Apparently, It Is Time for a Search-Committee Code of Conduct

Thanks for the alert on the link; I’ve notified the folks at the Chronicle. The URL is: http://chronicle.com/blogs/onhiring/is-it-time-for-a-search-committee-code-of-standards/28628 .
Good additional questions!

Thanks. The link should work now.

These are excellent suggestions. But as long as we are in a buyer’s market, there is little likelihood that an institution will feel compelled to abide by them. Indeed, for many institutions, especially the smaller liberal arts colleges, there is little likelihood that most members of search committees will even have seen these suggestions. Administrators, take note.

chemoderator: U rock

We’re not in a buyer’s market in every discipline. For nursing, it is definitely a seller’s market. 

I agree. In applying for jobs, I had several instances where I found out who had been hired (not me!) via social media, etc. In some cases, I didn’t even get a ‘hey, we got your application materials’ email, which is simple enough to do.  

There are fewer and fewer institutions paying and/or arranging travel.  I had to find my way out to my most recent interview.  Also, there seems to be a double standard where the communication shuts off.  I know of a candidate that had a phone interview with two separate institutions, waited a month to request a status update, and still never heard back.  Often candidates seem to find out more by logging into the employment system rather than through communication with the particular offices or HR departments.  
Also I would add that it is obvious to tell someone on the search committee is checking his or her phone under the table, even in one of those larger group settings.  
(The working lunch idea still haunts me from back to my grad school days.)

I’ve been through interviews for senior positions recently, and for the most part was treated very respectfully, with almost all of the things mentioned here being done.  The one thing I wish the hiring institutions had done, but hadn’t, was the use of name tents for participants in meetings.  I do my best to remember names, but when you’re moving every hour over the course of two days to a new group of anywhere from 5 to 20 people, it’s particularly difficult to do this.  So name (and title) tents would have been a nice and helpful touch.

How you are treated as a candidate says a lot about the hiring institution. You can learn quite a bit about how people are valued in the organization, how relationships work among the many participants, from how they treat candidates.

maw57: At some point, it becomes reasonable and necessary to seek information from people not on the candidate’s reference list. It’s good manners is to alert the candidate of your plans to do this so that he/she can alert others (like their department chair or president) or even pull out before the calls begin. 

One other thing to remember is ensuring the candidate’s right to privacy.  I remember long ago when my wife interviewed for a student affairs position at an institution she told me that copies of her resume and HR job application were spread around the table of the room she was interviewing in.  As she watched people leave, some of the folks took her application packet or threw it in the conference room trash can.  From that experience, I make it a practice whenever I coordinate interviews to collect and dispose copies of resumes and/or any private information about the candidate. Questions to consider are the following: Is the resume sufficient to provide interviewers? Who is collecting the resumes and evaluations after each interview session? If there a portfolio is being evaluated, who needs access to that piece and how is that secured?

wchristie wrote ” … there is little likelihood that an institution will feel compelled to abide by them. …”

dpn33 wrote ” …Apparently, that’s too much to ask from many institutions. ..”

What is it with “the institution?”  If I invite someone to interview for a position in my school or department — and I would like to impress them — then it is in my enlightened self-interest to attend to these details.  In the candidate’s eyes, I am the institution. 

It wouldn’t occur to me to knock on the President’s office door and ask for someone from “the institution” to pick up a candidate at the airport. 

The drive from and to the airport provides exceptionally valuable one-on-one time to orient the candidate and make them feel welcome coming in and to debrief them on the way back.

My contribution the the helpful hints list: — Less whining, more thinking

 i would add don’t post a job if it is set aside for someone already. it’s a waste of everyone’s time and  money and reflects poorly on the program. 

 Let’s begin earlier in the search process:

1. Were the applicants who did not make the cut for the position notified at all?  2. Did the committee respond to all candidate applications in timely fashion at the close of the search as to when they would be notified as to the finalists?3. When top 3-5 candidates were selected and notified, were the remaining candidates notified at the same time, so they might get on with their lives? As for the first rule, I wrote a letter of recommendation for a highly qualified candidate participating in a national search. The applicant was NEVER notified about search progress or results by the search committee, the department, or the  institution. After two months, the candidate finally called the department and was told the position had been filled, and that the candidate had not been in the running. This is disgraceful search committee behavior, and rude to a legitimate candidate.

 Not that my search experiences have been terribly fun or even rewarding, but I don’t think candidates are entirely blameless either.  Early the other day I heard from a friend who knew that I was a finalist in a search, and she had found out via a 3rd party’s Facebook post that someone else was taking the job for which I had been in the running.  Meanwhile, as a finalist, I still had had no formal notification from the search committee.  This was at least the THIRD time that I had found out about job search results via Facebook connection or report w/o hearing from the search committee first.  

Here is my search reform/etiquette wishlist, some of which has probably already been said:

1) The way academic search processes get dragged out over the course of an entire year is indefensible, inhumane, and unethical.  Searches in other sectors or industries seem to take far less time and are way more flexible.  Even for my present prep school job (which is, frankly, tiding me over), it took less than 6 weeks from interview invitation to job offer, and that includes flying cross-country for a teaching demo plus meeting w/ a host of committees, deans, etc. over 2+ days, comparable enough to a university search.

2) Search committees need to be more diligent about notifying candidates promptly when they are no longer in the running and when a search has resolved.

3) If your department is running a fake search (w/ a certain candidate already preferred for whatever reason), do everyone a great mercy and keep your candidate pool as local as possible.  For instance, don’t invite a Boston candidate to interview in SoCal if there’s really no chance of an alternate outcome.  Preparing + traveling take time, meeting so many new people all at once is exhausting, and jumping through the hoops in good faith only makes the eventual rejection worse.

4) Search committees need to remind successful candidates to conduct themselves professionally and exercise restraint and discretion in going public w/ their own good news– especially online– until the committee has made the rounds w/ its bad news to those who will not get the offer.  This may be a generational behavior, but it’s only going to get worse.  Everyone needs to remember how small certain disciplines and subfields can be, and it’s inevitable that, as a candidate for a job, you may well be competing either against someone you know or someone who might be at most 3 degrees of separation away.  I would guess that the more senior scholars serving on search committees have different online habits vs. younger/newer scholars, and everyone needs to have the possibility of unintended disclosure on the radar, as well as a commitment to a better, fairer protocol.Not that my search experiences have been terribly fun or even rewarding, but I don’t think candidates are entirely blameless either.  Early the other day I heard from a friend who knew that I was a finalist in a search, and she had found out via a 3rd party’s Facebook post that someone else was taking the job for which I had been in the running.  Meanwhile, as a finalist, I still had had no formal notification from the search committee.  This was at least the THIRD time that I had found out about job search results via Facebook connection or report w/o hearing from the search committee first.  Here is my search reform/etiquette wishlist, some of which has probably already been said:1) The way academic search processes get dragged out over the course of an entire year is indefensible, inhumane, and unethical.  Searches in other sectors or industries seem to take far less time and are way more flexible.  Even for my present prep school job (which is, frankly, tiding me over), it took less than 6 weeks from interview invitation to job offer, and that includes flying cross-country for a teaching demo plus meeting w/ a host of committees, deans, etc. over 2+ days, comparable enough to a university search.2) Search committees need to be more diligent about notifying candidates promptly when they are no longer in the running and when a search has resolved.3) If your department is running a fake search (w/ a certain candidate already preferred for whatever reason), do everyone a great mercy and keep your candidate pool as local as possible.  For instance, don’t invite a Boston candidate to interview in SoCal if there’s really no chance of an alternate outcome.  Preparing + traveling take time, meeting so many new people all at once is exhausting, and jumping through the hoops in good faith only makes the eventual rejection worse.4) Search committees need to remind successful candidates to conduct themselves professionally and exercise restraint and discretion in going public w/ their own good news– especially online– until the committee has made the rounds w/ its bad news to those who will not get the offer.  This may be a generational behavior, but it’s only going to get worse.  Everyone needs to remember how small certain disciplines and subfields can be, and it’s inevitable that, as a candidate for a job, you may well be competing either against someone you know or someone who might be at most 3 degrees of separation away.  I would guess that the more senior scholars serving on search committees have different online habits vs. younger/newer scholars, and everyone needs to have the possibility of unintended disclosure on the radar, as well as a commitment to a better, fairer protocol.

For telephone interviews there are a few more questions to consider including. Did the search committee let the candidate know in advance who would be doing the interview? Did the committee provide bios at least several days in advance of the conversation? Did the committee introduce themselves at the beginning of the conversation? Did the candidate have the opportunity to ask questions of the search committee? Did the search committee read the application information provided by the candidate prior to the meeting, and do the questions asked of the candidate reflect that the committee has done its homework?  

Last time I was involved with hiring, I wasn’t allowed to let anyone know they were not being considered (even ones that clearly weren’t qualified) until the person who was offered the job accepted it and passed the drug test. Only then I could notify the other applicants. Institutional policy. Unkind if you ask me. If applicants contacted me, all I could say is that the search is on-going.

All of these suggestions relate to candidates actually invited for interviews and campus visits.  How about treating applicants with respect when they apply by acknowledging the receipt of the application, and by sending out rejection letters in a timely fashion?

I understand that travel may not be underwritten.  However, if a candidate is willing to travel for an interview at his/her expense, then at least there should be some sort of “perk” provided, such as a meal.  Also, search chairs should keep their personal feelings toward administrators to themselves, along with in-depth personal questions.  I had a search chair inquire deeply about my significant other, and what is my significant other’s feelings toward me relocating to XYZ, when for the past four years I have been in ZYX, and ZYX it is a farther distance from where significant other is compared to XYZ.

Hospitality should also be taken into consideration.  The offering of a beverage during the job talk, is always nice. Also, prior to the on-campus or even the phone interview, provide the names of the search committee. Sometimes it is difficult to hear/comprehend the names on the speaker phones that are used during the phone interview.

Communication that one is no longer in the running should be prompt, as well as receipt of the application packet.

Maybe one answer is an on-going list of the most inconsiderate employers.  Sort of like a censure from the AAUP. It is true that the way that candidates are treated has truly gotten out of hand.  I have, at interviews that were going badly because of the way the search committee was acting, made it very clear what I thought:  I figured there wasn’t much to lose anyway, and the thought of having to work with these people was frightening.  I know that not many have had that freedom, but when you do, it should be used.  Academia is worse than any industry I can think of except perhaps show-business.  It truly is disgusting.  

 I once had an employer send reference forms via e-mail to the student workers that the candidate supervised (I was the supervisor of the candidate). The student staff came to me because they were so uncomfortable about being approached in that manner. And, the candidate had not provided that information (two of the student staff were serving as references, but not all of them) so it seems some resourcefulness was definitely employed by the hiring institution. I called the Search Chair and spoke with him to let him know I respected the need for information, however, this kind of inquiry violated our institution’s HR policies.

Watch Stephen Colbert. I love the way he uses PowerPoint.

But also see David Byrne’s work with powerpoint.

“I realized I could create pieces that were moving, despite the limitations of the “medium”

This is the silliest thing, as bjhernandez makes clear. If you’re boring with powerpoint, you’re boring to begin with. And, you’re also lazy because it takes a little effort to learn not just the mechanics of powerpoint and similar programs, but also the method of lecturing from visuals. Lazy = boring. But Poehm also completely ignorant. Some fields of study need powerpoint. Any discipline based on visuals has been transformed because of the enormous advantages of powerpoint over slides. It’s doubtful anyone as obtuse as Poehm has any awareness, much less interest, in art history, but I imagine biology, geography, chemistry and other sciences might register on his puny brain. Banning powerpoint will kick a big hole in the sharing of knowledge among scientists and training new ones in Switzerland, and that will kick a hole in their economy. Onward Luddites!

Power Point is very helpful in certain classroom situations, as for example when a deaf student is giving what would otherwise be an oral presentation. For that, it’s not only useful but actually accommodating in the sense of making education more accessible. 

Aside from that specific situation, I can’t think of any real purpose it serves, aside from disguising information by presenting it in the least comprehensible fashion, which seems to be the default. And of course helping the audience catch up on sleep.

Like some other Microshaft products, it’s become an end in itself. People think that by mastering its ins and outs they’ve accomplished something. I don’t know what the cost in productivity is, aside from Columbia, but I bet it’s considerable. Has anyone tracked the rise of Microshaft compared to U.S. productivity over the same period? How many person-hours have been spent trying to make sense of those ghastly Excel graphs, for instance?

I have seen faculty who read their lecture from PPT slides.
Dim the lights and we all take a nap

Powerpoint is just a tool.  In the wrong hands, it can be fatal.  Used well, it can add visuals, video, and excitement to a monologue.

The real problem is dull, plodding presentation style!

Boring lectures are not the fault of a technology, but rather the misuse of the technology. It’s very chic right now to bang on PowerPoint, but it is a misplaced critique. Blame the lecturers who create boring presentations or simply read their slides to their audiences. Complainers are blaming the technology when the accountability truly belongs with those lecturers who are either too inept or too lazy to create interesting presentations. I might also note that relying on student critiques is tenuous at best. They need to take some responsibility for their own education as well. Complaining about a faculty member using PowerPoint is misdirected — they should be complaining about the boring faculty member or, god forbid, actually take some action to improve their listening and educational skills.

The problem isn’t PowerPoint.  The problem is people that don’t know how to present, so they hide behind slides full of wordy bullets and crappy clip-art.  Those same people tend to treat PowerPoint as a panacea, without investigating other options – for example, math is best suited for overhead projectors where a teacher can demonstrate how to solve a complex problem.

The problem is exacerbated by college professors that don’t grade people based on their presentation skills.  It does not matter what field you go into, you have to be able to present your work to be able to move up in an organization.

Thank you for a great laugh and a great reminder that ANY teaching technology can be turned to boring use!

I’ve had a couple professors try a lecture or two without PP and they usually turn out better.  A great professor will use PP to project images or anything that would take too long to write out manually.  He or she will show his or her thought process by writing the rest of the lecture on a board, a process which I found absolutely necessary in order to follow complex mathematics in science and engineering.

It’s like any medium, including the classroom: it’s possible to be a great presenter or a lousy one in ANY medium.  Misuse of Powerpoint is no more egregious than the thousands of hours of lousy video that instructors have inflicted upon students since the advent of TV in the 50′s.

The world is exactly as big as our minds, and we can bring the whole world to students through Power Point.  Visuals, links — it’s an organizing technique to make the world come into the classroom smoothly.

So let’s ban it because some people use it for nothing more than headings and bullets.  And in particular, let’s go back to the good old days of academic conferences, when presenters sat at a table, reading their papers zzzzzzzzzzzzz . . .

A flip chart is a blackboard without chalk. 

Aside from that, the suggestion that Mr. Poehm has for the cure is rubbish. The man has no $#!%$#! clue what he is talking about. He shows himself to be, while not an imbecile, rather lacking in wit or intelligence.

Edward Tufte does know what he is talking about.
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/

 interesting….

Interesting that we blame the medium.

I see the power of PowerPoint similar to a gun.  It is the person who “clicks” the slides that is more of a relevance than the slides themselves.  The question is about how interactive is the person to the audience in delivering his / her lecture rather than the technological medium that is used to deliver the lecture.

Raza
___________________________
Raza Khan, Ph.D.
Dr.Raza.Khan@gmail.com

Lets all go back to Harvard Graphics and overhead transparencies.

This is not a new complaint. See “Absolute PowerPoint: Can a software package edit our thoughts?” in the New Yorker, May 28, 2001.(Yes, 10 years ago.) Interesting explanation of the development of ppt, and this, in the last paragraph: “According to [Clifford] Nass, PowerPoint empowers the provider of simple content . . . but it risks squeezing out the provider of process–that is to say, the rhetorician, the storyteller, the poet, the person whose thoughts cannot be arranged in the shape of an AutoContent slide.”

Yes, and this is what I mean by my previous comment that no “tool” is “neutral.”

The “tendencies” of PP militate against precisely the kinds of “process” you mention. The argument that one can operate “contra” a tool’s tendencies is also specious. Why do this? Get a more appropriate tool, or modus operandi.

OK, I’ll buy that. But I would argue that no more than 1 in 100 PP presentations are even remotely helpful. I’ve seen great presentations–and the software ain’t Powerpoint. But, yes, when everything looks like a nail…

The NICE thing about power point is if and when all your competitors use it.  THEN it is well worth having THEM preserve use of it, so you can more consistently and easily and by larger margins defeat them in getting attention, impact, action, funding, and the like. 

I made a very successful career in business, NGO-land, and academia via NEVER using powerpoint and NEVER making male-ish presentations.   INSTEAD I used huge 40 to 128 points per page A3 pages of………what is the word……………………PAPER.   So for 30 or 40 minutes I explained what was on that page—-WELL not really—I never explained what was carefully written already, RATHER I asked the audience to read the page and guided by their questions I PRESENTED the links between the ideas on the page and audience lives and concerns.  We talked about those LINKAGES not about my page or my ideas.  All that MY-ness gets on my nerves, and bores me.  I am rather sick of my-ness-es.   Especially my own.   

Gerstner when he saved IBM forbid powerpoint—we are going to talk to each other not present near or past each other–he famously explained.   In business in particular (academics are so poor at presenting there is not effort needed to surpass them all) I found that males are wimps, hiding behind their slides so that even when the slides put six J&J vice presidents to sleep, the 7th male-ish speaker in a row, puts up his own slides, continuing the VP sleep session.  Not a one (of course except yours truly) had the guts to hold up his slides and dump them all noisily on the floor, proclaiming—OBVIOUSLY these put you guys to sleep—-let’s talk!    TALK is so courage-requiring that most male-ish entities today do not have the courage for it—perhaps something in the water reducing testesterone levels.   

The coolest research on this, was some guy in Germany who found the mental protocol involved in audience reactings to powerpoint—-I have in my lap a copy of the slide so I do not need to listen, I will read the handouts at home—but when I get home I file them away, and never find them again, till in my next housemove, my spouse insists on NOT moving un-used junk and the hand-outs end up in the trash. Powerpoint by this protocol guarantees that no one listens or reads or thinks or uses. FURTHERMORE we read about 22 times faster than people can orally present the same ideas—so the stupid 7 ideas of 5 words each or 5 idea of 7 words each type slide norms—mean we GET all points in 4 seconds and spend the next 90 seconds (per slide) BBBBBBOOOOOORRRRRREEEEEEDDDDDDDDD. So ooo oooo I put 128 points on one slide and talk for 30 minutes—to read THAT requires a LOT more time.

I lied, these days I present 256 points per A3 page and most recently in Beijing 420 points on one A3 page—it took 2 days for them to read that one page and 16  hours for me to handle their questions about various of its 420 point.  I just decided to be nutty and see how many points I could with great order, articulation, naming, and fractal layering I could sqeeze onto a page at 6 or 7 point font.   A student challenged me once and I have a PDF you can request of of my 4000 favorite books, authors and titles under 450 categories (my personal interests), in 1.7 point font ALL one ONE A3 page.   After much practice I can now, without glasses, read the titles and authors at 1.7 font.   I am pretty sure this is all completely stupid and useless–THAT is why I like it and invest time in it.   Must be a monkey play brain module at work.  

I would add pretty much anything by Steve Jobs. His new product presentations, using Apple software similar to PP, are anything but boring, even given that they’re sales pitches.  The fact that his topic is interesting is only part of it – his use of the presentation software is unlike what most faculty do in classrooms but many could learn from it.

I haven’t used PowerPoint in years, not since Prezi came along.  And my students say they have much more fun putting Prezis together than PowerPoints.

When PowerPoint is outlawed then only outlaws will have PowerPoints.

After meeting with my students and presenting the lesson, I upload the Power Point to the class web site so students may review.  However, I caution those who demonstrate “creative attendance” that the deck does not replace the class, because I pepper the presention with discussion, and questions from discussion appear on quizzes.

I also do not supply a hand out, because if the students want to print it for review, they may do that on their own time. 

Clever PowerPoint design, crafted by human experts, is not the point.  Neither is the pointless rambling those of us on the receiving end of such presentations endure. 

As listeners, we are expected to accept even the most nonsensical message because it is organized into bullet point formation; this inauthentic cohesion must account for some measure of value, shouldn’t it?   

The PowerPoint ”ban” rallies against conformity of expectations and experiences by suggesting the opposite side of the coin, which turns out, advocates for precisely the same philosophy as the world controlled by PowerPoint.  

Both solve the lack of creativity and imagination conundrum with the same old solution: Conformity of presentation expectations and experiences, one all PowerPoint; the other everything but. 

How about something altogether different?   Peaceful coexistence?  Power-Point if you must, but break free when you can–and should.  Because a mind must exercise its ability to break free of mental molds. 

One small step each of us could do would be stop expecting PowerPoint at every presentation and stop delivering Powerpoint at every presentation.   

Encourage non-conformity of presentation styles, modes and delivery as long as the message is carefully considered and delivered.   

In the long run, acceptance and tolerance will promote creativity and imagination more than any cookie-cutter, one-size fits all formula for presentations.           

No, it really is the medium that is the message, as Marshall McLuhan indicated decades ago.

For instance, witness the “Evening News.” The synchrony is incredible, re the lead story, the order of stories, when advertisements occur, etc. TV itself has a form, and the “content” is mostly illusory. Formulaic ideas, e.g. detective shows are developed to fit the medium, and the staccato style and abbreviated forms that “fit” TV are not to be seen in the theater, to give one example . . . the very fact that TV is “sponsored” determines the rhythms and forms it transmits . . . 

Al Powell is out of the office until Thursday but will check email. If you have an eID problem or can’t login to RamCT, please contact the ACNS Help Desk, as they must help with that problem. Phone: 970-491-7276 and leave a message, or email help@colostate.edu . The ACNS web page is located at: http://www.acns.colostate.edu/.

Yes, TED talkers have-in the main-learned the importance of communicating with human beings.

I’m sorry, but the way Dick Hardt presents his Identity 2.0 keynote is by far one of the best ways to utilize PowerPoint.
http://www.identity20.com/media/OSCON2005/

Here are some more thoughts on Death to PowerPoint and a nod to Prezi as an alternative:
http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/instructionaldesign/2010/05/25/nonlinear-presentations-alternatives-to-“death-by-powerpoint

I’m certainly not a defender of Rep. Ryan (quite frankly I abhor Randian Objectivism), but it is interesting that this was a question of the fact he spent $700 on wine at the same restaurant Ms. Feinberg was dining (and she apparently knew enough about expensive wine to identify it). My question is, where is the line drawn? Clearly purchasing a Buaggatti Veyron on a whim is too far (the car costs more than double most people’s homes), but is dining out at a nice restaurant taboo? What about movies? What about McDonalds, particular when there are people around the world (scratch that, people in the US) who could scarcely afford such a luxury. Are we relegated to all eat Ramen Noodles until the population is fed, clothed, housed, and has access to adequate medical care? Where do we draw this line? It seems somewhat arbitrary. If Ryan hadn’t been proposing massive budget cuts to social programs, would he then be allowed his personal $700 wine tab? What if he personally gave away half his income? Would he be allowed a $350 wine tab then? Again, I can’t stand Ryan’s politics, and some of his statements lead to question him as a person (but as I don’t know him, I must stop myself). While I would never drop $700 on wine with friends (at least I don’t think I would, I’ve never been financially secure to consider such a thing), I don’t know if I necesarily begrudge him that.

I think the most important thing to be gleened from this tempest in a teapot or wine bottle, is the fact that the Chairman of the House Finance Committee initially got the arithmetic wrong on his credit card receipt. Of course, he UNDERESTIMATED the total!

Funny that is the salary we pay Rand is considered “his own,” but the money a student pays to a university for tuition is seemingly not considered their own. IOKIYAR

Cwinton, would another example be Al Gore flying around in private jets to lectures to hector us that we should save fuel?   Or perhaps Rep. Rangel, lover of the poor, while chairing the committee that writes the nation’s tax laws, omits reporting rental income from his Dominican Republic villa?    

In general, society is not in much danger when politicians are spending their own money.  It’s when they spend the public’s money that abuse, waste and corruption can take place on a grand scale.

I do not sense here that reviewers see Congressman Ryan is simply a pontificator.  This is not a liberal or conservative issue but another politican who: “Do not do as I do, but do as I say!”  This fiscal congressman does not even know how much he was paid for his wine until questioned???  How about that 1st class seat flight ticket back to his district so he does not have to mix with his common constiuants. 
I am sorry here but we have here another pompus politican who wants to make his mark and more personal millions on the government dole. He whines and walks out of meetings like a child instead of being an adult who must learn to compromise for the good of his district and the country. 
We do not need anymore zealots in congress who are either liberal or conservative but americans who are open-minded to change for the greater good not for a hedge-fund manager who is trying to buy his vote. 

And what argument did I not understand? Thanks!

It is difficult to think of a hedge-fund manager as not a lobbyist, in fact if not in name.  And I agree that Mr Ryan probably had no thought of paying for wine and/or dinner until called out by Professor Feinberg.  I have no problem with Mr Ryan spending his own money anyway he wishes, including his public salary; however, I think his personal priorities do not mesh well with his priorities for the rest of us.

Did they?  How do you know? 

I’m on Ryan’s side here, but the argument that the production of luxury provides opportunity for the poor was probably made by Louis XVI too.

She “showed [her] courage” when “the manager and a waiter came over and Feinberg decided she had said her piece and it was time to leave”.  She “showed courage” when she crowed to a blog about her “confrontation” – selecting one that would applaud her, of course.
“Courage” suggests that she expected to face disapproval (or worse) from those whose opinions matter to her, or those who are in a position to do her harm.  From the reactions here, she certainly doesn’t face the mass disapproval of the academy, and any potential backlash on her professional career will cause an outcry over “academic freedom”.

All this story shows is that Representative Ryan and Professor Feinberg are both members of that society for the wealthy you mention.  There is nothing wrong with that, but there is no denying it either. 

She was out to dinner with her husband, for her birthday. Presumably, he paid. And he knew what the bill would be.

She probably read the menu to “know” how much the wine was. We all do it!

So big Democrats from FDR to Kennedy to Clinton never associated with their rich friends( or should I say Mark Rich in one case).  Please stay in touch with reality. Every politician has rich friends.  That is how they got elected. They might be Venture Capitalists or Hollywood Royalty but they all know their way around a nice restaurant and a wine list.