? I have no doubt that Sam and others were dying for an event “to bask in the unprecedented moment of a black president” found it to be an almost religious experience. Good for them! But, at least according to Sam’s account (i.e., “Danny Davis talked about the horrendous numbers of young black men in jail and Donna Christensen talked about health care disparities.”) much (?) of the discussion was what one typically finds during the prepared remarks of these same Representatives, either in committee meetings or on the floor of the House, on C-SPAN. Not that there is anything wrong with that! But, I would have spent my time elsewhere.
Now, to be fair, watching the these Representatives confronted on the question of gay marriage would have been good stuff, unlikely to be seen on C-SPAN. So, if I were to revisit my advice, it would be to catch the Q&A and then the reception. But, ex ante, it is always hard to know whether these events will have a Q&A and whether it will be any good.
Again, this is not a criticism of the choice to attend made by hundreds of Williams students. As always, I am all about ensuring that students have the freedom to make their own choices. And, again, kudos to Moore (and others) for arranging the event. It was clearly a huge success.
But to talk about the “historical significance of the event” confuses this particular talk at Chapin (unlikely to be recorded in the history books) with the election of Obama itself.
‘01 accuses me of providing an “insult to the quality of the panel discussion, and frankly the motivations of the panelists.” It is hard to know how to respond. I have a low opinion of politicians in general, Republican or Democratic. I would make exactly the same point about C-SPAN if this had been a panel featuring the Republican Leadership. I don’t view this as inflammatory so much as realistic.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:57 am
I’d just like to note that David did not post this thread, at all.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Kane, your racism never ceases to amaze. How dare you suggest that attending an event being recorded for later broadcast on C-SPAN would be about as much fun as watching C-SPAN! Such an illogical conclusion could only be motivated by your intense hatred of black people and diversity in general. Similarly, your questioning of the decision to spend tens of thousands of dollars during these tense economic times to bring Leslie Stahl as moderator proves beyond any doubt your bias against older white ladies! Kudos to the other authors for calling you out on these two points. I’m so glad that Williams helped advance the cause of social justice so much tonight by helping buy Ms. Stahl a new Mercedes. Using the money to fund a scholarship for a deserving student from a modest background would have been nowhere near as productive. Let us all applaud these congresspeople for their tireless commitment to economic justice and then retire to Paresky for a wine and cheese reception!
(In all seriousness, though, the event was pretty entertaining. But, then again, I watch C-SPAN for fun, so there you go.)
November 18th, 2008 at 1:29 am
You’re welcome to stand by your previously inflammatory comments. I wouldn’t expect any different from you. But spare the rest of us your sanctimonious bullshit about really, truly wanting to be less inflammatory because it is obvious you don’t.
I stand by what I said as well. Your characterization of your previous comment was dishonest. You did not make a suggestion about the value of the reception. You insulted and belittled the main presentation, then said students should go to the reception. Feel free to put a rosy glow on it now, but your comment was belittling and rude. There are many, many other posters and commenters on this site who manage to encourage interest in topics and events all the time without feeling the need to tear down other events, assume bad motivation on the part of opposing viewpoints, or otherwise insult Williams before making what might be constructive suggestions.
I admit and own the fact that my tone toward you here is rather belittling. It probably doesn’t reflect all that well on me. See, I was a regular reader and periodic commenter on EphBlog a few years back. I read sometimes but stopped commenting because I didn’t see the point. I will now go back to not commenting, because clearly you (and by extension EphBlog) bring out the worst in me.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Oh nooooooo…
David hates older white ladies?
How old?
November 18th, 2008 at 2:10 am
I have a low opinion of politicians in general, Republican or Democratic. I would make exactly the same point about C-SPAN if this had been a panel featuring the Republican Leadership. I don’t view this as inflammatory so much as realistic.
Oh for God’s sake, David, this pox on both their houses routine was old and worn out in high school, and it doesn’t make you look more independent or “realistic” in the least.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Example: the recent tread on choosing a major. It was positive, constructive, thoughtful, and probably quite helpful to anyone seeking guidance or trying to figure out how to give it, and was not distracted or undermined by deliberately “controversial” comments. Plus the tone and content were worthy of what I expect of the Williams Conversation (and similar to how I experience it when I am fortunate enough to have it face to face).
And one of the main reasons I posted so much about sports is that it is one of the few areas where certain thread hijackers don’t come in and attack me and twist my words (see my reference to this in Comment #9 on the contemporaneous Free Speech thread http://www.ephblog.com/2008/11/17/free-speech/#comments) - the other main reasons being that I get such a thrill out of the Williams scholar-athletes(emphasis on “scholar”) and I think there’s lot to be learned from them and their non-academic teachers (i.e., the coaches).
November 18th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Chuckles.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:35 am
It would be preferable if these comments in the aggregate could provide a lot more light and a lot less heat.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:58 am
I won’t address your whole comment, but just a small part of it. Thisis something I often don’t like others doing to me, and I acknowledge that before going ahead and speaking.
“It is way cooler to shake John Lewis’s hand then to listen to a talk from 100 feet away.”
But way more meaningful and instructive to watch his face as others spoke, to know his history and to hear him speak passionately in defence of same-sex marriage (and to watch the faces of the other panelists, and of one’s own peers and of students one knows from other states who have newly bruised hopes and dreams), …. I think you gave away a lot about how you saw this event when you advocated reducing it into collecting a celebrity handshake, Dave.
Sam’s daughter’s meeting the governor and Rep. Lewis, for example, probably had great power because of what she had observed and participated in at Chapin (I take it she is young, and I rejoice, especially remembering the power of these “time out of time” special events when I was quite young, young enough that it was a challenge to me to be present and to try to figure out what was going on — one such event for me actually was watching on a subversively provided tv news program, a viewing arranged by the parent of a dear friend who knew the deep cocoon of segregation my family had woven, as dogs and full-throttled fire hoses were set on young black children) and because of the intellectual work she undertook in participating, not because (as DK would have advocated) she snagged a few celebrity handshakes without much context.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:20 am
If we could just find David Kane’s sweet spot within his complex interwoven construct, it would come tumbling down under the weight of its own constraints… a panel of esteemed Libertarians… hedge fund managers… Warren Buffet with a Newt Gingrich personality disorder. Dang. Damn you David Kane.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Oh come on, David, I never called you a racist so stop shooting down straw men. When I do think is that you share a conservative fascination / obsession that anything to do with race or gender on a liberal arts campus is an inherently suspect abuse of funding / power / influence by a diversity-obsessed left-wing administration. And I think your LOOOOONNNGGGGGG history of posting on everything from bicentennial medals to anything and everything diversity related that happens on campus supports my viewpoint. Believe me, if you think I am alone, you are very, very mistaken.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Does anyone have any information on when the event might be aired on 60 Minutes, or where else it might be available?
November 18th, 2008 at 9:39 am
‘01 Eph writes:
Well, if you consider my writing over the last 5 years, I think it is beyond dispute that I was less inflammatory in 2008 then I was in 2003–2004. Check the archives! And, as an example, instead of putting my comments on this event in a post, I saved them for a comment thread. Again, my goal is not to be zero inflammatory. That’s too boring.
Well, I have no doubt that you (and many other readers) found my comments rude and belittling. There is no universal definition of what is and is not “rude,” so, the fact that you found them so is evidence enough. But I would urge you to step back and consider the larger context. Just because you (honestly) found something to be “rude” does not mean that I should not say it.
Imagine that I had written exactly the same comment but in some alternate reality in which the event was the first meeting of the Republican Study Committee. Maybe, in this alternate reality, you need to have the dream candidate of the RSC elected. Maybe the governor of Massachusetts needs to be someone like Romney. But, in any case, you still have a visiting lecturer in political science with strong ties to the members arranging a big visit with Leslie Stahl as moderator.
I imagine that if I had written exactly the same comment, (gently!) mocking politicians for being politicians, (gently!) belittling the quality of speech making that you generally find on C-SPAN, asking how much the event cost (without complaining!) and recommending the reception over the presentation, no one would have said anything.
I doubt, in that world, if Sam Crane would have used the word “bile.”
Now, you might disagree, might claim that, even in that world, everyone would be equally upset, complaining that I had impugned the honor of Republican back-benchers. You might also claim that I would never make that complaint because I am a Republic stooge (who donated money to Obama). Perhaps.
But, if you agree that the response on EphBlog to my comment would have been different, then the key issue is not, just, the nature of my comment, but the way that some people are committed to one standard of behavior in relation to the Congressional Black Caucus while seeing exactly the same behavior as unobjectionable in conjunction with the Republican Study Committee.
It’s a free country, so do as you please. But the “point,” at least for me, is that discussion among Ephs of different political persuasions in interesting, fun and education. I comment here because I like to argue/discuss with smart open-minded Ephs who disagree with me. It’s fun, in and of itself, and often educational. I have learned a lot over the years, especially from Ephs, like Rory, who I most disagree with. See the third aspect of EphBlog as party.
For the record, your comments and tone seem perfectly reasonable to me.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am
well, if you’re going to bring my name up, remember that I also said your post was in bad taste earlier in the thread. learn that lesson this time, please!
and your hypotheticals about “but what if this were republicans!” is a complete red herring. just accept it–the large bulk of the commenting readers of ephblog think your comment was in bad taste and mean-spirited because the first thing it did was ask about the money spent without any mention of “damn, williams has the governor and 10 CBC members on campus AT ONCE! nice get!” before delving into concerns.
In more colloquial terms: show some love sometimes.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Can someone please calculate the number of words written about the event and compare it to the number of words written about the post and the comments?
This is why I often find Ephblog tedious to read. The interesting information is buried in the meta-analysis of posters intents and is often overwhelmed by it.
I want to read about the event and what people thought about the event. I do not want to read about poster A vs. poster B. It’s dull and sadly, it’s becoming more common than not.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I found out about this event about a week ago. It was rumored at that time that Obama might attend as well. This is a huge event for Williams, and a big deal.
Can you all imagine the publicity Williams would have gotten if Obama had attended? Huge. Even if this event was not worth the cost (which it was), at what point and how does an institution calculate the odds of a major appearance by a person (like Obama) as part of the justification for such an expenditure?
You guys got the Governor, and that was not a “given” in this forum either. It obviously attracted a lot of big names… something to consider when talking about justifications for funding such events. Events like this tend to attract major players that are not originally part of the equation.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You guys got the Governor, which made this particular venture even sweeter than it already was. Capitalism is about taking risks. You all scored on this venture. Congratulations.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Excellent point.
Invitation to anyone who was there: please tell us more about what happened.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Not a lot of buzz yet. I see only something in the Eagle and this small piece from Albany Channel 13: http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S666456.shtml?cat=300
It will come, I’m sure.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Looks like the AP did pick it up, so hopefully it will get wider circulation:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/777257.html
November 18th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
“It will come, I’m sure.”
I would not be so sure. You think that the New York Times is gearing up to write a major article for the Week in Review? You think NBC news is planning a story for tonight’s newscast? I will take the other side of that.
Governors and Congressmen attend events like this one several times a week. They are politicians! They want to meet and greet, see and be seen. An event like this is big news for Williams (I look forward to the Record’s article) but unlikely to generate much if any press outside the local area, much less “buzz.”
November 18th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Perhaps I was too hasty. Here is the same (?) article as Jeff cites out under the McClatchy Newspapers byline. (Maybe this is really AP? I am unclear on the details of newspaper attribution.) It looks like the story will appear in lots of newspapers.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
As Cincinnati Bengals coach Paul Brown said in the 60s to tight end Bob Trumpy when he returned to the bench following his flamboyant dance in the end zone ater he made a touchdown scoring catch, “Next time try to act as if you’ve been there before”.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Bill is the White House correspondent for McClatchy, working under a certain Williams grad.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Large photograph gallery here on iBerkshire.com: http://www.iberkshires.com/phototable.php?ss_id=1302&p=0
November 20th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
There’s a link to a video here:
http://williams.edu/admin/news/multimedia/
November 20th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Thank you for the (long awaited) link. I saw Ronit posted it as a separate thread, which will help others find it.