Part 1 included a discussion of Norman Finkelstein's predicament at DePaul. After denying him tenure, the DePaul administration canceled his 2007-2oo8 courses (his contract allowed him to come back for one more year of teaching) and tried to place him on administrative leave. As noted in the Chronicle, Finkelstein threatened acts of civil disobedience if he could not teach his classes.
Today, DePaul and Finkelstein reached an agreement under which he will leave. The terms of the agreement have not been released, but here's the kicker: as part of the agreement, DePaul has said in writing that, "Professor Finkelstein is a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher."
Faculty at most institutions of higher education are judged for tenure on three criteria: teaching, scholarship, and service. To deny tenure to someone whom the university itself refers to as a "prolific scholar and outstanding teacher" demonstrates the extent to which DePaul allowed itself to be intimidated by forces outside the university calling for Finkelstein's ouster.
Through its shameful handling of the Finkelstein case, DePaul has certainly earned a place on the AAUP's list of censured administrations. I hope to see them on that list soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Clearly, the real sin here is that DePaul capitualted to say that Finkelstein is an outstanding teacher. Nobody who has misquoted or made up facts like he has is an outstanding teacher. "Prolific" merely measures volume, not quality.
As far as forces outside the university calling for his ouster--why shouldn't they? As I read in the links you provided, his history of lies and distortion is well documented. You mention some noted scholar who once praised F, but do not provide a link which illustrates this or gives the context. Why not?
In the end this illustrates not merely DePaul's weakness, but also the problems with a tenure system which becomes a blanket under which any crackpot can hide. To be sure, Finkelstein is no scholar of merit, and the defense of him reminds me of faculty lounge hacks in my own high school who claim lofty values and ideals while doing shoddy work. Finkelstein's academic freedom defense will make truely valid claims along this line seem more foolish in the future; people will only hear "I'm entitled to the job."
I'm sure all the real scholars at DePaul--as well as Colorado--are quietly saying "good riddance." The real problem is that too few of them are prepared to say it out loud.
Tony:
I think you are pandering to your supporters.
As I’ve pointed out in my blog, service is one of the requirements for tenure. His denial letter documents this as one of the reasons. Do you throw service out as one of the components of granting tenure? In your classes at the end of the semester do you retroactively change the requirements to give a student top marks because the student sees your point of view.
You link to an article from the Trib which paints the situation in a skewed eye towards Finklestein. Why didn’t you link the article from the Rib on Sept 3 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-finkelstein03sep03,0,7946121.story which documents that his own department didn’t want him teaching this academic year, that he had physical confrontations with DePaul staff and faculty and that on three separate occasions campus security were called to deal with him.
Apparently the Sept 3 article might show Finklestein for what he is: a bully who is being shunned by his own collogues. DePaul isn’t the first university to deny him tenure. I would suspect though that it will be the last. I can’t imagine being on a search and screen committee and giving him any credence. His academic teaching career-if you call it that-will be solely as an adjunct.
Why the necessity of throwing out an accusation of "pandering?" It further undermines your already weak argument and makes it look like you have some kind of axe to grind.
My concern has been less about Finkelstein and more about what his case (and others like it) says about the modern academy. Not since the McCarthy era has the mere act of taking one's responsibility as an intellectual seriously been this dangerous.
It's become common to blame the current hostility toward "radical" professors on right wingers like David Horowitz, Bill O'Reilly, etc. I think that's a cop out. The real problem is the lack of solidarity among faculty--too many of us are not strong enough to stand up for the core values of the academy and are all too ready to disown and put down those faculty who have become the subject of controversy merely because they stepped on some very powerful toes.
Building solidarity among faculty has always been tough, but to do it in the new era of the corporate managed university is next to impossible. One can imagine a third rate novel or B movie in which a "mulligan" and a "mccloud" become symbols of the Dilbert universe taking over academe. Academic radicals will be indicted, tried, and convicted by anonymous bloggers. In faculty conference rooms, huge posters with Wal-Mart smiley faces with the letter "M" on each cheek will be taped to the walls to remind the radicals of the potential to be mulligan-ed and mccloud-ed at any time. As faculty approach tenure they will receive a memo:
"Remember that it does not matter how many books you publish, how prestigious the publishing house, or how rigorous the peer review. It especially does not matter how excellent of a teacher you are. We the management of the university reserve the right to have the mulligan and/or the mccloud question your motives, impugn your integrity, and dismiss your research out of hand. They are empowered to do this anonymously, and they do not even have to read your work. Thank you, and please remember to file your TPS Reports."
Tony:
My problem is not with Finkelstein's content, but with the methods and integrity he employs. If it is true that he has lied and mis-represented the facts and opinions of others, then how can he not be thrown out? Would you retain an accountant or lawyer who lied? No. So there's no need for the personal attacks--they only suggest you have no other response. And as a prof of Rhetoric you know that too.
If the claims that Finkelstein has acted with dishonesty are proven false, then I think he should stay.
Do you think a prof who lies and distorts the facts should be protected? Remember, I made no comment whatsoever regarding Finkelstien's content or agenda. Under what circumstances do you believe a prof forfeits the protections of academic freedom, if ever?
Tony:
One doesn't "throw out an accusation" as you put it. One makes an accusation based upon supposition and evidence.
My points, which you've ignored, are that he was lacking in university service and when that when his character was tested, he became physically and verbally abusive. Lacking in service doesn't get you tenure here or anywhere elsewhere. Physical and verbal confrontations that escalate to the point of having security called make sure that the appeal process can't and won't happen particularly when your own department wants you gone.
My pandering comment is thus: you are ignoring WHY he was denied tenure (lack of service-if he had it, what did he do) and you seem to be inserting your idea that he was denied solely on the basis that his opinions weren't mainstream. This seems to be a popular theory for his denial amongst liberal theorists. I'm neither liberal nor conservative and I started my career as a social worker so you probably can guess which side I tend to lean towards.
He can teach whatever ideas he wants as long as he can support them, just as you and I can. As well, he shouldn't be denied that opportunity just as any other phud shouldn'tbased on not being mainstream. However, granting him tenure, solely on the basis of that he is not mainstream, that he is a dissenting voice to the majority vox populi you are allowing him to "advance directly to Go" by waiving the service requirement of his tenure pact.
Finally, you are a prof of communication and I'd think you can respond to both myself and mulligan in a manner that dignifies your position 'cause quite frankly, I enjoy some B movies and the plot you've penned, won't make the cut.
On topics concerning academic freedom, I think it highly ironic when U.W Oshkosh profs Post anonymously. Both mccloud and mulligan seem highly ignorant of Normans work; I don’t quite understand what they were getting at. I wonder why Chomsky is supporting Finkelstein. Mulligan said, “Nobody who has misquoted or made up facts like he has is an outstanding teacher”. I would love to see you back that up in a debate with Norman; you better grow some big ones real quick. Glib said “One doesn't "throw out an accusation" as you put it. One makes an accusation based upon supposition and evidence.” You got it, which is the same reasoning I used when I equate your ideas and support for certain behaviors as “evil”.
Working for a living:
Here's what I'm reacting to:
"The final part of Mr. Finkelstein's quest for tenure is to blame his tenure problems on "outsiders." He claims that I intruded myself into the DePaul review process, neglecting to mention that I was specifically asked by the former chairman of DePaul's political science department to "point [him] to the clearest and most egregious instances of dishonesty on Finkelstein's part." I responded by providing hard evidence of made-up quotes and facts--a pattern that should alone disqualify him from tenure."
This from The WSJ link in the post. It would be easy to back this up in a debate with Norman even with the small pair I unfortnately have. Liars should not teach; they forfeit their credibility.
You'll also note that I said: If the claims that Finkelstein has acted with dishonesty are proven false, then I think he should stay.
What more is there to it than that? Being just a lowly non-professor, I've always believed that the ideal which was most important was the pursuit of truth. Am I to feel bad when a liar is purged?
My question continues to be: Do you think a prof who lies and distorts the facts should be protected? And Under what circumstances do you believe a prof forfeits the protections of academic freedom, if ever?
Please enlighten me with an answer. Or, if there has been a credible examination of A.D's claims, please let me know where it is. But don't try to suggest my position is motivated by some desire to allow the public to become grand inquisitors of the academic world. That's just another pathetic rhetorical trick.
I firmly believe profs should enjoy freedom as well as room for challenging opinions. I just don't like liars and cheats. Why does Chomsky? Is it because an agenda is more important to him than the truth? Is it to you? To Tony?
Mulligan,
Alan Dershowitz's charges against Finkelstein were examined most closely at two levels of review in the DePaul tenure process charged with doing the most thorough examination of a tenure candidate's scholarship: the Department of Political Science and the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Personnel Committee. Both levels found no merit in the charges and voted to grant Finkelstein tenure.
Finkelstein had a long track record of peer reviewed publications before being hired at DePaul. If in fact he was a well documented liar, neither DePaul nor anyone else should have hired him.
After being hired at DePaul, Finkelstein continued to publish while working toward tenure. If in fact during that time he had produced a record of lies and distortion, he should have been let go long before the official tenure decision.
Finkelstein's writings not only challenge the establishment consensus on questions related to the middle east, but attempt to show (I think successfully) that much of THAT consensus is built on an edifice of lies and distortion. Because Finkelstein pulls no punches in his writing and speaking, and refuses to employ the typical academic style of obfuscation, he left himself open to charges of being too "polemic." He is not the first scholar to pay the consequences for employing such style, nor will he be the last.
Tony:
Thanks for the clarification. If Finkelstein has conducted his research in the ethical way you suggest, then his removal, or denial of tenure, or whatever is a real shame. I think my posts have been clear on this point.
I don't really know enough about middle-east politics to comment on the finer points of Finkelstein's ideas, but I'm sure that one would need to dedicate decades of interest to unravelling the history, bigotry, emotion, and passion which divides people who might have a great deal of common ground. Maybe I'll take some time to look into Finkelstein's ideas and see what influence they have on me.
hmmm...
Instead of "obfuscation" a regular guy would have said "baffling with bullshit". And instead of "polemic" (I had to look that one up) I dunno, how about "bitchy", or "disagreeable", "in-your-face" or....
ah HA! and I love this one - here we go - "all up in mah grill".
This entire argument and the posts that inspired them lead one ("one" uh-oh, lofty syntax is spreading like transfat-powered margarine) anyway, ONE is inspired to inquire of one's self (not unlike the hegelian* concept of Substance self-perceiving to the point of becoming Subject and simulataneously being both observer and observed) if all this is brought on by random thoughts that the Palmeri may annoy someone. Just suppose. Totally hypothetically.
Or if maybe people are asking themselves what the level of Oshkosh cage-rattling is appropriate coming from a professor. I mean, that does seem to be the un-mentioned elephant in the room here, doesn't it? Just how much polemic anti-obfuscation is tolerable in any given academic environment?
Not that I have any answer. But I will give extra credit points to Palmeri for using assigned leftist vocab words from Chapter 14 of our text in complete sentences (WalMart, McCarthy etc). If I had more energy to devote to the task I might attempt to prove that he is both polemic AND obfuscating by doing so. Which would be really polemic of me. Yes,If there were world enough and time I could ride the twin horses Polemi and Obfusca into the stratosphere. Maybe tomorrow.
*It might not actually be Hegel, but some other egghead - I was obfuscating, i.e. pulling that out of my ass, in hopes of gaining tenure by 5 pm Tuesday. Just because I have nothing else going at present.
Post a Comment