This week past we celebrated two great events, Martin Luther King Day and the inauguration of our country’s first President of color. It was a week I feel privileged to experience for me.
My alma mater, UW-Marathon County, invited me and Jim Sturm, a friend who I had not seen in 41 years share our recollection of what it was like to spend the day in 1967 with Dr. Martin Luther King. Preparing for my talk and then listening to Jim reflect on our shared experiences sometimes brought tears to my eyes. That day in 1967 was a watershed moment for me, forcing me to face social injustice, to ask questions of why it was that way, and more importantly, what I could do about it. (View video)
Dr. King’s dream of equality for all has yet to be realized, but my county, our country, took a giant leap forward as Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of these United States. 1.8 million people crowded onto the Washington Mall to witness this incredible event. I was in the Minneapolis airport watching on the monitor, awaiting my flight to Seattle and the American Association of Colleges and Universities Annual Meeting. The normal hum of the airport was muted as all eyes watched. Applause broke out when the oath was completed.
I looked around me and saw African American men and women and could only imagine what they were thinking and the pride they felt. For the first time in a long time I was proud again to be an American. What I felt more than anything was hope that we might be back on the path to realizing Dr. King’s dream, not only for our brothers and sisters in this country, but for all of those who occupy this tiny blue globe afloat in the vastness of our solar system.
In Seattle, arguably one of the most ethnically diverse cities in our nation, I attended the AAC&U meeting was sustainability. What a great time to be thinking about the duality of care for our environmental heritage and future and care for social justice. These two concepts are inextricably related. The enthusiasm and optimism of this link and the inauguration was positively palpable.
The closing plenary session wrapped up an incredible week. University of Washington’s Eric Liu used his recent “pamphlet” The True Patriot, affectionately referred to as “The Little Red Book," as the basis for his discussion of what has happened to the American political system and how we as educators have a responsibility to speak out when we believe something is wrong, and instill in our students the trust that they are able to do the same. For too long the term “patriot” has been equivalent to support for the war effort, support for the troops, my country – love it or leave it. People like me probably failed to speak up as much as we should have, for fear of being labeled as unpatriotic.
We all need to be patriots. That is not a label that restricted to Democrats or Republicans. As we stand at the edge of a new Administration and a new era, each of us need to reflect on what we bring to the world. No one knows where the future will lead us, but despite the economic abyss in which we find ourselves, I for one am a whole lot more hopeful in 2009 than I was a year ago. The human spirit is stronger than the Dow Jones. Let’s join President Obama as the new day dawns. Together – as Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Caucasian American, Gays, Straights, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Islamists, Atheists -- we can achieve the vision of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, John and Robert Kennedy, and most of all Martin Luther King of what it means to be AN American.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
Dean Perry,
I regret that you thought the comments above suitable for public consumption. Two points are at issue. The first is your obligation as Campus Dean at least to try to appear above the fray. As a private individual and an American citizen you have the right to say what you think. But to some extent--and I think it is quite a large extent--you surrender that right when you speak or write as Dean, just as I surrender it when I enter the classroom. Neither your blog nor my classroom is a place for the expression of our political views.
But the second point disturbs me more than the first. You do not seem to REALISE that the points you make are political. The USA did indeed take "a giant leap forward" when an African American was elected president. The fact that he was so elected testifies to the decency and fairness of the overwhelming majority of the American people. But the millions who voted for someone other than Senator Obama, as he then was, were not necessarily unmoved by the work of Dr. Martin Luther King. They were, perhaps, more sympathetic to a different candidate's agenda.
Malcolm Allen
M. D. Allen
Department of English
I couldnt have said it better myself Dr. Allen!
Scott
When I read Jim's post last night, I thought it was well said.
Being a blog reader and writer myself, I think the title has said it well - "Thoughts on a New Era". It was purely Jim's thoughts about the MLK day and the presidential inauguration. I don't think that he was giving a lecture on American history or political views. I read his post as simply him giving thoughts about Black History Month. Can I emphasize more on the word "thoughts"? :-)
Hi Dr. Allen,
Interesting viewpoint. As I looked back over the blog after reading your criticisms, I did not see his poltical views being expressed in any way (I'm obviously missing something). He didn't say Democrats or Republicans or Independents or whoever were right or wrong or anything of the sort, at least that I can tell. What I read was mentioning the election of a President of color, how it made him feel, how other people reacted, how MLK would probably feel, environmental care and social justice, the definition of patriotism, and how everyone should come together to make the country better. I did not see any personal preference to a certain political party (as a matter of fact, I read the last paragraph as being very careful not to support or deride any party or religious belief, only that we should all come together to make the country better). Since I want to be careful not to do something similar to offend anyone, I'll repeat that I did not see anything that indicated any politcal preference (unless coming together and admiring the fact that a person of color was elected president is only to be associated with a certain political party - but he didn't even SAY that!). Since I am ignorant of his political comments that seem to be of such concern to you, could you please point them out to me so that I may be more educated (and be sure not to make the same mistake in any of my classes)? Thank you in advance for helping me out. Smile and enjoy public discourse! :)
Dubear Kroening
Good morning, Dubear. Google the Association of American Colleges and Universities and, separately, Eric Liu. Would you say they are right leaning or the opposite? Actually, you don't even need to google them. Just read Dean Perry's account. Note his responses. (Incidentally, why is it socially O.K. to make a joke about *The Little Red Book* but not *Mein Kampf* when the Chinese thug killed nearly six times as many human beings as the German thug?) What sort of idological baggage do terms like "social justice" carry? Would you say that Dean Perry supports the war in Iraq? The whole fifth paragraph I find regrettable. James Warner Perry, of course, can think and say what he wants: it's a free country. Dean Perry cannot. No offence, Dubear, but I'm not surprised that you don't see a certain predisposition in the blog's comments. The conservative voice has been so excluded from the academy that said academy is an echo chamber; or, as I've remarked in public, the alleged rightness, naturalness, and goodness of liberal opinions are the saliva in one's mouth: always there, tasteless, one is not aware of it. MDA
O.K., just to clarify. The Dean can always *think* what he wants. MDA
About 90% of the blog entries on this site have done little to further anyone's opinion. It pretty much seems to end up in an argument. Maybe it's time to hang up the blog? Not because I'm opposed to debate, but because it's just getting embarrassing.
Greetings Malcolm,
Perhaps we should move this to email or to an office, since I'm still confused. I Googled the term "social justice" and found in Wikipedia that both Democrats and Republicans use the term politically and that it is also used in religion and civil society issues, so I would think (although obviously I could be very wrong) that it has more to do with who's interpreting the writing. The Dean's comments were about the misuse of the term patriot, not whether he supports the War in Iraq or not (although you certainly could interpret it that way if you choose to). He does say that educators should get their students to speak out when they think something is wrong, which I also do. I encourage critical thinking and participating in our democracy, that's one of the things that I think makes our country great. Do you think I should not be doing that? When I read the 5th paragraph, I see comments about Seattle, sustainability, environmental heritage, and social justice. Are those things we shouldn't discuss in our classes? Are those things that are only associated with one political party? I don't take offense to any of your statements, I really appreciate you taking the time to educate me since I am obviously somewhat ignorant as to your interpretation of the blog. Just so we're clear, I think that there are good liberal ideas and not so good liberal ideas and good conservative ideas and not so good conservative ideas. I try to judge each idea individually on its own merit as opposed to how some people choose to label them. I like learning from others and getting different viewpoints, it's how we become more well-rounded individuals! :)
Dubear
Greetings Kevin,
Actually, I beg to differ with you. I'm learning things I didn't know before, so at least one person is furthing his opinion! :) Finding out other people's viewpoints can be very educational. If you find that the blog is not of benefit to you, there is a solution that is possible that doesn't have to do with preventing other people from benefitting (but of course, that's just my opinion, which is kind of what blogs are all about anyway, right?) :)
Dubear
Dubear, I'm an English major and I can't count. Sixth, not fifth. To my mind that paragraph can have only one interpretation and, forgive me, it's not the one you suggest.
There are now a number of degree programmes with strong "social justice" components that have been on the receiving end of criticism because of perceived leftist bias: e.g., the Ed.D. in "Social Justice Education" at UMass, other programmes at U. of Michigan (in Education), the U. of Arizona (in Anthropology), and, I kid you not, the U. of San Francisco offers some qualification in "Performing Arts" and "Social Justice" combined. Other examples on request. We are not talking about how the phrase "social justice" may be used generally in society but how it is used in academia, specifically by the AAC&U (see Dean's blog), an organisation with a pronouced leftist tilt, like 90%+ of all academic entities.
But perhaps Dean Perry, who presumably is reading all this over our shoulders, can lighten our darkness and tell us what he actually meant. I would be particularly interested in a clarification of why he felt "proud to be an American . . . [f]or the first time in a long time" at the Inauguration of President Obama--and see the rest of that fourth paragraph (yes, it is the fourth) and its clear implications. And would he be "a whole lot more hopeful [now] than [he] was a year ago" if we had as president the other candidate? And as for "Let's join President Obama as the new day dawns . . . "! Pooh! I genuinely wish President Obama well but you can include me out of that sort of thing. Best wishes, MDA
Alright truce, but I would still like to not get e-mails about "checking out the blog" then. See you in class today professor.
I agree with Dr. Allen; to me, the entry clearly carried a liberal sentiment. Hope, change, etc. - all critical messages sent from the Obama campaign, and all resonated in this entry. I know this article would not have been the same if the election results were different. Would it have even been written? I feel this way, Dean Perry, because I felt the same emotions as you expressed above, last Tuesday. It's your job as educators to develop politically-minded students without bias, and while your political ideals were expressed somewhat subtly here, I would suggest that you, as a public educator, could have regulated your expression to, perhaps, a private meeting. That's where I want to learn about my professors personal ideas - I office hours, not the internet or the classroom.
I'd like to know why it's okay to say "President of color" but saying "colored President" would be grounds for a horsewhipping.
I find this blog discussion very interesting for mainly one reason. That reason is that Dean Perry hasn't clarified the questions that are being raised about the blog. I understand, especially through electronic communication, that things can be interperted in very different ways depending on the individual and his/her's background and experiences. Which is why I feel that having the Dean clarify what he actually meant; the points and message he was trying to convey would be extremely beneifical.
Hi Jim,
Can I use this an exercise for my students on how someone would critically read a statement?
My students often ask me to provide examples what I mean by thinking critically.
Well, I should probably not ask permission since I am going to do it anyway.
As my students may perhaps point out that "giant leap forward" is a value judgment. There is an implication that Obama is good. Of course, as Professor Allen is pointing, a statement like this calls into question the values of those who make the statement.
There is also a perception that a change has taken place, but I urge everyone to also think in terms of continuites. Are there any? What has stayed the same in the Obama Presidency?
"True Patriot" creates an artificial distinction suggesting that those who disagree are "fake patriots." Should not this type of statement be avoided?
There is an assumption--perhaps a fair guess, but a guess nonetheless--that African Americans feel pride with the election of Barack Obama. This is a statement that may be true, but is not necessarily proven by the anecdotal evidence cited. (However, evidence is cited.)
I wonder if there is a responsibility to speak out. Should not the patriot feel the responsibility to not speak out as well? Is there not a premise here that we owe our fellow human being something? That we owe the state something? Perhaps thinking in terms of sustainability, then people should think in terms of communal virtues. But what about the rights of the individual to be left alone? What is the correct balance? Of course, we do not have enough data based on this essay to make a decision. But critical thinking does require people to think using a multiplicity of systems--or perhaps disciplines. :-)
What does it mean to be an American? Well, in one respect the 14th Amendment states that everyone who is born in the United States is an American. Why is there some obligation be more to more than this?
My part of the argument:
My understanding of this is that the Dean by law is a lobbyist. In that respect, the Dean has a right to advocate political points of view on the state dime. (I may be wrong.) In this sense, the Dean can be held accountable for a tactical decision to speak, but not necessarily legally. It is assumed that lobbyists will express themselves politically.
I do think that we all should make clear that we have professional opinions and personal opinions. But I think that here the Dean is a special case. I can understand the Dean for using the interest in Obama to stir interest in campus activities. I know that I have been using the interest in the Presidential campaign to explain how to think critically.
I do try to keep political views out of class, but one important argument going on right now is why was George W. Bush was so unpopular. This is critical to how Republicans behave in a post-Bush-Cheney world. (Oops, I just expressed an opinion by implying that Dick Cheney was a decision-maker in the Bush White House.) Was Bush unpopular because he followed the ideas of Ronald Reagan to their logical end or did he abandon Reagan's ideas? Nonetheless, as a historian I am obligated to start offering an answer to this question. I have an opinion on this, but my opinion says a good deal about my politics. I am keeping it to myself for the moment. :-) Call me hypocrite, because I probably am. :-)
Ok, so I drove to Milwaukee researched for 8.5 hours and drove back today. I am unwinding by writing if you can call it that.
Enjoy your weekend.
Steve Leahy
DR ALLEN I AGREE THAT POLITICS SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION. THEIR FUNCTION IS TO MANAGE THE DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS OF RUNNING THE COLLEGE AND NOT PROMOTE THEIR OWN POLITICAL FEELINGS AND VIEWS WHICH MAY BE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE OF MINE
Dr. Allen,
Thank you for voicing what I was thinking when I read Dean Perry's "Thoughts on a New Era", your words gave me hope and encouragement. Please continue to speak for those of us who don't have such clarity and confidence in our voices yet.
Barb
I voted for Obama. I think that a woman has a right to choose to have an abortion, that we need to encourage a more sustainable lifestyle instead of relying on things to be shipped from across a continent if they can be produced and sold in the local area, that we need to invest more in our future by making education more affordable (because how sad is it to say that you are ONLY 15000 in debt after three semesters?), that two people who love each other should marry regardless of the genders, and that we need to help out the people who depend on a good growing season and reliable equiptment to earn their living should the season yeild nothing and the equiptment fail. HOWEVER, I also think that it is wrong to use abortion for birth control (or for any reason short of rape/emergency), that somethings need to be flown/shipped in from far distances, that not EVERYONE has to pay any attention to it at all outside of those few who are affected, and that farmers should not expect a government handout just because their thirty year old tractor finally kicked the bucket.
Now you know my views. It should not be a shock to you then to hear that I watched the inaguration and I had tears in my eyes or that I was unaware that the Dean had been offensive in any way. It was a very moving event, and I am with the Dean when he says that he is proud to be an American again. We are one of (if not the only) country that has an ELECTED leader who is also considered a minority. Somehow, that makes up for the mess that is overseas and the mess that our economy is in.
Professor Allen, I can see how you found it offensive, but I have to say that I find that my sympathies lie more in line with Steve's.
It seems to me that just because he is Dean he can't have an opinion. He didn't say anything like "Conservatives have torn this country apart over the last 8 years and finally we have someone that can hopefully fix what these screwups did to our country." So you think he expressed his viewpoint, big deal. Do you think his viewpoint is going to effect you? Do you think he is going to come and get you if you think differently from him? This whole argument is ridiculous.
Can we not state opinions, disagree and criticize without being attacked personally? Must we give up our right to opinions for fear of being disagreed with? Our right to speak freely is what our country is based on. Yet I post this anonymously because I have experienced being attacked personally for views I have
aired.
Thomas Friedman, op-ed columnist for The NY Times expressed some similar views to Dean Perry's in his Jan 20 column, and I will cut and paste it here. This is a time for all Americans to work together, as we have common goals and are much more alike than different.
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Radical in the White House
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: January 20, 2009 NY Times
For one day, for one hour, let us take a bow as a country. Nearly 233 years after our founding, 144 years after the close of our Civil War and 46 years after Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, this crazy quilt of immigrants called Americans finally elected a black man, Barack Hussein Obama, as president. Walking back from the inauguration, I saw an African-American street vendor wearing a home-stenciled T-shirt that pretty well captured the moment — and then some. It said: “Mission Accomplished.”
But we cannot let this be the last mold we break, let alone the last big mission we accomplish. Now that we have overcome biography, we need to write some new history — one that will reboot, revive and reinvigorate America. That, for me, was the essence of Obama’s inaugural speech and I hope we — and he — are really up to it.
Indeed, dare I say, I hope Obama really has been palling around all these years with that old Chicago radical Bill Ayers. I hope Obama really is a closet radical.
Not radical left or right, just a radical, because this is a radical moment. It is a moment for radical departures from business as usual in so many areas. We can’t thrive as a country any longer by coasting on our reputation, by postponing solutions to every big problem that might involve some pain and by telling ourselves that dramatic new initiatives — like a gasoline tax, national health care or banking reform — are too hard or “off the table.” So my most fervent hope about President Obama is that he will be as radical as this moment — that he will put everything on the table.
Opportunities for bold initiatives and truly new beginnings are rare in our system — in part because of the sheer inertia and stalemate designed into our Constitution, with its deliberate separation of powers, and in part because of the way lobbying money, a 24-hour news cycle and a permanent presidential campaign all conspire to paralyze big changes.
“The system is built for stalemate,” said Michael J. Sandel, the Harvard University political theorist. “In ordinary times, the energy and dynamism of American life reside in the economy and society, and people view government with suspicion or indifference. But in times of national crisis, Americans look to government to solve fundamental problems that affect them directly. These are the times when presidents can do big things. These moments are rare. But they offer the occasion for the kind of leadership that can recast the political landscape, and redefine the terms of political argument for a generation.”
In the 1930s, the Great Depression enabled Franklin Roosevelt to launch the New Deal and redefine the role of the federal government, he added, while in the 1960s, the assassination of John F. Kennedy and “the moral ferment of the civil rights movement” enabled Lyndon Johnson to enact his Great Society agenda, including Medicare, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
“These presidencies did more than enact new laws and programs,” concluded Sandel. “They rewrote the social contract, and redefined what it means to be a citizen. Obama’s moment, and his presidency, could be that consequential.”
George W. Bush completely squandered his post-9/11 moment to summon the country to a dramatic new rebuilding at home. This has left us in some very deep holes. These holes — and the broad awareness that we are at the bottom of them — is what makes this a radical moment, calling for radical departures from business as usual, led by Washington.
That is why this voter is hoping Obama will swing for the fences. But he also has to remember to run the bases. George Bush swung for some fences, but he often failed at the most basic element of leadership — competent management and follow-through.
President Obama will have to decide just how many fences he can swing for at one time: grand bargains on entitlement and immigration reform? A national health care system? A new clean-energy infrastructure? The nationalization and repair of our banking system? Will it be all or one? Some now and some later? It is too soon to say.
But I do know this: while a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, so too is a great politician, with a natural gift for oratory, a rare knack for bringing people together, and a nation, particularly its youth, ready to be summoned and to serve.
So, in sum, while it is impossible to exaggerate what a radical departure it is from our past that we have inaugurated a black man as president, it is equally impossible to exaggerate how much our future depends on a radical departure from our present. As Obama himself declared from the Capitol steps: “Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed.”
We need to get back to work on our country and our planet in wholly new ways. The hour is late, the project couldn’t be harder, the stakes couldn’t be higher, the payoff couldn’t be greater.
O.K., I'll quickly answer this last post. I assume that the writer shares Thomas Friedman's views. I assume--I could be wrong, even very wrong, electronic communication being so dodgy--that the writer furthermore sees Dean Perry as having been "attacked personally." He has not been so attacked, and, to be fair to him, I do not think that Dean Perry would himself make that claim. He has been politely disagreed with. I do understand that some people think they have the right not merely to say what they think but to do so without opposition or contradiction.
Has Dean Perry been openly jeered at? Hissed? Mocked behind his back? Mocked in the open corridor before his colleagues and, indeed, his own students? Obscenely insulted? Not so far as I know. Has he had a pie thrown in his face? Has he been obliged to accept escort into or out of a lecture hall by campus secuity? Not so far as I know. And, incidentally, *I* could answer "yes" to the first five of these questions--and I work in an institution that prates much of the "Fox Family."
How unimpressive is it to take refuge in anonymous postings? OF COURSE you are going to be personally attacked, as I have repeatedly been. That is the way some people try to shut you up. MDA
Perhaps Dr. Perry could begin improving American education at home, as it were -- by correcting the impressive range of grammatical errors in his text.
The guy (dean) posts something about being respectful to one another and the best you can do, Tina, is make a comment about grammar? That seems a bit small of anyone, even if they diasgree with his post.
From someone who was unable to post on this blog:
I was on campus four years ago when a group of students in Student Association were criticized by administration for posting a George Bush sign. The dean inquired as to whether this was appropriate. Interestingly, at that same time, I could find signs, articles, cartoons, stickers etc. on faculty doors and in faculty offices in support of Democratic candidates. The counter in the supplies/copy room was filled with anti-Bush cartoons and editorials, This is a public counter that many students and faculty had to use when requesting copies or supplies. I wonder how many Kerry or Obama supporters have been asked to remove their material supporting a particular candidate. I have witnessed the assistant campus dean wearing an Obama sticker while "on the clock".
UW talks about how it values diversity, yet I wonder how many conservatives or Republicans are employed at Fox other than Dr. Allen. Election results, whether local, state or national, show that over the last four years the voting public has been divided roughly 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats, between liberals and conservatives. Yet, this balance does not seem to be reflected in UW-Fox employees. If we had only 5% or 10% female employees, there would be an outcry. Yet when we have an equally small minority of conservative thinkers, it is seen as acceptable. Apparently diversity at Fox means having a lot of people on campus who look different but think alike.
Would Dr. Perry have been "proud" if war hero John McCain had been elected? Would this have represented a historical watershed for Vietnam veterans?
I see and hear very little acknowledgment in my classes that one can be both a Republican and an intellectual, that one can be a conservative and not be a bigot "who doesn't get it".
When was the last time we had a conservative speaker as part of the Scholar Series (unless they were forced to debate a liberal as part of their presentation)? Will we ever have anyone who challenges the liberal orthodoxy on the environment, the military, same-sex marriage, taxes, abortion, affirmative action, immigration, etc.?
Dr. Perry, I am glad that for the first time, in a long time, you are proud to be an American. How sad that you have been so ashamed until now. I am also glad that you are more hopeful now than a year ago, but such a gratuitous slap at our former president doesn't belong as part of an official pronouncement by our campus dean.
I have been taught all of my life that color does not matter(as it should be). However, all I heard during the swearing-in was how race matters. In fact, the first line in your blog is about how the color of someone's skin matters above all else.
Does race matter or not?!! The Left needs to decide.
As a Libertarian, I view Obama (and MLK) as an American.
On a side note, I would also like to see professors keep their politics to themselves. Change the world in your own time and on your own dime!
The previous post is full of non-sequiturs and seeks to get inside the dean's mind. Many of the posters seem to want to jump to the conclusion that if the dean did NOT say something he must mean [fill in the blank]. Example: Poster assumes that had McCain won dean would not be proud. Dean never said that. Rather dean linked several events together that apparently had meaning for him. That’s what a blog is all about people.
I was also on campus during the previous election. Administration did not tell student government what to do, but simply raised the issue, asking if an organization that receives money from all students should be advocating for either political candidate as an official organization.
Administration has never to my knowledge attempted to stifle free political discourse.
If I recall correctly, the UWFV has a committee that selects speakers. Has poster made suggestions about people they should be considering?
Anybody who wants to think that the dean would have responded to a McCain victory the way he did to Obama's is welcome to think that. And you don't need to try to get into his mind. He's told us what's in it.
I don't believe the issue is Dean Perry's politics as much as it is that he felt free to make clearly political pronouncements on an institutional (and thus publicly financed) instrument and to make them as a public official.
I am confident that Dean Perry is a fine citizen. And it is important to recognize that what Dean Perry does as a private citizen is his business.
On the other hand, Dr. Allen raises an important issue. He has not criticized Dr.Perry's political view. He has criticized Dr. Perry's use of the academic institution's public instrument to promote it. Dr. Allen is correct to point out that it is high time those in the academy respect the limitations of academic authority and the public trust by which that academic authority is dispensed.
It is troubling indeed that contemporary students, faculty, and administration all seem unable to see this important distinction clearly.
When is Dean Perry going to answer? Why doesn't he say anything?
We have a black president and a four-decade long history of race preferences in admissions and faculty hiring, yet Dean Perry does not think that Martin Luther King's dream has come to fruition. Does he even remember what King's dream was about??
Martin Luther King would be appalled to find how his vision of a colorblind society has been twisted into one where color trumps content of character, and group identity is valued over individual merit.
The "Dean Perry's" of today's academy are shameless "social advocates" who boldly advance their political agendas from a public platform paid for by the American taxpayers. Dean Perry has every right to express his views as a private citizen. However, spouting his beliefs on a university blog is abuse of his position power. How could employees at Dr. Perry's institution who do not share his political inclinations ever feel comfortable to disagree with him? They can't, and therin lies the abuse of power.
Has Dean Perry ever heard it said that one should avoid even the "appearance" of a conflict of interest? Apparently not.
Where's the dean?
Dean Perry has an obligation, particularly as a public figure, to respond to the numerous criticisms lodged here.
He should either defend his blog or apologize publicly for misusing his high-profile position to convey political views.
Hey, this blog made news for a second time! http://www.nas.org/polInitiatives.cfm?Doc_Id=548
Hi everyone,
Let's have more fun with critical thinking from the National Association of Scholars page on Dean Perry's blogs.
________________________________
"This is a story of a university administrator who wrongly assumed that his political posturing would be met with widespread approbation."
I have been pointing this blog out to my students for pratice in thinking critically. I am going to keep going at it. :-)
Please note that I have made it clear to my students that they often assume that the evidence proves their points rather than using the evidence to prove their points. While the author of this column attempted to speak with Dean Perry, ultimately the author did not. This also raises the question that even if the author did ask the Dean why he posted this comment, can was his answer after the fact consistent with his motivation at the time. This is why historians are skeptical of interviews whether done by journalists or oral historians. Remember that oral histories are products of their time as much as a product of the time being discussed. I do not see any evidence cited that the Dean assumed anything. I am not saying that this is wrong, but I am saying that the evidence is lacking.
The posting from NAS says that they are looking at this as an exmaple of a larger trend. Again, it is one event. While it is arguing for continuity, it assumes that the larger trends exist. It does not prove that the trend exists. Students should be skeptical whether or not such trends do exist. Just because NAS says so, does not make it so.
_________________________________
"The trend in this case is the widespread assumption by college and university officials around the country that “everybody” is as enthusiastic for “social justice” and “sustainability” as they are."
Note that this essay complains about people assuming things as well. But it does assume that that university officials are enthusiastic about social justice and sustainability. Again, just because NAS says something, does not make it so.
_____________________________
"These terms connote liberal ideologies and the attempt to advance them by putting them at the center of higher education is a political act—no less so when it masquerades as the common sense of intellectuals and academics."
This suggests that terms connote liberal ideologies. Certainly there are political aspects of this in History. To what extent was Ronald Reagan a different president than Jimmy Carter has political connotations, but it is also a worthwhile question as well. Asking and answering the question based on evidence is not inherently political, although the answer could offer direction to people on how to act politically based on their own preferences.
Furthermore, the author assumes that sustainaibility is part of a liberal ideology. Part of the problem is that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are poorly defined in American discourse. They honestly should be avoided in the academic setting. While they have meaning to their supporters, the advocates of "liberal" and "conservative" ideology have done a poor job of explaining what these terms mean. I simply have difficulty as a scholar understanding them.
If sustainabiility is a liberal ideology, would not John D. Rockefeller qualify as a liberal since he constantly looked for avoiding waste? I am not aware of any business that views waste of its resources as a good business practice. Indeed, I am generally aware of businesses looking to cut costs--in part by eliminating waste. (This is an assumption on my part. Again, I invite people to correct me if I am wrong.) Are businesses therefore liberal?
_____________________________
"Whoever put up the vote most likely expected that the voting would go the other way."
Note that this statement here is speculation. There is no evidence to support this statement. Scholars cannot accept a statement like this.
I remain skeptical of the NAS comments
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Leahy
Senior Lecturer
Department of History
Anybody want to use Professor Leahy's comments in a critical thinking exercise in a class? Beyond belief.
Still no response from Dean Perry.
I wonder if it has occured to anyone that the U Wisconsin dean may be smart enough to know that if he responds this would only give credibility to those who want him to respond or who are critical, because no matter what he said they would use it to point out the 'errors of his ways' as they perceive them?
This last comment sounds like Dean Perry.
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Elaina
http://www.craigslistpostingtools.info
Post a Comment