If the info in the article is correct, then the Dean (Urgo) is guilty of not doing his homework. The statement re "dissenting voices of four senior members of the department" suggests that this cat was already veery far out of the bag before Paquette wrote his article. His info would not have come from directly within the search committee, but is second hand or even third hand. Thus, he is innocent of the charges his Dean levies against him, unless, of course, there is a policy on ther confidentiality of embarrassing hallway gossip!

PS. The Dean's other statement, “It is understood throughout the academy that when department members discuss job candidates, those discussions are held in confidence among the participants.”, really is a stretch. "Throughout the academy" is a pretty big "we", and I think most of us know from experience that in practice, this is nonsense. The Committee might have said (as others have before them) that the candidate did not "fit" the Department. Disciplinary action seems stupid, but a rebuttal might be interesting, ena enlightening.

Back in the 1980s I taught at Hamilton as a Visiting Lecturer. The positon then became open as a tenure-track one. My left-of-liberal politics did not help me get hired. I am sick to death of right-wing whining; remember when the Republican Party came up with the argument that they are a "persecuted minority"?!

I actually agree with you that many discrimination complaints are nothing but whining. And this whining makes it more difficult to ascertain the true cases of discrimination. The question is, how do we stop the whining across the board by all groups. Our system actually encourages whining if you are the member of the right group. At my university if the right person whines, the person accused is basically considered guilty until proven innocent.

I have seen, I think, a humanities dept. that admits many students for graduate work and then gradually thins them out by either excessive demands wearing them down, harsh grading, being obtuse and semi-unavailable or otherwise not-responsive when it comes to advising and serious peer counseling. Before reading this post and article, I had just written an email describing to a friend about a dept. dictating and excercising overt authority while dictating. Here is a quote from my recent informal email, "put under academic review... on work that they dictate." Point being, what happened to intellectual freedom? Is a student in a dept. in the condition of having to follow the groupthink dictates within the dept.? Obviously I resonate with the substance of this article and I add it is a bigger issue, that grown adults with foundation are then reduced to being feed-mice in an academic program. To continue my prior assertion, I think there is something to at least one humanities dept. admitting people, taking their tuition money and then thinning the herd. Is this use of people ethical? Would this not be the case if a dept. admits 100 students and 25 finish the program? The other 75 were to fill chairs and provide money. Or something. I wonder if there is scholarship on schools / depts. and rates of completion for graduate programs. And of the 25 who finish their program, something tells me a look through the dissertations will likely mirror the dept. careerists with strong need to exercise will within the department as opposed to directing their work and energies to the outside world.

Additionally, today I read commentary from the sciences suggesting a greater culture of graduate students and assistants as objects of use.

Some of the comments:
"It's not always a lack of "respect". The profs are the boss, the student is the employee. Who do you think does the ***** work in this relationship?"

"Tell me about it, You're pretty much gonna get abused from higher up untill you get your phd. Until that day you got to do the professors dirty work :( "

"There's plenty more abuse after the PhD."

"since they have to pay employees and we use slaves."

"Actually, slaves don't lose their job if they don't publish anything."

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/crwac/hey_reddit_guys_due_to_my_intense_love_for_the/c0urxf6

Paquette gives away the game here: "To be sure, [Hill's] vita in a buyers market [sic!] lacked the publication record of some of the scholars short-listed, although he did have to his credit as a freshly-minted Ph.D. several book reviews for the Wall Street Journal, which, undoubtedly, to most progressive faculty, probably counted as strikes against him." The "majority faction" (by which he means the majority on the search committee) chose to short-list applicants with stronger records as scholars. In my experience, journalistic book reviews and novels (even prize-winning novels) carry little or no weight in history job searches. Paquette's claims are undoubtedly probably specious.

There is an Episode at Emory. It is going on right now. It is an episode of apparent injustice. It is an episode of a faculty member publicly claiming he was denied tenure and his due process rights after he was recommended for tenure at each and very review level except the last - the president. The president will not permit him to appeal. An issue such as this is usually a lightning rod among ALL faculty at any institution. Mark Bauerlein is a professor at Emory. Isn't it a curiosity that he has somehow been immunized from having a "Brainstorm" over an issue where he has a front row seat. But yet he will continue to dive into dumsters and wade through land fills to find the kind of trash he writes about today. Bauerlein loves to find any junk he can so as to embarass someone in the higher education community, but now gives a pass to his own president who is currently on a most uncomfortable hot seat. I wonder why he is not writing about "The Episode at Emory?

senecan, following your lead, I think the referenced article is about more than the dispute, it seems a vehicle to do some expressive venting about a situation of legitimate concern. The article certainly heats up in a few places wanting so cast some light into corners and bring out the truth, so to speak. The anecdote about graduating history majors with zero US history course is notable. At the moment I do not have time-opportunity to reference quotes, but initially, it seemed like there were about five different things going on in the article, the Paquette/Ergo topic being one of them. During a second read of the article I had the following thoughts: 1) rare for a prof. with a title and enough standing to make such a screed (I like/admire this); 2) densely written, much activity in brief text; 3) author is "too close" to the situation for a nice distant, even ... lovely and pallatable... agreeable and wholesome observation... (dude is burning it up, has something to say).

#7, Will of the Nill, you are being a little unkind. Maybe better to let another journalist address an issue than to make commentary about your direct neighbor? The issue is made known and the author, Mr. Schmidt, has done an excellent work addressing it with purpose and compassion. So, the work is done. You are suggesting redundancy? Have yourself a fine day.

What is a King Number?

Chuck Kleinhans

And now it is time for intermission and a message from U.G. Krishnamurti. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3azqF_OMu4

Unfortunately, this situation is just one in a very lengthy string of bones that Prof. Paquette has to pick with Hamilton. If it isn't the Kirkland Endowment, then it's the Alexander Hamilton Center (now Institute), Hamilton's open curriculum, and now Prof. Hill.

I am a Kirkland alum; have worked with Joe Urgo, whom I greatly respect; and have met Bob Paquette who is indisputably brilliant, but always always always has an axe to grind with Hamilton.

Senecan's quoting from the full Paquette article hits the nail squarely on the head: Prof. Paquette indicates that publishing book reviews in the WSJ is or should be viewed as the equivalent of traditional scholarly publication; and he goes on to politicize the act of writing for or reading the WSJ as reasons for discrimination by the dominant liberal faculty.

In the interest of full disclosure, Mark Bauerlein should have noted that he has some relationship with Prof. Paquette through the Alexander Hamilton Institute, at the very least an informal one.

Frankly, I would love Mr. Bauerlein's job - writing a column that can provide a platform for my friends who have an axe to grind. I am disappointed that the Chronicle published such a one-sided piece.

As a professor I have discovered that higher education is one of the most dishonest, bias and cruel communities on earth. Here is the USA one is discriminated based on race, age, sex, level of education, name of the school, location of the school and where you last worked. I attended Central Michigan University for my masters. I had some very harse interviews because I did not graduate from the University of Florida. I later earned a doctorate from the University of Sarasota. Argosy acquired my school and now every interviewer seems to think I earned my degree on-line. I have been told that there are some concerns about my degree and when I ask what the problem is the individuals only make hints. Recently I asked a dean at another institution what where his reasons for eliminating me. He stated that "off the record" there are concerns about your school.

What is the difference in taking classes on-line at Florida State University, University of Florida or the University of Maryland and my taking classes on location at an excellent, accredited school a few years ago. What can I do since my school was purchased and changed?

#12., roxbury86, Axe grinding not so bad? Ever tried to use a dull axe? Many sold new today, the head flies off which is a lot more dangerous. Not making a joke, many axes sold today are junky and dangerous.

#13., gloriawalker, Lucky you. Your experience and telling is important information with for-profits buying up universities "established in 1812" and so on and marketing these without revealing the new ownership. In the interest of a neighbor, I looked up an online school with a pretty good name and to my horror saw that it has been bought for the profit money to be funneled to the corporate mothership. This neighbor has absolutely no idea of any of this. Depending on your ambition, you're in a real fix with your degree now. You might want to get another one, or as one person profoundly counseled me, "Does it make a difference in the end game?" If so, re-assess. You're in a good position to do research into the for-profit higher-ed industry and their real effects. The trouble now is what university will support this research? I am finding my local resource university seems to have a penchant for anything other than a business-minded approach looking into real-value and the mechanisms that subvert real value, and instead want to dictate the "old menu" of "do what I say."

PS The difference is huge. Look at the two departments, look at the published work and research at each. Simply put, look at the books published by the faculty at the school you are apprising. Another twist, some universities have excellent faculty publishing and a spirit and action of nurturing students. Some have a sort-of excellent faculty publishing and a spirit of being harsh and un-nurturing toward students. Pardon to be wordy, it is really a huge thing, I can not say it enough.

I suppose this might be seen as inappropriate, in which case I apologize, but speaking of ax-grinding, isn't it about time that WillyNilly drops the pretense of objective commentary and comes out of the closet? Sniping once in a while at MB's articles, you could get away with. However, when it becomes automatic, in fact downright reflexive, the personal animus gets hard to ignore.

My guess, office is right down the hall from MB's, and there's some lingering resentment about some weighty matter that the rest of the world has long-since forgotten entirely. At any rate, it's clearly personal, and it's clearly obsessive. Go ahead; show some guts and take the mask off.

For the record, I don't know MB aside from this forum, nor to the best of my knowledge had he ever heard of me before my own first comment.

Dan Kirklin

In response to the question about the local situation at Emory, I first heard about it just a few days ago and have not seen any documents related to it.

As for my "relationship" with Paquette, yes, I have spoken at Hamilton College and was sponsored by the Institute (though I spoke at an open campus forum). I've met Paquette only three times in person, but do consider him a friend.

But the thing about this blog is that it isn't a partisan platform. Anybody may weigh in, and I have, in fact, given my space to "guests" in the past. If President Urgo wishes to make a comment or do a guest post, he has the full opportunity to do so.

Comments seem to be going far afield. I thought the Bauerlein post was addressing the issue of Paquette's freedom to express his opinions, not the merits of his original essay. By the way, is this the same Joseph Urgo who in an essay about collegiality in the journal Symploke a few years ago spent several pages revealing intimate, I presume confidential, details about his department's internal discussions about a personnel matter? Do as I say not as I do?

I, along with poster #7, want to know what "King Numbers" are. Many of the posters here seem to know a lot about this situation, yet the question has gone unanswered. Help?

http://www.wvculture.org/history/government/182930cc.html

Hmmm. Interesting though that discussion of the Virginia Constitutional Convention is, it does not define or explain the term "King Numbers." It merely uses the term again in a manner that assumes the reader is familiar. I remain none the wiser.

Can anyone offer a definition of King Numbers, perhaps with some explanation of its use in the present context?

Mr. Bauerlein, in your role as the OP, could explain the term?

To dank48 Thank you so much for clarifying a thought I held for some time. Today you declared that you have no connection, whatsoever, with Mark Bauerlein. That was a true revelation. Heretofore I mistakingly thought you were a close relative, or perhaps Bauerlein's father or maybe even Bauerlein himself using the pseudonym dank48. I must admit you fooled me. The way you conistently race to defend Bauerlein against any and all critics was a wee bit suspicious. You even went so far as to take the heroic step of identifying yourself - Dan Kirklin. Do you really believe that is sufficient evidence to convince the readers that you are in fact the person you say you are. You fooled me once, leading me, through the content of your posts, to believe you were related to Bauerlein. Therefore I will be cautious with accepting your name as a fact. But moreover, I believe you have directed a challenge to me. You apparently want me to reveal myself to you like a child's game - I'll show you mine, if you show me yours". How trite? Why are you obsessed with my identity? I had no interest in learning your identity. You put out a name, so I supppose you expect me to do likewise. But if I were to throw out a name, how would you know it was legitimate. Do you also want me include my Social Security number? Let me clarify some facts for you. I am a subscriber to The Chronicle. That membership entitles me to certain rights, privileges and responsibilities. One of the rights/privileges is to post on any and all articles that permit posting. There are also standards established for posts. I have read them several times and I adhere to them. They are broad and reasonable. My posts are within the standards. If you do not like what I write, that is not my problem - that is a YOU problem. But actually, I am a nice guy and I will help you. Have you noticed how many people today are unable to solve their own problems? They require outside help. Well your help has arrived. The next time you are reading posts on The Chronicle and you see the screen name "Willynilly", place your index finger on the scroll button located at the bottom right of your screen and immediately scroll to the next post. See how easy it is. Your problem is solved. All the best to you.

Who really has the right to refudiate any of this? If Sarah Palin were grinding her axe I would run. She also has no connection, whatsoever, with Mark Bauerlein, or Bob Paquette, or urgo, the Dean (not even Dean Cane). So stop ridiculating the right. This is not a monastarchy. We should have a President Numbers, not a King Numbers, or even King O'Bama (you know, the Muslim one). You bunch of lefties keep misunderestimating the Wright, and heroes like Jon MacKane, who, during the VatNam era, destroyed 5 aircraft - all of them American! (No kidding - he could have been an NVAF Ace!) Now there's an accomplishment for the right to be proud of! Compare that to all those bitch-in parties where they only have tea, and no Common Sense.

I have a confession. I am William the Nills father, I mean brother, possibly sister from a different mister?

-Looking forward to a refocus on the referenced article. p_e2

Mr. Bauerlein writes, "That may, perhaps, explain why he seems to operate under the assumption that Paquette served on the search committee and attended the meeting during which Hill's candidacy was reviewed. He did neither." So it seems that Professor Paquette's information was 'heresay' - as he was not a direct participant, which makes his publication of that information, which he apparently did not hear first hand, that much more egregious.

Prof. Paquette has often resorted to venting in the press when he feels that things are not going the way he would like. He has other friends in the media who have at times made sport of castigating Hamilton based on his point of view alone. No one on the other side of the issue would likely comment on this blog or elsewhere; why would they, and why should they? It seems unlikely that he will ever be disabused of the notion that Hamilton is run by left-wingers, who discriminate against those who express any right-of-center sentiments, and so this will go on and on and on ad nauseam.

s/b 'hearsay' - apologies.

I take it "King Numbers" is a metaphor, but for what exactly? A majority of one?

In the name of transparency and accountability, roxbury86 should identify herself as Penny Watras Dana.

Ms. Dana is active in the alumni association. In 2007, she received from the current administration an award
"to recognize individuals who have performed a service or activity" that has benefited the College One of her services was relentless blogging against alumni dissidents who had the audacity to question the College's leadership after the Susan Rosenberg and Ward Churchill scandals.

In short, Ms. Dana is little more than a surrogate of Hamilton College's public relations arm and no doubt was alerted to the Bauerlein blog by college personnel. The College claims it can't respond on certain matters. Persons like Ms. Dana are enlisted to do the work.

minsk - and who are you?

Yes, I did receive the College Key - for organizing the All-Kirkland Reunion. It was a seminal event in the post-merger time for the Kirkland women - all 1,100 of us, who lost our college (which Hamilton created).

And I have not and do not comment on Churchill, Rosenberg et. al. because I am a shill; rather, given that the Kirkland name was in some way involved in those debacles, I see the need - and right - to express a passionately held opinion, in much the same way Bob Paquette does. (Remember that Kirkland is part of my academic history; which allows me to have an even greater measure of passion about the use of that name, than that of a Hamilton employee - or even alum -might have).

minsk (whoever you are) may or likely do not recall, that Hunter Brown pursued me rather vigorously to be one of the initial signers of the HCAGR Mission Statement (take a look at it, my name is still there!), and I was happy to do so. I parted ways with Hunter, et. al., because the ringleader's (Hunter's) tactics, attitude and approach were in my view downright offensive, nasty, and occasionally emitted glimmers of behaviors and attitudes that I found utterly distasteful to be associated with.

"Audacity to question the College's leadership"? You bet I also questioned the leadership; but I actually tried to talk with them in a civil tone, privately and not from a bully pulpit (polite civil conversation not being one of the tactics in the HCAGR repertoire). Of course, you wouldn't know about all those dozens of meetings, because they were private, and I didn't advertise them all over the internet.

I refuse to rehash that here, now - I continue to resent the dismissal of my strongly held beliefs as being a shill and surrogate for Hamilton's C&D Office simply because I oppose HCAGR's general combativeness; how dare you?

I was not alerted to the Bauerlein blog by anyone - I actually have a paid subscription to the Chronicle and receive therefore, two daily email updates. I also receive a daily email from Inside Higher Ed. Those publications actually provide me with some useful information in my significant volunteer positions OUTSIDE OF HAMILTON.

Tell us something new, minsk. That you keep repeating the same mantra (bashing Hamilton, and bashing me as a know-nothing) shows that you can't address the subject at hand. The only reaction I see is emotionalism that smacks of disgust, that a Kirkland alumna can support Hamilton, and state that opinion with as much passion and energy as the Paquette and HCAGR supporters state theirs. That is dismissive and insulting; dare I suggest also possibly misogynistic?

The offensiveness/dismissiveness/combativeness of minsk's post here is representative of many many postings. I have heard Prof. Paquette speak at a public event at Hamilton, and the tone and vehemence with which he spoke against the "hypothetical college" while speaking from a Hamilton podium was downright shocking, and also puzzling, as to his motivations for staying on the faculty.

Postings like minsk's reveal the "conspiracy theory" paranoia that pervades this group's thinking, which likewise is obvious from Prof. Paquette's latest public remarks.

PWD

PS - minsk: The College Key is awarded by the Alumni Association - and NOT the administration. That is a significant difference! Check your facts. - PWD

I'm traveling right now, with only sporadic Web access.

"King Numbers," I believe, signifies a simple vote count that is decisive.

Let's also try to keep the focus on the specific case of a faculty member publishing something that is determined to be a violation of confidentiality policies and being withheld from search committees until certain conditions are met.

"King Numbers" refers to the number of publications the candidate has. In some fields the "Impact Factor" also plays an importante role. A bunch of little low impact pubs don't count for as much as a few big ones.

Inside Higher Ed also did a piece on this topic; it provides some additional perspective.

Has Ms. Dana ever been to the Alexander Hamilton Institute? What Paquette and others have accomplished there in a few years is little short of astounding. I lament that it could not have been created on Hamilton's campus.

By the way, Ms. Dana, I too have met Professor Paquette, at one of his annual colloquia. Yes, he is intense and serious, but also persuasive and compelling, and the proof is in the pudding. Why not ask some of the students who connect with the Institute about him, Ms. Dana. I sat at a lunch table with an April event. They raved about him and the others involved and the importance of the programs to their education.

They also provided a rather dismal view of what life was like for conservative students at Hamilton. The Institute, they said, was their saviour.

Some readers might be interested in the information here.
http://www.vimeo.com/11334218

minsk,

I visited an AHI Open House; I've no doubt that their programs, etc. are First Rate, and would of course have preferred that it be on-campus in true partnership with the College. I have never doubted Prof. Paquette's intellect and zeal for his subject, and the same goes for other AHI Fellows.

The world is made up of all types, and I believe the College is the same. I do not believe in the vast left-wing conspiracy, period. Facts, logic and reasonableness are in order from all sides.

I still think you should reveal who you are.

PWD

Apropos the left wing conspiracy, Fred Barnes has some wisdom in today's Wall Street Journal. I wouldn't dismiss it in academe.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

1. #37. minsk, to clarify, "journolist" was a Google discussion group, not a website. Therefore, even though "taken offline" it is like not archive-accessible via the wayback machine, which can access chronologically archived urls. Here is another article describing journolist as part of the media "echo chamber:" http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20086.html

On the subject of the US media echo chamber, where the same uncontested information appears across several venues, I think a citizen should be informed concerning Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

In other words, brainwashing the public with invented coordinated media is not a conspracy, it's a documented CIA OP. Another very significant matter 2010 is Obama has appointed as his director of WH communications a man who published a paper (I've read the paper and yes) that advocates the US government paying people to go on the internet and invade chat and commentary and post strategic misinformation. I.e. when NFL-Joe comments on YouTube "WTC 1.2 and 7 were cheaply built buildings, that is why they fell down on Sept. 11, 2001. Wassamatter, don't you watch football or know anything?" NFL-Joe is being paid.

I was going to analyze the Paquette article, but maybe Alexander Hamilton would put this information first, state lying paid for with taxpayer money. Shame on you, Obama for "going with the flow" on this one, directing the herd through magic stories and lies. It seems like a tired GW Bush trope, but Obama appointed a guy who ... ... (talk about the wrong way to start the morning).

Obama says "Yes, we can." This has to be the greatest reverse of meaning in the history of the United States of America, and is the use of who is the "we" in the phrase.

"Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40's), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success.

...

Media assets... include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International (UPI), Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service, etc. and 400 journalists, who have secretly carried out assignments according to documents on file at CIA headquarters"

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird.htm

"The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America" by Frank Wollford, 2008, Harvard University Press.

"CIA official Frank Wisner called the operation his "mighty Wurlitzer," on which he could play any propaganda tune."

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674032569

I'd like to redirect the conversation away from right/left politics and toward what is perhaps the real issue at stake here: the relation between adjunct/contract professorial teaching and tenure-track/tenure professorial teaching. I have witnessed several situations in which a professor was deemed "good enough" to teach students at a particular college or university, but not "good enough" to be considered when the position was reclassified up the institutional hierarchy. This includes per-course adjuncts who were not rehired when their jobs were reclassified as full-time contract positions; and contract professors who did not make the cut when their jobs were reclassified as tenure-track positions. Every situation is certainly different, and in some cases the university's decision may have been thoughtful and correct (i.e., perhaps these individuals had not published at a rate comparable to other candidates). But this points to a larger structural issue (and one undoubtedly seen in other industries as well): the inability on the part of colleagues/management to see employees in a different light. If you wear an adjunct or contract professor "hat" at an institution (particularly a research university or highly selective liberal arts college), it can be hard if not impossible to don the tenure-track "hat" at that same institution.

Perhaps part--not all, but part--of Dr. Hill's difficulty at Hamilton is that in his colleagues' eyes he wore the "Visiting Professor" hat and they couldn't envision him wearing anything else.

mediaevalartprof,

There is a strong element of truth in what you write. Unfortunately however, in this particular instance, the left/right politics seems to be the core of Prof. Paquette's complaint, as it seems to have been in every other instance.

I would be interested to know whether there have been any non-visiting professorship hires or promotions at Hamilton, where the cv has been as relatively weak as Prof. Paquette himself suggests, i.e., publication of book reviews in the WSJ as opposed to scholarly publication, for instance. Of course, that we may likely never know, due to the confidentiality rules, but that knowledge certainly would be illuminating. ==> If the shoe were ever on the other foot, what would he say? Might not have King Numbers fallen his way, i.e., a left-leaning (for the sake of argument) literature professor not have been promoted or hired?

The InsideHigherEd piece on this issue links with the Hamilton College student newspaper which has an interesting article that was published before Paquette published his piece.

http://www.hamilton.edu/spectator/021110/news/tenure.html

This article suggests the problem was not that Professor Hill failed to get the tenurable job but that he wasn't even seriously considered by a majority in the department from the start of the search. This article also has information that Urgo seesms to have regarded as confidential.

Based on the student newspaper article cited directly above, Hamilton must have a pretty darn good journalism department.

Obama needs to have the Hamilton journalist student as his WH Director of Communications. Why can not regular people be appointed to functionary positions? Why are these appointments given to revolving-door "professional" politicians for funtionary roles? It is the very definition of institutional rot and the long-term effects are real and devastating. But the current greater strategy the USA seems to be enduring is that it is being used as a mule to pull along world development of some very specific geopolitical locations. The problem with this during BushCo is every thief hiding in the bushes came out and stole everything they could get their hands on, and then Obama appointed at least a few of these who have paid themselves the hundreds of millions of dollars. Does this talented Hamilton journalist have a prayer in hell (pardon me) of some type of dignified work without getting all smarmy with the "influence" crowd? And by that, yes, it seems there are many serving "special interest" at the cost of representative deomcracy.

Agreed - a very well written Spectator article by Russ Doubleday, '11. Here are the two paragraphs concerning Prof. Hill:

"Visiting Assistant Professor of History Christopher Hill found himself in a similar position this past year, but he faced a different outcome. Hill initially joined the Hamilton faculty in the fall of 2006 on a two-year term. The dedicated tenure line (a permanent position that is tenured for a specific field, not tied to an individual professor) for pre-modern European history, Hill's area of expertise, had been rerouted within the History department a few years earlier. But when Professor of History Esther Kanipe recently announced that she will be retiring at end of the semester, the History Department successfully lobbied the College to have her tenure line routed back to pre-modern European history."
"Hill has the largest number of students in the History Department along with Professor of History Douglas Ambrose, and arguably, his high numbers helped land the department the tenure line for his specific field within the department (as opposed to having the line move into another academic department). But when Hill applied for the tenure position, he did not make the first cut of applicants, meaning he would not get the chance to interview for the job. Hill's second two-year term ends at the end of the semester, and he will not be back to teach next year."

I would encourage all to read the full piece; my interpretation of the article differs from minsk's (whoever s/he is).

1. Agree that there is something a little disingenous going on. Author Paquette uses propagandist image of Alexander Hamilton to go with article, whereas the issue that is being covered is more complex than a simple representation. Author Paquette is basically springboarding from event concerning Professor Hill to promote a general screed and litany concerning fetish scholarship and the active constrictions practiced by fetish scholars, which is really a different matter than the core events with Professor Hill. I am in a general agreement with Paquette's expression and litany, however this is being pasted onto the events of Professor Hill.

2. The real issue seems to be treatment of labor and a department using a person to do their chores and then disposing of them. I contend these basic concepts of labor can even outweigh the various and repeated ideological conflicts. Bottom line is the rooted Hamilton College professoriate have used and discarded another person. What is the meaning of the title "Professor?" It seems a fraud. More like hourly wage laborer in an at-will hiring that can be removed or changed as if someone decides they want a different maid or landscaper laborer. Bottom line is the college and department have real work issues to be done. The core professoriate used someone to do their work and then discarded them like a piece of smelly trash.

3. Professor Hill's publishing does not fit the typical profile of a history academic. The article lists his publishing as "several book reviews for the Wall Street Journal" and also "a novel (Virtual Morality) that brilliantly satirizes political correctness." This is a separate issue, a well liked and capable history classroom teacher who has published a fiction novel. My first thought is that perhaps Hamilton College needs to have some interdisciplinary professoriate. This is not for everyone, but at the same time, there are intellectuals who need to work in more than one area. Hamilton College has really dropped the ball in forcing a tired contricted view of scholarship and not being aware of these modern and flexible concepts re: their on-staff talent. As I have read this article, it occurs to me that a lot of US colleges and universities take themselves way-too-serious with telling people what to do. I'm really sick of it. I'm sick of half baked professor authored books with no impact and no legacy that are specific to someone's specialty in a department. Yes, I have taken several humanities courses where each time I have had to spend $1000. to buy a bunch of expensive paperback books authored by the professor and their friends. Goes like this: here is the syllabus: you buy my three books and the books of my eight friends and you make references from each one of them in your papers, required. I have been through this several times, more or less following the fetish model Paquette outlines. Bottom line is the intellectual is required to sideline their own interested and is forced to perform for these power-brokers. I have noted with these, there is only so much room for narcissism. The power-brokers can have opinion and add great meaning to whatever they choose, but good luck if you try to express yourself outside of their fetish.

I think that says it. To review:
1. Article is used to express author's agenda.
2. Abusive, destructively retrogressive, irresponsible and depersonalizing labor model.
3. What to do with interdisciplinary and unconventional academic that refuses to focus on one area.

Time for a re-read of Essays of Montaigne. In my experience, most US humanities academics are not well or widely read. (two meanings, their own activity, as well the reception of their work.)

Have a good day. p_e