Academic Tenure and the 'Damascus Conversion to Unpopular Views'

I generally don't like the academic tenure system. For the most part, it promotes college "sinecures" for professors, who won't have to perform up to the standards required upon hiring at an institution. But tenure has its usefulness. One of the main arguments you always hear is about "academic freedom," which is really an argument about protecting faculty from those who disapprove of their views. The academic freedom argument's been something I've thought about more recently, considering the various attacks I've been subject to on account of blogging. The most invidious of course are the workplace harassment episodes featuring E.D. Kain and Octopus at The Swash Zone. On top of that is a corps of radical leftists at my college which has objected to my conservative views and, most recently, my conservative bulletin board, which in turn devolved into a full-scale civil rights investigation (with the gunsights eventually turned on me for alleged "libel" and "hate-speech," blah, blah ...).

So, I'm taking an interest in this debate on tenure over at Volokh Conspiracy. See, "Debating Tenure" (via Instapundit). In responding to a feature at NYT, author Ilya Somin links to "Do We Need Tenure to Protect Academic Freedom?", and this passage (with the key sentence in paragraph #4 in bold):

In recent weeks, a number of prominent professor-bloggers have criticized the tenure system, including Bryan Caplan, Freakonomics author Steve Levitt, Brian Tamanaha, and our own David Bernstein. These writers all point out that tenure protects shirkers and mediocre scholars. I would add that it also protects professors who are bad teachers or mistreat students in ways that fall short of the very severe offenses (i.e. - serious sexual harrassment or other criminal misconduct) that would allow the school to fire a tenured faculty member. I also agree with Bryan Caplan and David Bernstein's suggestion that tenure persists despite its inefficiency in large part because universities are nonprofit or governmental institutions that have little incentive to adopt efficient policies.

However, none of these writers fully address the main argument in favor of tenure: the claim that it is needed to protect the academic freedom of professors with unpopular political views. That argument is not completely without merit, but is very much overstated.

As David mentions in his post (linked above), the institution of tenure is not enough to prevent ideological discrimination in academic hiring. A faculty that wants to discriminate can still do so in entry level hiring or at the point when it is decides whether or not an assistant professor gets promoted to tenure. If the faculty or administration is intent on enforcing ideological conformity, it can usually do so quite effectively even without having the ability to fire tenured professors. If it is not, then tenure is probably not needed to protect academic freedom at that particular institution.

At most, therefore, tenure will only protect the academic freedom of professors who either 1) manage to keep their unpopular views hidden from their colleagues until after they get tenure, or 2) have a road to Damascus conversion to unpopular views after getting tenured status. Such cases are not unheard of, but they are likely to be extremely rare. Tenure might also occasionally protect a professor whose views are generally acceptable to his colleagues and the administration, but who occasionally makes a stray unpopular or un-PC remark. For example, Ward Churchill's far left views were apparently acceptable to the University of Colorado administration and faculty (at least to the extent that they didn't want to get rid of him) until he really went off the deep end by calling the victims of 9/11 attack "little Eichmans." I suspect, however, that, even in the absence of tenure, it is unlikely that universities will often seek to fire professors just for making one or a few isolated controversial comments.

There is no way of perfectly protecting professors who convert to political views unpopular with their colleagues or make controversial remarks. However, perfect protection is probably unnecessary, because cases of firing for such reasons are likely to be rare ...

Readers can guess what my "Damascus conversion" was, but I had one, around 2003.

IMAGE CREDIT: The Conversion of Saint Paul, Caravaggio, 1600/1601.

Age of Ragin' Partisan Journalism

It's worth a read, at Politico:

Here’s the optimistic case: The embarrassment of the Shirley Sherrod story — with its toxic convergence of partisan combat and media recklessness — will be a tipping point. It will remind journalists and politicians alike that personal reputations and professional credibility are at stake, and a bit more restraint and responsibility are in order.

Here’s the realistic case: Get ready for more of the same.

Every president since the first George Bush has delivered an inaugural address including as a main theme an appeal for more civility and less cynical conflict. Barack Obama is the fourth in a row to be thwarted in this mission — frustrated by forces that have grown far stronger over the past two decades and aren’t abating any time soon.

That is because there are two big incentives that drive behavior at the intersection where politics meets media. One is public attention. The other is money. Experience shows there’s a lot more of both to be had by engaging in extreme partisan behavior.

The Sherrod controversy is only a somewhat exaggerated version of the new normal. The usual signatures of this new breed of incentive-driven uproar were also on display in another of this week’s controversies, over JournoList, the defunct liberal listserv.

Both stories featured sharp personal attacks against political opponents. Both revolved around indignant claims from people claiming to be victims of bias and the corrupt ideological agendas of their opponents — all the while stoking and profiting from the bias and conspiratorial instincts of partisans on their own side.

Responsible people in power and in the mainstream media are only beginning to grapple with this new environment — in which facts hardly matter except as they can be used as weapon or shield in a nonstop ideological war. Do you dive into the next fact-lite partisan outrage — or do you stay out and risk looking slow, stupid or irrelevant? No one is close to figuring it out.

So, despite a new burst of hand-wringing and talk of “lessons learned,” many commentators predicted in interviews that the situation involving Shirley Sherrod would soon enough be regarded as merely another footnote in the Age of Rage.

RTWT.

I don't think we're in any new age that's newer than any collapse of what political scientists used to call "objective journalism." It's just a faster news-cycle these days, with more participants to add to the spin.

From the Heart Attack Cafe

Via my sources at the O.C. Fair:

Anita MonCrief to File Federal Election Suit Against Obama Machine

At Emerging Corruption, "The Obama Donor List"

For a number of years traditional print media has been on life support, but after the revelations from Tucker Carlson’s The Daily Caller, it looks like someone finally pulled the plug. The expose on Journolist, a now defunct, listserv that included hundreds of liberal journalists, detailed:

the Journolisters’ attempt, during the 2008 presidential campaign to kill and bury stories about Obama’s relationship with “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright;

their push to deliberately smear innocent conservative journalists and politicos as “racists” and “bigots”

their twisted passion to see Rush Limbaugh killed off and dead;

their intolerant desire to have the government censor and shut down Fox News; and

their baldly partisan effort to coordinate liberal talking points that would discredit Sarah Palin and John McCain, while helping to elect Barack Obama president.

Considering that Journolist included journalists from Washington Post, the New York Times, National Public Radio, New Republic, and Time, one has to wonder if the biggest story covered up in 2008 was the illegal coordination between ACORN and the Obama campaign ...

And check the video at Big Government, "Breaking: Anita MonCrief to File FEC Charges Against Obama Administration."

Also, at No Sheeples Here!, "BOMBSHELL: EmergingCorruption.com Has Released The Kraken On The White House."

Affirmative Action Gone Wrong

From Al the Fish (via Blazing Cat Fur):

At this point in time I have to admit I used to be a swivel servant employed by the Government of Canada. While serving my time, I had the opportunity to apply for many jobs within the Public Service.

I can attest that as late as 2007, the application process involved either a paper or on-line application form. At the very end of the form, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to voluntarily self-identify if they belonged to an an underrepresented group in the Public Service. At the time the underrepresented groups included women; first nations' persons; visible minorities; and persons with a disability. The explanation for the collection of that data was that the information could be used as a tie-breaker in screening applicants. Should two persons score equally, if one fell into an underrepresented group, they could be chosen ahead of the other person, only if the competition's initial posting specified that criteria could be used.

The rest is a must read.

RELATED: "Woman denied government job because of race." (That would be Sara Landriault, who is white, and pictured here: "Race prevents Kemptville woman from applying for job.")

Matt Lewis Interview with Andrew Breitbart

At Politics Daily (via Memeorandum). I love this passage:

Q: How does the Shirley Sherrod story relate to the JournoList story where liberal journalist Spencer Ackerman suggested deflecting attention from the Reverend Wright story, which was hurting Obama, by wrongly accusing a prominent conservative of being a racist?

A: That collusion to slander by Ackerman -- and the sin of omission of the other 400 people on the list -- to abide by that calculated evil -- shows that we have a tremendous problem in journalism today -- and then they come and ask me about my tactics. I'm trying to end JournoList collusion that goes well beyond the [listserve's founder] Washington Post's Ezra Klein's 400 friends and collaborators, and that includes Politico and Bloomberg. Where are they firing people? Where are the questions about this monumental act of journalistic fraud? Where are the mass firings?

'Sub-Subgenius' Charles Johnson: New York Mega-Victory Mosque 'Two Blocks Away' From Ground Zero

Charles Johnson's been practically ejaculating at the chance to get some good digs in against the "Bigot Brigade" of late, with the Breitbart/NAACP controversy and what not. And of course C.J.'s long-running attacks on "Nazis" Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer got a shot in the arm last week when Sarah Palin spoke out against the Ground Zero Mosque. King Charles wrote a post (safe Google link) pointing out Palin's "idiocy" for posting that "refudiate" thing on Twitter. See, "Sarah Palin Calls on 'Peaceful Muslims' to 'Refudiate' Their Own Religion." And here's this from an update at the post:

It should be pointed out (again) that the “Ground Zero mosque” these idiots are ranting about is actually a proposed community center with an auditorium, swimming pool, and restaurants, in addition to a mosque. It would be housed in an existing 13-story building that’s two blocks away from Ground Zero and has no view of the area; there are two very big buildings in between the proposed community center and Ground Zero. Here is an embedded Google Map in which you can clearly see that the idea of this being a “Ground Zero mosque” is a ridiculous paranoid fantasy.

I was just now tooling around at LGF. King Charles continues with his attacks on all his "Neanderthal" opponents (he slurs Dan Riehl, who wrote one of the best essays all week at Human Events, as "sub-sub-genius"). I might not have even posted on this had I not seen Mike Lester's cartoon on the Ground Zero Mosque, which is the political cartoon equivalent of "a picture's worth a thousand words." Take that, Sir Charles Genius of Lizard Land:

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran: Better Safe Than Sorry

Reuel Marc Gerecht, at Weekly Standard, "Should Israel Bomb Iran?":

There is only one thing that terrifies Washington’s foreign policy establishment more than the prospect of an American airstrike against Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities: an Israeli airstrike. Left, right, and center, “sensible” people view the idea with alarm. Such an attack would, they say, do great damage to the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Tehran would counterattack, punishing “the Great Satan” (America) for the sins of “the Little Satan” (Israel). An Israeli strike could lead to the closing of the world’s oil passageway, the Strait of Hormuz; prompt Muslims throughout the world to rise up in outrage; and spark a Middle Eastern war that might drag in the United States. Barack Obama’s “New Beginning” with Muslims, such as it is, would be over the moment Israeli bunker-busting bombs hit.

An Israeli “preventive” attack, we are further told, couldn’t possibly stop the Islamic Republic from developing a nuke, and would actually make it more likely that the virulently anti-Zionist supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, would strike Israel with a nuclear weapon. It would also provoke Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to deploy its terrorist assets against Israel and the United States. Hezbollah, the Islamic Revolution’s one true Arab child, would unleash all the missiles it has imported from Tehran and Damascus since 2006, the last time the Party of God and the Jewish state collided.

An Israeli preemptive strike unauthorized by Washington (and President Barack Obama is unlikely to authorize one) could also severely damage Israel’s standing with the American public, as well as America’s relations with Europe, since the “diplomacy first, diplomacy only” Europeans would go ballistic, demanding a more severe punishment of Israel than Washington could countenance. The Jewish state’s relations with the European Union—Israel’s major trading partner—could collapse. And, last but not least, an Israeli strike could fatally compromise the pro-democracy Green Movement in Iran, which is the only hope the West has for an end to the nuclear menace by means of regime change. This concern was expressed halfheartedly before the tumultuous Iranian elections of June 12, 2009, but it is now voiced with urgency by those who truly care about the Green Movement spawned by those elections and don’t want any American or Israeli action to harm it.

These fears are mostly overblown. Some of the alarmist scenarios are the opposite of what would more likely unfold after an Israeli attack. Although dangerous for Israel, a preventive strike remains the most effective answer to the possibility of Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards having nuclear weapons. Provided the Israeli air force is capable of executing it, and assuming no U.S. military action, an Israeli bombardment remains the only conceivable means of derailing or seriously delaying Iran’s nuclear program and—equally important—traumatizing Tehran. Since 1999, when the supreme leader quashed student demonstrations and put paid to any chance that the Islamic Republic would peacefully evolve under the reformist president Mohammad Khatami, Iran has calcified into an ever-nastier autocracy. An Israeli strike now—after the rise of the Green Movement and the crackdown on it—is more likely to shake the regime than would have a massive American attack in 2002, when Tehran’s clandestine nuclear program was first revealed. And if anything can jolt the pro-democracy movement forward, contrary to the now passionately accepted conventional wisdom, an Israeli strike against the nuclear sites is it.

There are many voices out there—“realists” in America, Kantians in Europe—who believe this discussion is unnecessary since Iran doesn’t really pose an existential threat to Israel, America, or anyone else, and whatever threat it does pose can be countered with “strategic patience” and the threat of Israeli nuclear retaliation. Tehran may support anti-Israeli terrorist groups, but there is no need to overreact: The regime is as scared of Israel’s military power as Israel is scared of mullahs with nukes. America’s preeminent job should therefore be to calm the Israelis down—or, failing that, arm-twist them into inaction.

RTWT.

RELATED: At Israel Matsav, "Iran's representative in the US cries 'the sky is falling'." And at PuffHo, "Resolution Green-Lighting Israeli Strikes on Iran Introduced by House Republicans" (via Memeorandum).

Canadian CF18 Pilot Ejects Moments Before Crash at Alberta International Airshow

At Chicago Ray's, "Canadian CF-15 Pilot Escapes Death Ejecting Moments before Fiery Air Show Practice Mishap..."

And at Boston's WCVB TV, "Jet Crashes During Air Show Practice: Canadian Pilot Able To Eject Before Aircraft Hit Runway":

LETHBRIDGE, Alberta -- A Canadian air force jet crashed and exploded in a ball of flames during a training run for a weekend international air show in Alberta, but the pilot was able to eject from the plummeting plane before it hit the runway.

The pilot, Capt. Brian Bews, who sustained a sore back and scraped-up arms, was treated at a hospital and released Friday.

Bews was practicing Friday in a CF-18 Hornet jet over Lethbridge County Airport for an international air show. The CF-18 he was flying is a model specifically used for air shows.

"All of a sudden you could hear 'pop, pop, pop,' " witness Roland Booth told CTV News. "I saw sparks come out of the one engine. The plane started banking over to the side. That's when the pilot bailed out with his parachute."

Another witness, aviation buff Darren Jansens, says the pilot was just starting a maneuver known as a High Alpha pass before the accident.

"It's a high-angle pass, very low speed, fairly close to the ground. It's the lowest-speed maneuver the Hornet generally performs," said Jansens.

"The pilot did eject safely but was dragged several hundred feet unconscious along the ground," he added.

The military and the Department of Transport immediately launched an investigation into the accident. There was no indication of the cause of the accident.

And check the spectacular pictures at the Calgary Herald, "Pilot survives after CF-18 crashes, burns at Lethbridge airport: 'This is an isolated incident with one aircraft'."

Imam Feisal and the Ground Zero Mosque

It's amusing that Charles Johnson, who was once perhaps the country's lead anti-jihad blogger, has done a 180 degree turn, and is now an apologist for radical Islam. Here's his post today (at a Google-safe link): "An Interview with the Lead Developer of Park51." C.J. smears Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (and their supporters) as members of the "Bigot Brigade." And his "evidence" is an interview with Sharif el-Gamal, who is the CEO developer of the "interfaith" center at Ground Zero: "Q&A with Sharif el-Gamal about Park 51, NYC." Sharif waxes profoundly about what a uniter is Imam Feisal, chief sponsor of the Cordoba Initiative.

Don't believe it for a second.

I've previously laid out my position on the topic ("To Build or Not to Build? Mosque Protests Go Nationwide"). I'm not one to back suppression of Islam in America, although my commenters have been extremely critical of Islam, at a 2-1 ratio. I do have problems with the Ground Zero project. It's especially chilling how the left has used this to demonize those still recovering loved once from Ground Zero. In any case, we have more in the news, for example Frank Gaffney's new video, "Center says ‘No’ to ‘Shariah Beachhead’ at Ground Zero":

Plus, see Andrew Bostom at yesterday's NY Post, "Behind the mosque :Extremism at Ground Zero?":

Imam Feisal Rauf, the central figure in the coterie planning a huge mosque just off Ground Zero, is a full-throated champion of the very same Muslim theologians and jurists identified in a landmark NYPD report as central to promoting the Islamic religious bigotry that fuels modern jihad terrorism.

This fact alone should compel Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg to withdraw their support for the proposed mosque.

In August 2007, the NYPD released "Radicalization in the West -- The Homegrown Threat." This landmark 90-page report looked at the threat that had become apparent since 9/11, analyzing the roots of recent terror plots in the United States, from Lackawanna, NY, to Portland, Ore., to Fort Dix, NJ.

The report noted that Saudi "Wahhabi" scholars feed the jihadist ideology, legitimizing an "extreme intolerance" toward non-Muslims, especially Jews, Christians and Hindus. In particular, the analysts noted that the "journey" of radicalization that produces homegrown jihadis often begins in a Wahhabi mosque.

The term "Wahhabi" refers to the 18th century founder of this austere Islamic tradition, Muhammad bin Abdul al-Wahhab, who claimed inspiration from 14th century jurist Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah.

At least two of Imam Rauf's books, a 2000 treatise on Islamic law and his 2004 "What's Right with Islam," laud the implementation of sharia -- including within America -- and the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Wahhab.

RTWT.

Also, previously at NY Post, "Imam Unmosqued: Ground Zero Booster Tied to Sea Clash":

The imam behind a proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a prominent member of a group that helped sponsor the pro-Palestinian activists who clashed violently with Israeli commandos at sea this week.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, according to its Website.

Perdana is the single biggest donor ($366,000) so far to the Free Gaza Movement, a key organizer of the six-ship flotilla that tried to break Israel's blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip Monday.

Nine passengers aboard the largest ship died in clashes with Israeli commandos, and a new confrontation loomed today, when another Free Gaza Movement ship was due to reach Gaza waters in defiance of Israel.

RELATED: At Discover the Networks, "FEISAL ABDUL RAUF."

Weekly Republican Address, July 24 2010

From the House GOP Conference:

Mark Ruffalo Signs as 'Incredible Hulk' in Upcoming 'Avengers' Film

I'd be interested to know the decision-making processes here. Mark Ruffalo, who is very talented, is a "sensitive guy" actor (IMHO), most famously in films like "13 Going on 30." He's also starring in "The Kids Are All Right," currently in theaters:

Anyways, check it out: "Mark Ruffalo Signs On to Play Hulk in THE AVENGERS."

And apparently Deadline's got my wavelength: "... imagine the Hollywood actor whom you'd least expect to play The Incredible Hulk in The Avengers, and maybe, just maybe, you'd come up with the Ruffalo's name."

RELATED: "Comic-Con 2010: 'Harry Potter,' Mark Ruffalo (maybe) and more on day three."

Robert Stacy McCain From 'Right Online' Las Vegas

Click here and enlarge for the full close-up image.

My good blogging buddy Robert Stacy McCain is in Las Vegas for the Right Online Conference. That's Ed Morrissey sitting with Stacy.

And for some news out of Vegas, well, Fox's Carl Cameron is reporting the news and a subject of the news. See, "Left & Right Blogospheres Collide in Sin City," and "Did Carl Cameron Sell Out Fox News to DailyKos? Not According to Cameron."

Drew Barrymore ELLE Cover Shoot — August 2010

Drew Barrymore looks fabulous in the latest ELLE Magazine:

More pics here and here.

Rule 5 Saturday: Paulina Porizkova

Well, looks like Rule 5 weekend has gotten off to a great start!

My good friend Opus #6 has posted her link-fest entry, "Paulina Porzikova: A Top Notch Supermodel."

And that's a reminder for me: I first started Ruling 5-ing with Paulina Porizkova at Sports Illustrated. She's a darling.

Who else is joining the fun? At The Point of a Gun?

Great stuff, although not too much babe-blogging over there. Which is why folks head over to Theo Spark's for their totties! Never a disappointment at Bob Belvedere's or Washington Rebel, for that matter. And Gator Doug gets it going a bit as well. (And not to mention WyBlog!)

More weekend Rule 5 a bit later today!

Update on Blogging Anonymity and Blogging Ethics

I've been thinking a lot about anonymous blogging since E.D. Kain launched his campaign of workplace intimidation last year. For one thing, I no longer think anonymous blogging is automatically cowardly. Oh sure, mostly I'd prefer to have someone put their name behind their words. And of course at this point I still probably wouldn't have started blogging anonymously even today, given the knowledge that I have about the depths of evil on the web. No, it's more that I'm not going to be critical of those who do continue to blog anonymously.

Dan Riehl periodically goes off on Allahpundit for hiding behind a pseudonym, recently, for example, "Is Pseudonymous Blogging Pure High School?" Dan links to another essay that makes the case that blogging anonymously is juvenile: "Of Pet Rocks And Anonymous Bloggers, Specifically The Remarkable Similarities Between The Two." I think the main thing, as Dan points out, is whether the blogger in question is really a serious writer with critical things to say, and would rather speak freely and often harshly without fear of retribution, or whether you have bloggers whose sole existence online is to demonize and destroy those whom they hate. American Nihilist, for example, exists for the sole purpose of attacking me personally with the most demented bile imaginable, and that blog has gotten more perverted over time, eventually devolving into a Satanic hate outlet for workplace intimidation and non-stop vicious personal diatribes. It's a hate blog. It exists for no other purpose but to spew invective and evil. And I've repeatedly challenged the authors to put or up shut up by posting their full personal identification and contact information, but they have not done so. And that's cowardly.

And thinking about it, people like that --- Repsac3 and his hate-merchants of death, and all the others of similarly-warped criminal minds online --- are the types that Kyra Phillips is referring to in her attacks on bloggers in this CNN clip:

"There's going to have be a point in time where these people have to be held accountable ... How about all these bloggers that blog anonymously? They say rotten things about people and they're actually given credibility, which is crazy. They're a bunch of cowards, they're just people seeking attention."

The prompt for this, surprisingly, is the Shirley Sherrod story. Of course, Andrew Breitbart is anything but anonymous, so the real question CNN is weighing is accountability. And as the whole NAACP episode has shown, accountability has been provided by information dissemination. The more information that became available, the more we knew exactly what happened. Who won the "debate"? Each side is claiming victory, with leftists saying Breitbart's credibility has been destroyed while ABC's Terry Moran and conservatives across the 'sphere recognized the massive victory against the left's race-baiting industry.

No Sheeples Here! has a great discussion of the larger debate, "Fear The Blogosphere." And see also Serr8d's Cutting Edge, "A damned shame you have to go overseas to read media coverage that's not tainted with the biases of the American Left. We have no good new organizations left on this continent, it seems."

More at Memeorandum.

PREVIOUSLY: "Blogging Anonymity and Blogging Ethics."

Out Tuesday: The Post-American Presidency

I'm looking forward to reading it: The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America.

Woman Survives Buffalo Attack at Yellowstone

Big animals!

Reagan Baby on NAACP Race-Baiting

Via Megan "Reagan Baby" Barth:

Boeing F-18 Super Hornet

Another cool airshow clip, via Theo Spark: