An Episode at Hamilton, Part 2

Urgo also participated in College’s attempt to filch intellectual property by attempting to trademark Alexander Hamilton Center behind Paquette’s back after College said publicly the initiativewould not go forward. This action was done by a college official with full knowledge and approval of at least some members of Hamilton’s own board of trustees, which had to swear that they knew of no competing claim on the name.See http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:46sl69.2.1

I agree with 22228715′s conclusion. Perhaps we’ll see a reality show soon. Bauerlein could correct all the low-pay unfairness in the world that way.

I remain puzzled as to why you seem to resist focusing on the conflict at Emory. You do not have to deal with that issue in the abstract. You are employed by Emory. You have or can readily get all the facts pertaining to the allegded “denial of due process rights” of a fellow faculty member. Your obvious insensitivity to this important issue, and to the faculty member involved, raises a lot of questions about your motives – all of which are unflattering.

Based on the publicly available information about this situation, Mark Bauerlein is absolutely right to question Urgo’s actions and the rationale offered to support them. At the same time, I think Paquette is a long way from establishing that “peer review [broke] down” in this instance. From Paquette’s own article, reading through his loaded language, the facts seem to be that (1) Paquette’s preferred candidate, Hill, had a weaker publication record than other candidates, (2) a majority of the search committee chose to eliminate Hill from consideration, and (3) Paquette speculates that Hill was excluded because of liberal bias among the committee members. The allegation that liberal bias was a factor in this hiring decision is not supported by any factual evidence in the article. Also, note the irony of Paquette’s inclusion of the word “Dictatorships” in his title when his main complaint is that a majority vote (democracy, no?) didn’t go the way he wanted.

Perhaps, as President Obama says, we have a teaching moment here. Is democracy merely a numerical majority? I don’t think so. Are not college officials, like government officials, supposed to refine issues so that pure majorities do not become a tyranny? What happened to minority rights. Or are conservatives germs to be sanitized.To judge from what I’ve read, the issue was not whether Professor Hill should have gotten a tenure-track job but why he was eliminated at the starting gate after years of excellent teaching at a teaching college. Hamilton is not Harvard, nor is it Williams.Should Paquette’s criticism of the current administration be conflated (as Roxbury PWD does) with criticism of Hamilton College? I think not. Bauerlein is right in not confusing principles and persons in this case. That a bunch of Hamilton lefties disliked Paquette is irrelevant to the question of whether the dean acted in a principled way.

PWD please tell us what you know from the administration’s perspective. It should make for interesting reading. What are Paquette’s litany of complaints? Please list them for open discussion. Did not Paquette’s “litany” start with the presidency of Joan Stewart and her botched handling of the Susan Rosenberg and Ward Churchill business? If not, please elaborate.No one denies PWD that Hamilton has commendable attributes. But it has never been and will never be a major research institution.How much of Hamilton’s reputation is spin and how much of it is merited will be for parents to decide. Are not book reviews in the WSJ a sign of stature? Maybe I’m wrong. Is it better to publish a review for no pay in a journal almost no one reads?I wonder how many professors at Hamilton have been tenured with few or no publications? How many professors at Hamilton are considered nationally recognized scholars in their field? How does Hamilton rank in that regard with Bates, Bowdoin, Trinity, and others?

I once witnessed a candidate for promotion to full professor being successfully lied about in a promotion meeting (the accusation–provably false after the meeting–was that he was abusive towards students), with the result that the candidate was unsuccessful.Myself and two other full professors took the case to the Provost, who was convinced by our evidence that something very untoward had occurred, and ordered an immediate rehearing at the Department level.The three of us senior faculty were accused within the Department, and including by the Chair, with having violated confidentiality. Though the original accusation was dropped, new ones were added, and the re-hearing was unsuccessful for the candidate.A year later the Provost issued a one-time memo saying that reporting malfeasance in appointments and promotion meetings is not a violation of confidentiality. This is also the view of the AAUP.The candidate has never tried to come up for full professor again.

1. Bauerlein['s general thrust] is right. Dean Urgo is wrong.2. What Prof. Paquette said about the search didn’t mention any names of candidates except the one everybody already knew was a candidate because he was already there. He didn’t mention any names, and he didn’t quote anybody directly. This is what “confidentiality” is usually about.3a. Prof. Paquette wasn’t on the search committee. One would assume he wasn’t even at the meeting(s). (If faculty not on the committee were present at the search committee meeting[s], how can Dean Urgo reasonably expect “confidentiality”?) Prof. Paquette probably got his info from sources at the meeting. If Dean Urgo wants to go after somebody on grounds of “confidentiality,” it should be that source.3b. Prof. Paquette shouldn’t have to give up the name of his source–if that’s the way he got his info. He functioned as a journalist in writing this essay, and he’s entitled to protect his sources.4a. If I’d been asked to be on the committee, I’d probably have demurred because of my disagreement with “confidentiality.” But if I had been on the committee, I’d have abided by the concept because I don’t believe in the academic equivalent of “jury nullification,” either.4b. One of the banes of academe is “confidentiality.” It allows a bunch of nitpicky, pusillanimous, barracks-lawyer, navel-gazers and intellectual martinets to bully, backbite, and slowly kill with delay and trivia any substantial constructive change. They should have the same kind of video surveillance cameras at academic meetings as they do in police interrogations.4b. When I’m asked to write letters of recommendation, incidentally, I don’t ask that the subject waive his/her right to see the letter. I tell the person in advance what, warts and all, I’d be likely to say. If that person asks me to go ahead anyway, I do. (Bonus: This practice really cuts down on the number of reference letters I’m asked to write.)4d. To the charge that I indulge in “confidentiality” by using a pseudonym on “Brainstorm”: In addition to the usual reasons (perq for providing unpaid content, wanting the comments to stand or fall on their own irrespective of c.v., etc.), there’s this one: “Brainstorm” isn’t official business except for the paid bloggers. For me it’s fun, entertainment, a chance to warm up the typing fingers and synapses over coffee. On official business, I put my name.5a. Re “I would ask roxbury what Paquette should have done when [he] judged that the search process was corrupt?” If Prof. Paquette had been at the meeting (which I gather he was not), he should have called them on it right then and there–”I think the deliberations here are corrupt because of X, Y and Z, and I ask that a note of my objection be included in the minutes.” Then he should have notified the Dean, the Provost and the President of his objections, without naming any names or citing any specifics. The onus would then have been on the administrators to deal with it (e.g., meet with Prof. Paquette and the chair of the search committee in “confidentiality,” etc.).5b. If Prof. Paquette wasn’t at the meeting, then he should have done what he did, i.e., act as a whistleblower. If instead of a search committee meeting, it had been a “confidential” meeting of Defense Department officials discussing a contract and an outsider had gotten wind of what somebody present at the meeting thought was corruption, Prof. Paquette’s equivalent would be almost duty-bound to blow the whistle–to a higher official or via an article in the Washington Post, his/her choice. Academe shouldn’t get a free pass on its version of these things.

Isn’t it interesting how PWD a “volunteer” for the administration but not part of the administration is so quick to demonize Paquette. PWD did not you not visit the Alexander Hamilton Institute? I assume you met Paquette? How were you treated? In all cases like this we need facts. I suspect they are coming. Suppose the facts show that approaches were made by concerned history department members about the Hill case? Suppose Urgo did nothing.Chris Hill, the evidence shows, pleaded for a meeting with Stewart and Urgo. Stewart never granted the audience. Urgo met with Hill months after his plea only after students hit the air waves.Does anyone know the answer to this question? How many times did Dean Urgo meet with Hamilton’s history department, dysfunctional as it appears to be, from the year of his arrival in 2006 to the time Paquette was punished in 2010?

In the penultimate line of paragr. 2 of my second posting above, that should be “their”, not “they’re”.As for Christopher Hill himself, I think it very odd that Hill, with his stellar a performance as a teacher teaching at the school for four years, in a school where teaching is the primary criterion for hiring and promotion, did not even make the first cut, “the long short list”. Not unprecedented, I would agree. Still–I can see why senior faculty (and not just Paquette) would be concerned.

I believe, roxbury, that Paquette’s charge is that the search committee discriminated against Hill on ideological grounds, and that the pattern of ideological conformity has existed for a long time at Hamilton. Once again, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with Paquette’s allegation, but I would ask the general question of whether suspicions of discrimination in closed meetings override confidentiality rules.

Mr. Bauerlein writes, “Paquette’s charge is that the search committee discriminated against Hill on ideological grounds, ” and the question is whether therefore Paquette’s publication, in light of that charge, is exempt from confidentiality rules. Are we in agreement that this is the gist?My understanding is that Prof. Paquette was not present at the meeting where this alleged discrimination took place; therefore he did not see and hear (witness) first-hand what transpired, and must have gotten his information from someone who was present at the meeting, or someone else who likewise was not present. Plainly stated, his information would be ‘hearsay’, or second-hand information.The real question here is whether perhaps those four senior faculty members who WERE present at the meeting believe that such discrimination took place, and what they consciously chose to do or not to do about it. Because they were present, it was FOR THEM to seek out and use appropriate channels for redress.A third party, such as Prof. Paquette, could have urged someone (or a group of those) present, to make this allegation internally. “The general question of whether suspicions of discrimination in closed meetings override confidentiality rules” is difficult to address in this situation, because the person who publicized this was to my understanding NOT present at the meeting in question. This situation does not fit the general question being asked, but rather adds an entirely new dimension to the question..

Roxbury, Professor Paquette didn’t have to be present at the meeting; the suspicion arises from the result itself. That is, it arises from the very surprising absence of Professor Hill from the short list, given that his outstanding teaching is what grew the student enrollments that allowed the Department to get the tenure-track line in the first place. When this is combined with possible pattern of ideological discrimination in the past, one can see the problem. Like I said, I don’t disagree with what Professor Paquette did. It’s just more dicey than the situation I was faced with. It’s less dicey if complaints were made to the administration and there was no satisfactory response.

PWD says: “I have no idea of what anyone did or did not do.”PRECISELY

Hamilton’s faculty handbook is available on line http://www.hamilton.edu/college/DOF/2009%20Faculty%20Handbook.pdfA section inside not only says that teaching is important in reappointment but that it is the MOST important criterion.

Dear Roxbury,The problem as I see it now is this:Professor Hill’s outstanding teaching that created the student demand that led to the creation of the tenure-track position in Medieval History; yet Hill did not even make the short list. Meanwhile, the University Handbook says that teaching is the primary qualification at HamiltonThe justification now being given by the majority of the History Department is that other candidates had more traditional scholarship.So:a. Either the Department has suddenly imposed a new qualification on candidates, a qualification which is in fact in violation of the University Hanbook–and this was done without a general meeting among the Department faculty to discuss it, in a context when a person’s career is NOT involved, or:b. The scholarship justification being given out is a lie, covering up the real reason why Professor Hill was excluded from the beginning. I don’t know the real reason why Professor Hill was excluded from the beginning, but the reason being given out is unconvincing on its face. In fact, it reeks of bad faith. Do you see the problem?On the other hand, I agree with you that going public immediately was a bad choice-IF that is what happened. The best way to deal with the matter was to complain to the relevant higher authorities. But at this point we do not know whether Professor Paquette, or the other full professors in History who objected to what had happened to Professor Hill, did this.If it turns out that they did do this and got no satisfaction from the administration, would that change your view of the case?

I never intended to get into any area that was pure academia, i.e., Prof. Hill, and all the possible scenarios ethan56 presents; I have no opinion on whether ultimately the result was correct or not, and no desire (or experience) to go down that path. As stated previously, I do find publication – particularly by someone who was not present and who has been provocative in the past – concerning. It seems to me that this is a matter to be handled by appropriate channels within the administration. Going full circle, the piece in Inside Higher Ed describes this blog post as “sympathetic”. I would have to agree with that assessment. Over and out.

minsk – You sound an awful lot like Roger Kimball. (While you are googling, have a look at how much was accomplished for the Kirkland Endowment).

Test!!!

Two points:1) I agree with Mr. Bauerlein when he writes:”For my part, I find confidentiality so haphazardly observed in academia that it is hard to enforce it in a consistent fashion. That’s why whenever I review manuscripts for publication or professors for promotion I always sign the statement and tell editors and chairs to release my name and words to others.”I take responsibility for my opinions and assessments (and, I hope, am also open to rethinking them). Hence, I am signing this comment.2) I urge those referencing Hamilton’s Faculty Handbook to read the sections discussing expectations with regard to scholarship. (Thanks to minsk for posting the link.) I quote three paragraphs below, but encourage those interested to read the entire chapter.”Hamilton College believes that effective teaching and sound scholarship are mutually reinforcing. Accordingly, its Faculty should be active and developing scholars. Research is both encouraged and expected” (p. 25).”Reappointment, promotion, and tenure represent different kinds of commitment on the part of the College. These decisions, especially those involving promotion and tenure, are made on a highly selective basis. They are based on accomplishments and promise in teaching, in scholarship, and in professional service, and, within the limits stated above in section A.1, the College’s continuing need for the position. Of the three criteria, the first two are the more important, but all weigh in the decision and the quality of teaching is the most heavily weighted criterion” (p. 28).”Hamilton expects its faculty to be productive scholars of high quality. Scholarship is important in its own right for the advancement of knowledge and as a creative act, and as a means by which teaching is continually refreshed and revitalized. Scholarship supports teaching” (p. 29).Elizabeth J. JensenProfessor of EconomicsHamilton College

*

As I’ve written before, Mark Bauerlein is right to question Dean Urgo’s actions in this situation. But I’m surprised by many of the comments here.First, suspicion in the absence of evidence is hardly a sufficient justification to violate confidentiality policies (assuming that there was such a violation, which seems not to be the case based on publicly available information).Second, the outcome of the search doesn’t necessarily justify such suspicion. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Hamilton’s evaluations of faculty are weighted as follows: 60% teaching, 10% service, and 30% scholarship. Even allowing Hill a perfect score for teaching, his lack of any scholarly publications (I assume this is the case, since his supporters only mention non-academic publications) could easily give him a lower overall ranking than any number of other applicants.It’s true that many departments would have given Hill a courtesy interview, even if his overall dossier was weaker than other, shortlisted applicants. Perhaps doing so would have been better, perhaps not. Paquette’s essay may be effective in a culture-war sort of way, but its lack of real evidence and reliance instead on suspicions and innuendo suggest that there is no smoking gun to support his claims of misconduct in the hiring process at Hamilton.

.

Bottom line: Regardless of merits of decision about Hill, Paquette was well within the bounds of academic freedom to state the obvious– a majority (by definition) cut Hill from the competition very early in the process– as an example to support a larger argument about academia. Or does Hamilton College operate under a code of Omerta?

Bottom line: Regardless of issues of academic freedom, Mr. Paquette has drawn some extreme conclusions about the acts and motives of others, at meetings where he was not present, on the basis of very slender evidence. He of course has a “right” to do so. But one possible unintended consequence is that others, seeing the way he reasons in his op-ed pieces, may take his “scholarly” work less seriously.What’s curious is why Mark Bauerlein, who has even less evidence than Mr. Paquette does, has chosen to wade into these particular waters.

According to pinsk, “he, of course, has a “right” to do so.” But didn’t Dean Urgo assert just the opposite– that Paquette did not have such a right and that he should be punished for breaking Hamilton’s code of silence.As I read Bauerlein, he was raising a question about administrative limits on speech and dissent. I would have thought that Hamilton of all places would recognize that unlike Las Vegas, what happens on campus doesn’t stay on campus these days.

Pinsk says “But one possible unintended consequence is that others, seeing the way he reasons in his op-ed pieces, may take his [Paquette's] “scholarly” work less seriously.”Those who know Paquette, I suspect, will have a chuckle over that one. I think instead Hamilton needs to worry whether it is taken seriously what with Susan Rosenberg as English Professor, Ward Chrurchill as scholarly giant, not to mention a distinguished chair named in honor of a former president who resigned in a plagiarism scandal. Dean Urgo may be lucky for having escaped the place.

I’m afraid I agree with Paleo: in this case, the Dean is enforcing a code of Omerta. I saw it operate in my own department in a similar but worse incident. “Confidentiality” cannot be used to coverup malfeasance, and it is clear that Paquette if not others thought that malfeasance had occurred. Is Paquette correct in his assessment? We do not know. Bauerlein promises more information. But in any case, Paquette didn’t break “confidentiality”, and he is being severely punished by Dean Urgo as if he had done so. That, certainly, is wrong.

P-lib is out of the closet!

Ted (p-lib),It seems to me that because something is done “all the time with college presidential searches” doesn’t make it right, or appropriate, in this situation. Prof. Hill is just starting out professionally, and is in a vastly different position from the rarefied air of the presidential search process. Pinsk was correct in saying, “As for the confidentiality issue: whether or not Mr. Paquette’s article violated college rules, it certainly made it harder for Mr. Hill to be judged on his merits for any future job he applies for. It also made the situation difficult for whoever did get the job. For those reasons, it is unfortunate.” Likewise, 22228715 was correct in saying, “but arguing about someone’s work performance in the national context is rude. It’s unkind to the people involved, and embarrassing to all the rest of us in academe.”In previous posts, I believe I have indicated what I (as an academy outsider) think would have been a logical reaction, which would have saved Prof. Hill – and Hamilton – from this public debate. See #17.Perhaps the comment that you believe is a “rhetorical cheap shot” wasn’t the most delicate, but there is an element of truth in what pinsk says there: the notion of going off loudly “half-cocked” as it were, although I do not intend (and am not qualified) to opine about Prof. Paquette’s professorial writings, that certainly has the ring of truth to it as far as some of Prof. Paquette’s other – public – writings are concerned.minsk is like the “man behind the curtain” whom we should not pay attention to, taking cheap shots and making self-amusing snide comments at everyone within range who disagrees, all the while not revealing his (unlikely, her) identity. It seems pretty clear that by “democratic process” – “the vote of a simple majority” can be substituted; I wasn’t aware that this blog was a scholarly publication. Cheap shot at Hamilton. PWD

For Paleoliberal,Penny Pollyanna has nothing substantial to offer this conversation since she knows no facts and what she thinks she knows is like saying Lamb Chop is an original thinker.

?

I am not a neutral party in this debate due to my reading of Mr. Bauerlein’s “Literary Criticism: An Autopsy” (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997) which I think is one of the most under-recognized works, and best works of commentary (in English) of the 20th century, perhaps superceded in both obscurity and greatness by Henry Thoreau’s “The Maine Woods” (1864).Whistleblowing? Whistle-blowing? I sure hope so, for my own quality of life, that someone is whistleblowing. I have authored two papers featuring and questioning the use of confidentiality in academic and policy meetings. In my papers, I provided source documents stating that the meeting shall be confidential. Neither of my professors seemed to give a crap about the issue or pick up on it. One said, “you are too close to the topic.” !!!! -A roaring guffaw for all?!!! And in the paper I questioned the use of the meeting information in the paper, and questioned if I could go on from there to publish the paper?Whistleblowing? I am one of those few people, where that chink in my brain is missing, the mechanism to be both authoritarian and territorial. In fact, in my own world I should demand just the opposite. “What is someone trying to hide?” is what I want to know? What revenue stream, perhaps personal?, is someone wanting to protect? Schools and especially public schools are not private businesses with trade secrets such as in technology companies. In education, the public has “a right to know.” (italics)Whistleblowing? Distribution of information? Certainly my view would be a little unconventional in that I think Julian D’Assange is a great man. And there are those who would put me in the penitentiary for saying so. But I think government officials writing false reports is detestable. For some reason, for some reason that I do not fully understand, it seems that any type of bureacracy is an absolute magnet, an attractor for abuse of power. Just today, I pulled in and parked to get a slice of pizza and soon six police vehicles are surrounding my parked car. They had pulled over another vehicle who then parked next to me. I was blocked in and for forty-five minutes observed while the officers put all of the car occupants in cuffs, had the drug dog wagging his tail, very publicly went through a young ladies purse set on the roof of the car, and comically, one of the officers even set his cool drink down on the trunk of my car. I stood around and listened to one of the younger officers recount how he used to smoke dope and his cousin gave it to him for free in big quantities, but he never sold it, promise. But if he had been found in his car with it, he would have been done for. He also was verbally tallying the money incomes from arresting people for possession, quoting $2000. it would cost the occupants of the junky car they had pulled over. After noting that the license plate was current and noting that the docile car occupants had not been driving recklessly, I also heard the reason for the pull-over was that the brake lights were out. They had six police vehicles there, blocked me in for forty-five minutes, and pretty well maraudered the occupants of the vehicle. I don’t do drugs, but I think the USA should take responsibility for the drug gang problems in Mexico that are a direct result of US consumption and policy, and should treat the drug issue as a medical dilemma.So, blow the top off of “Hamilton” and let’s get the information out on the table! My quality of life depends on it.p_e2

test

P-Lib,The Inside Higher Ed piece on this topic goes into more detail on this topic. 1) “Was Professor Hill aware of the possible publication of this essay? Did he object? If the answers are no, then I don’t think pinsk should be deciding what is or is not in Hill’s best interest.” It seems to me that confidentiality rules exist to protect persons (such as Prof. Hill) and institutions, from exactly this kind of public tumult, and that should be the presumption from which discussions begin. Even if Prof. Paquette had Prof. Hill’s consent (and I am not making an assumption about that either way), I do not believe that releases anyone from confidentiality rules. 2) Even if one were to agree that Prof. Paquette’s remarks came within the more generic boundaries that you suggest, publication on the internet brings the matter to a whole new level. Readership numbers on the website are irrelevant – it was there for the world to see.About the gasoline, under ordinary circumstances, I would agree with you. But Prof. Paquette has said a lot of provocative if not downright condemnatory things in speeches and on the internet, and that history might provide justification for an official response. PWDPWD

wow, quite the unfocused debate. Here’s a non conspiratorial interpretation knowning what I know about the job market lately (no insider knowledge necessary for this) –market forces have created a history job market where there is a huge oversupply of qualified candidates. the economic situation in the last 2 years made this worse. the college offered the position, found they got oh, let’s guess – 299 responses, with 50 from well published ivy league candidates, some with a book in grad school, yadda yadda yadda. of this, they were able to pick the cream of the crop and take well published scholars with long vitas. why would they take someone that had been adjunct track, publishing in newspapers. (btw, book reviews don’t count much for tenure, no matter the source. feeling flattered is your main reward.) so really, from the market side, this is all just supply and demand folks; no need for political controversies. should teaching be valued more? should we have TT teaching lines? maybe so, but that’s not how most departments are structured.(I’m not gonna touch any of the other stuff like the confidentiality issues.)

Re: 59. Minsk:”Senecam also has outed himself. Must be a Hamilton history major since the department doesn’t require American history.”I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. For the record, I have absolutely no connection with Hamilton.”Read the Founders Senecam. You’re comment about “democratic process” is embarrassing.”As should have been clear to even a moderately attentive reader, I was referring to the majority vote of the hiring committee, which Paquette’s essay tells us was how Hill was dropped from consideration. (Paquette’s term was “majority faction.”) Majority rule is the essence of direct democracy, no? Reading the Founders won’t change that.I understand that writing snarky putdowns can be enjoyable for some, but this one was pretty wide of the mark.

goxewu writes: “Prof. Hill was shafted by the search committee at Hamilton because of his politics.” This is Paquette’s claim, but what evidence does he offer to support it? None, on my reading. As I and many others have pointed out, there are other reasons, obvious to anyone familiar with academic hiring and tenure considerations, why a committee might drop Hill from consideration.You and I agree with Bauerlein that Urgo’s actions were wrong, but to date no evidence has been offered to support Paquette’s claim about political bias in this hire. Repeatedly asserting that there was bias doesn’t make the claim any stronger.

Re #77: I didn’t say paid spokespeople, but given the pseudononymity on “Brainstorm,” who knows?. In the de facto category, we have the outed PWD/roxbury86 herself, unconvincing denials notwithstanding. (It’s difficult to believe that somebody who worked with Prof. Urgo, has great respect for him, and then volunteers all over the place at Hamilton, doesn’t have an “inside line to the administration.”)Re #76:The evidence senecan wants is, of course……CONFIDENTIAL!

goxewu:Believe what you want. Ironic that those who profess no connection with Hamilton (or who remain anonymous) are entitled to have strong opinions; but those who have a connection and have a different point of view MUST be shills for the administration. No administrator would likely comment here.

Re #79:I wasn’t merely trying to be witty. There’s a real big problem with “confidentiality” in academe. We’re not talking “Top Secret” security risks and breaches here, just people afraid to work in the daylight. I know, of course, that it’s SOP, but I also know that “We can’t comment on that because it’s a personnel matter and personnel matters are confidential” is the last refuge of…oh, you know. Prof. Bauerlein’s most recent post (“On Confidentiality–Hamilton College, Part 3, dated August 5th) nicely sums up the problem.”Believe” is a kind of article of faith, a guess. Given what we do know about the situation (e.g., Prof. Hill’s excellent teaching at an SLAC where teaching is putatively the top priority, Dean Urgo’s retaliatory response), my guess is that the committee didn’t act in good faith.Re #80:Permission to believe what I want gladly accepted.I said “spokespersons,” not “shills.” If roxbury86 wants to conflate the two (I can’t wait for the press release from Hamilton that says, “Today, Mr. John Smith, a shill for the administration, said,…”), that’s her somewhat confessorial business.There’s absolutely no issue of anybody not being “entitled” to have a strong opinion about the Hill/Paquette/Urgo affair. It’s just that nobody’s entitled to have one immune to comment or criticism. Including this one.

goxewu:It’s hard not to interpret “In the de facto category, we have the outed PWD/roxbury86 herself, unconvincing denials notwithstanding. (It’s difficult to believe that somebody who worked with Prof. Urgo, has great respect for him, and then volunteers all over the place at Hamilton, doesn’t have an “inside line to the administration.”)” with implying a shill. It suggests that because I am an alum and happen to believe that Prof. Paquette stepped over a line, that therefore, I am speaking in some way in BEHALF of the administration, and that is simply not the case – now or ever.

I believe goxewu misses or misrepresents the point of Mark Bauerlein’s third post on the Hamilton situation.

The disconnect between #82 and #87 suggests that goxewu is arguing merely to argue. One is reminded of the old Monty Python routine.

test

Re #88:”Arguing merely to argue” is actually what senecan is doing–if you want to designate such a brief, unsupported guess at the motive of somebody on the other side of a debate as “arguing.”In #82, I said that I wasn’t merely trying to be witty in pointing out that the evidence from the personnel committee meeting is conveniently “confidential,” that “confidentiality” is often a cover for operating in bad faith, in academe and elsewhere. I also pointed out that “spokesperson” and “shill” aren’t the same, and that nobody is not “entitled” to have a “strong opinion” on the Hamilton matter, only that such opinions–including mine–are subject to comment and criticism.In #87, after being accused by senecan–again, an unsupported accusation–of somehow “miss[ing] or misrepresent[ing] the point of Mark Bauerlein’s third post on the Hamilton situation” by my simply saying that it “nicely sums up the problem,” I summarized, with some specifics, what I thought Bauerlein’s post meant. In conclusion, I asked, “Do I have it wrong?” So far, nobody–most conspicuously senecan–has said I do, and why.If there’s a “disconnect,” other than the two comments addressing different aspects of the same situation (the general problem of “confidentiality,” the erroneous inference of “shill,” the erroneous inference of not being “entitled” to a “strong opinion” in the one, an interpretation of Prof. Bauerlein’s third post on Hamilton in the other), senecan has failed to point out what it is.I apologize for being so tediously verbose about this, but ’tis the nature of refuting unsupported opinions and accusations.Re #89: Thanks. I think it says something about Hamilton’s retaliation against Prof. Paquette that two commenters as diametrically opposed politically as ethan56 and I are can agree that Hamilton is wrong.Re #91:That Professor Hill, whose exceptional teaching (in an SLAC supposedly having teaching as its first priority for hiring, retention and tenure) caused the tenure-track position to be shifted to his area, was not short-listed is prima facie evidence that the personnel committee was not acting in good faith. Morever, Prof. Urgo’s essay in “Symploke” proves that, in retaliating against Prof. Paquette for violating “confidentiality,” he’s a hypocrite of the first rank. That’s two strikes, and ten to one that a fly on the wall at the personnel committee’s meetings could provide the third.

Re #93:Prof. Hill was an excellent teacher. After he’d been teaching, they shifted the area of the position to his. Connect the dots.

Part 3 is where I really part ways with most of you. I simply don’t see this as a red herring at all. If this website would permit me to post an elaboration, I will do so.

I’m not sure what you’re asking when you say “post an elaboration,” roxbury. You have all the space you want to provide your opinions, no?Some of the comments here focus on Professor Hill’s qualifications. I don’t have enough information to weigh in on that. For me, the issue is whether Paquette’s two-sentence summary of a search committee meeting counts as a violation of confidentiality, and if so, whether it justifies the punishment. I take up the issue not because of an interest in ideological bias on campus, but rather because of my interest in peer review policies in the humanities. As I wrote in post #3, I’ve seen peer review in the humanities deteriorate many times over the years, in part because of the heavy demands placed upon it by hundreds of CVs piled up in a job search and thousands of pages piled up in reviews of research (for instance, a panel to review grant applications). As peer review slips, as goxewu points out, confidentiality strictures sometimes hinder it from being corrected. All-too-often, someone who points out the problems ends up cast as a troublemaker.

If you have any further problems, let me know by email. As for the bias issue, well, that’s part of the general difficulty in its current form in academia, don’t you agree? Take a look at recent cases of people breaking confidentiality or poking into personnel decisions in order to expose malfeasance and you’ll find ideological bias charged in a fair number of them.

Re #97:Didn’t Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., also say, “If you don’t like the message, kill the messenger”? No? Well, he should have.I’m a lefty and (now) sometimes academic, and I think that the conservative academics who think they’re oppressed and discriminated against by the liberal majority in humanities faculties are usually crying crocodile tears. But once in a while they do get the short end of the stick, as is fairly obvious in the case of Prof. Hill. (My goodness, the guy was good enough to hire to try out the course, then suddenly wasn’t good enough even to be short-listed.) One of the things I like less than conservative crocodile tears, though, is backroom-politics academics getting the whistle blown on them and then crying “confidentiality” and pettily retaliating against the whistleblower.Prof. Paquette may have an agenda of “academe is going to hell in a p.c. handbasket,” and he may have an animus against the liberality of Hamilton faculty. Prof. Bauerlein may also have a less histrionic and more well-disguised hobbyhorse concerning the same p.c. issue. And some commenters here may have some inside axe to grind against roxbury86. But all that’s irrelevant. That Hamilton personnel committee did a nasty, got called on it, the Dean took revenge, and people got wind of it. The college is lucky that “Hamiltongate” sounds so clunky.