• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

Politics Is Killing Us

October 13, 2011, 3:09 pm

Is there any greater oxymoron in the English language than “honorable politician”? Because I’m finding it hard to think of two words that are more opposite in meaning.

Politics, as I learned very well during my 20 years as an administrator of one sort or another, is all about self-interest. It’s about power. Politicians may give you what you want, but only because they calculate that doing so will enable them, in the long run, to get what they want. If you can’t help them reach their personal goals, they aren’t interested in you. And if they perceive that you are somehow in their way, watch out. They will brush you aside like so much dandruff off their suit coats.

Honor, meanwhile, isn’t something that’s talked about much anymore. Instead, we focus on concepts like honesty, integrity, and ethics. Of course honor includes all of those, but it also contains something more: an element of self-effacement, of putting other people’s needs before one’s own, of helping those who aren’t in a position to help themselves simply because it’s the right thing to do. Essentially, it is the antithesis of politics.

Yet in our culture, not only do we rarely speak of honor, but we elevate the politician. We praise someone for his or her ability to “navigate the political waters,” forgetting that in doing so that person is merely pursuing his or her own self-interest, often at the expense of others.

You might think I’m talking about the President or Congress or the people vying for the Republican nomination. Or maybe our nation’s business leaders, whose ethics have certainly been called into question over the past few years. And what about educational leaders, several of whom have been the subject of high-profile scandals recently? Surely, I’m talking about them.

Not really. I’m sure what I’ve said about politicians could be applied, to varying degrees, to many of those on the above list. But I’m not really talking about them. They don’t affect my life directly, on a daily basis. No, the worst examples of politics — and of the absence of honor — that I’ve encountered over my 26 years of professional life have been among faculty members and mid-level administrators.

I’m reminded of some of the bosses I’ve had, like the one whose favorite saying was “C.Y.A.” (cover your ass) — something at which, I observed, he was particularly adept. Or the one I used to duck into the men’s room to avoid because I never once encountered her, however casually, when I did not come away with some new make-work project, always designed to enhance her own résumé.

I also recall the turf wars that I witnessed when I became a department head and later a campus administrator myself. In those battles over resource allocation, I did occasionally witness honorable acts, as some area leaders placed the needs of the college above their own priorities. Others, however, just wanted whatever they could get for their departments or campuses, and to hell with everyone else.

But mostly I think about the faculty. If ever any group of individuals should pull together, it would be college faculty in today’s unsettled (and unsettling) political landscape. Sadly, I’ve witnessed more dishonorable behavior in a single committee meeting than I’ve seen on a week’s worth of CNN news shows. When it comes to protecting their turf — their discipline, their textbook, their pet project — an alarming number of faculty members will lie, cheat, bear false witness, shout down, and intimidate their opponents. I’m not saying all faculty members are like that, or even most, but far too many fit that description.

If higher education is going to survive the current climate of budgetary “austerity” and cultural warfare, we’re going to have to rediscover, as a profession, the concept of honor. And when I talk about the profession, I mean from the top down: from presidents and chancellors to the lowliest classroom instructor. Because if we continue behaving the way we have, our narrow-mindedness and cut-throatedness, our in-fighting and self-aggrandizement — in short, our politicking — may ultimately do more damage to our cause than any external threat.

This entry was posted in General Interest, The Two-Year Track. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • bscmath78

    You wrote, “an element of self-effacement . . .” In terms of actual activity, for quite a while, honor was strongly linked to dueling.  Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel.  If you said something negative about someone, true or not, you risked a duel.

  • robjenkins

    True enough. In the case you mention, though, I believe the actual insult was aimed at Burr’s daughter. It was her honor he was protecting, not his own. Today we would consider such chivalrous notions misguided. But what remains is the concept of protecting the weak, rather than merely grabbing all one can for oneself. A biology department chair, for instance, might display this sort of honorable behavior by giving up a faculty line to the chemistry department, even though she has been around longer and has more clout than the chemistry chair, because she perceives that his department’s need is greater.

  • yellow1

    I agree with Rob that faculty would be a great starting point to display some parts of the honor we seem to be missing. Faculty have the most contact with students on almost every college campus, and the example of honor from faculty would be one that could resonate with students. One area I’d recommend to any/all who’d listen would be to incorporate Service Learning into our classrooms. There is an inherent selflessness involved with SL, particularly on the part of the instructor who utilizes it. S/He must do one thing that many faculty find harder and harder to do: change. I am not talking about the change that our elected officials use as sound bites, on the left, right, and middle. I mean real, measureable change that is local and immediate.

  • scottyar

    I like almost everything Prof. Jenkins has to say; indeed we are a culture which has lost its way when it comes to honor.  However, it may be naive to think that politics were once more honorable on any kind of consistent basis; look at the in-fighting between Adams and Jefferson, or the actions of John C. Calhoun, and you see that even at a time when a certain civility and honor were more the norm than now people were nasty as hell to each other in the political arena.  On the other hand, he’s on target with the cya and back biting which goes on at larger colleges.  It happens differently at smaller schools, where it’s more a faculty vs. the administrators and/or board mentality.

  • gsawpenny

    I believe there is much to be said in support of this article. Honor is a difficult thing to comprehend in the academic world, after all, the faculty members mentioned here worked hard to get their degrees, worked hard to get that job, worked hard to get tenure so why should they just “throw it all away” for someone else, some other program, or some other idea? Herein lies another concept we, as scholars, often shun to our detriment – duty. Too often the notion of duty is blurred with the basics of “responsibility.”. The two are entirely different. A person has a responsibility to pay their bills on time, a responsibility to be a safe driver, and a responsibility to be at work when required. Duty, on the other hand, is a leap above responsibility. We have a duty to our students – a duty to their entire education and not just our department’s impact on their education. Duty is hard, often onerous, and almost always a burden but when done and done with honor is stunningly rewarding.

    The scholarly community has spent too much time fighting for another level of management (unions) and wasted too much energy screaming for a limited number of expensive TT lines rather than employing more full time contract professors. We have wasted too much time being responsible for “our” actions and even ethical in “our” pursuits that we have forgotten to do our duty and act with honor.

  • townsend_harris

    Classroom teachers with no job security teach most of the credit-bearing college courses in the USA.  And we treat classroom teachers – with their near-sacred role – as the *bottom* of a hierarchy, placing their livelihoods at the mercy of politics and whimsy.
    What a contemptible institution higher education has become.

  • 3224243

    What you describe goes on everywhere – corporate boardrooms, tech center bullpens, extended families – not just in higher education.  The nature of man is self-preservation and the individual inclined to altruism or selflessness learns very quickly that no good deed goes unpunished.

  • polisciguy

    While we can point out the examples of Adams and Jefferson, John C. Calhoun, Blaine and Cleveland, Andrew Johnson and the Tenure of Office Act, etc., there was a significant portion of the political process focused on getting things done for a collective good. In the current era, it’s about showmanship and appeasing your base rather than the whole. To apply the concept to higher education like Jenkins did is natural.

    In addition, I think it is of value to suggest that even if politics has descended to placating the fringe at the expense of the middle, higher education should have a different purpose. I agree with others that abandoning TT faculty for an army of adjuncts has hurt the overall mission of education (this is one thing K-12 is doing right).

    But there is a larger picture to be examined here. We often see the act of setting education policy and budgets like Cold War politics: a zero-sum game. It should be less rare that we are doing our duty honorably by seeking what is best for all and not a few. 

    My college as a whole will improve because it recently received a large federal science grant, even if my particular government classes do not directly benefit from that gift. Something about a rising tide lifting all ships comes to mind.  

  • robjenkins

    No doubt. I share much of your cynicism. I just think we need to fight those negative attitudes–and I try to, although not always successfully. The fact that what you say is true doesn’t make it right. One of the qualities that makes us human is the self-awareness to rise above our natural tendencies, with effort.

    Sorry. I don’t mean to preach. I’m talking to myself as much as anyone, because I do have many of the same thoughts that you express above. It just seems to me that if we all give ourselves over to that kind of cynicism, we’re lost.

    Rob

  • bscmath78

    robjenkins, in most credible versions of the events, the duel is the end result of a long bitter history of political conflict, with the specific trigger being the publication of a letter recounting Hamilton’s comments about Burr.  No mention of the daughter.

    “Genl. Hamilton and Judge Kent have declared in substance that they looked upon Mr. Burr to be a dangerous man, and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of Government. I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.”

    http://www.brown.edu/Courses/HI0171/Documents/Articles/Freeman.pdf
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Alexander_Hamilton_and_Aaron_Burr_duel
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande17.html

    However, in a Gore Vidal novel “Burr” the “despicable opinion” is accusing Burr of incest with his daughter, which footnote 14 here, confirms was just Vidal’s “invention”:
    http://www.alexanderhamiltonexhibition.org/about/Freeman%20-%20Duelisas%20Politics.pdf

    Wikipedia notes, “Though purely the speculation of author Vidal (albeit after some
    consideration of the evidence and probability), this ultimately fictional and unprovable plot device has been repeated as factual on the Internet and in less scholarly works.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr_%28novel%29

    Even if it were true that Hamilton said such a thing, the most offended party is surely Burr, especially in the context of the statements being part of Hamilton’s campaign against Burr’s campaign for governor of New York and his previous campaigning that cost Burr the Presidency (Burr and Jefferson were tied in the Electoral College so the decision was made by the House). Burr was Vice-President at the time of the duel.

    Honor was historically about the powerful protecting their image, regardless of the facts.

  • bscmath78

    To defend your honor you fought a duel over a point of honor or a matter of honor.  It was fought on the field of honor, to satisfy honor.
     
    Honor was historically about the powerful protecting their image, regardless of the facts.  The threat of the duel served to keep people silent, especially the weak.  It also allowed some to take on their political opponents by insulting them or their family to force a duel.

    Andrew Jackson on his dueling history:

    http://books.google.ca/books?id=wQbiEw55pYAC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=%22satisfy+honor%22+%22andrew+jackson%22&source=bl&ots=zOV9ta7E8n&sig=3XS-Q5VHUSjt7uZab5CClJ5e9qw&hl=en&ei=kWGYTou4JKbf0QGR-cDWBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22satisfy%20honor%22%20%22andrew%20jackson%22&f=false  

  • bscmath78

    On September 30, 1938 the Prime Minister of Great Britain Neville Chamberlain showed the true nature of honor.  He described his sellout to Hitler at Munich as “peace with honour.” Thus honor was decisively linked with cowardice, duplicity, betrayal, deception, delusion and treason, as millions cheered instead of jeered.

  • bscmath78

    In America the true nature of “honor” was long understood by some.

    “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”  – Emerson

    This is the same Emerson as in the Ph.D. thesis “Shakespeare, Emerson and . . . Death” or the even better thesis “Milton, Emerson and . . . Death.” ;-)

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/so-you-want-to-get-a-ph-d-in-the-humanities-nine-years-later/31402

  • bscmath78

    In 1924, H.L. Mencken wrote, “The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught.”

  • bscmath78

    polisciguy, actually those federal science grants also provide “overhead” funds that during the Cold War help build up the non-science parts of places like Stanford and MIT.  Please see Chapter 2 “The Origins of Contract Overhead” in “Creating the Cold War University: The Transformation of Stanford”.
    http://books.google.ca/books?id=e0bVC2FEoSwC&pg=PA58&dq=%22The+Origins+of+Contract+Overhead%22&hl=en&ei=vmiYTpzHAab10gGLqdXZBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Origins%20of%20Contract%20Overhead%22&f=false

    Some have claimed more recently that “overhead” is insufficient and others have found that “overhead” pays for embarrassingly inappropriate expenses.
      

  • bscmath78

    robjenkins, please note that my objection is to your use of the word “honor”.  I think it would be better to use a phrase like “self-sacrifice and selflessness to protect the weak” to describe the behavior that you desire.  Behavior that some demonstrated when the “Titanic” sank, in circumstances where they was a very clear and simple cultural rule to follow, “Women and children first”, and a clear possibility that failure to follow it would be a public source of shame. 

    The problem in life is that the Chemistry Chair is probably just scamming you. You should only give up your faculty line to hire Marie Curie in 1898 or give it to Physics so they could get Einstein in 1905 or provide a suitable home for the refugee physicist Marietta Blau in 1938.

    Though some might suggest that such actions would actual count as “enlightened self-interest” assuming you have bosses that appreciate wisdom and a lack of pettiness. Others might point out that you are sacrificing an adjunct in your own field to benefit those from another field, another country and that they don’t even speak English. Others might suggest that the phrase “self-sacrifice and selflessness to protect the long-term interests of the nation as a whole” would be a better description and goal.

  • bscmath78

    In the old days, the movie Western often had the shoot-out, a form of duel.

    But Westerns changed.  The 1952 “High Noon” has the Quaker wife use a rifle to shoot one of Gary Cooper’s enemies in the back.  Gary Cooper plays Kane (Cain? as in Cain and Abel?) who has been told by his employers and the citizens of the town not to have a street battle (bad PR) but goes ahead anyway.  Then there are the political motives of Carl Foreman.

    What is honor?

  • bscmath78

    In 1962, it is John Wayne using his rifle to shoot Liberty in the back. In “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” the shot is timed to make it appear that Jimmy Stewart killed Liberty in a shoot out.  As a result of this killing Stewart goes on to great political success. Eventually Stewart learns the truth. A newspaper report is told the truth, but doesn’t publish it because:

    “This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

    What is honor?

  • bscmath78

    In addition to the private duel, there was historically the judicial duel better known as  “trial by combat” or “trial by battle” for the resolution of criminal, civil or any other dispute.

  • robjenkins

    So Gore Vidal made all that up, huh? What a bitter disappointment.

    I understand your objection to the use of the term, but I think it’s based on an antiquated definition. In modern parlance, would you say that “to do the honorable thing” means fighting a duel?

    Rob

  • bscmath78

    robjenkins,  “to do the honorable thing” used to mean (into the 20th century) to take the proffered revolver or your own weapon and kill yourself to save society and your family the disgrace of formal legal proceedings.

  • bscmath78

    robjenkins, but then I have seen too many old movies and read too many old novels.

    But I see that even in 2011, it has the connotation of a form of political suicide, as in resigning from office when caught.

    “State GOP Chairman: Weiner Should Do ‘Honorable Thing’ And Resign”
     
    http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/06/state-gop-chairman-weiner-should-do-honorable-thing-and-resign/

    Note that “Honorable Thing” was qualified with “Resign”, almost as if the earlier meaning might still hold sway.

  • bscmath78

    Continuing on “to do the honorable thing”  we have:

    “Hey Al. Men in your profession, you give ‘em a pistol and then leave the room. I don’t have a pistol, Al.”
    Richard Nixon to General Alexander Haig, Nixon
     
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LeaveBehindAPistol

  • bscmath78

    “For Brutus is an honorable man;
    So are they all, all honorable men,” 
    – Shakespeare, “Julius Caesar”

    And Brutus at the end does fall on his sword (actually runs on to it, close enough).  So in the end he does “do the honorable thing”.

    “Caesar, now be still:
    I kill’d not thee with half so good a will.”

  • girl37

    Wow. What’s wrong with you? You’re seriously derailing the discussion of this post with all of your nonsense about “doing the honourable thing”. Why don’t you do the honourable thing and stop it?

  • bscmath78

    girl37, you wrote,”What’s wrong with you?” I guess it is seeking to see language used correctly and providing examples and logic to support my view (yes, I do make grammatical and other errors along the way).  And in particular, I was answering the author’s very own question.  At the time, 1 hour ago, that the author raised the question he didn’t seem to think I was “derailing” things. On the surface your “derailing” claim seems odd given that it was 6 hours ago that  3224243 posted. 

    But you do nicely illustrate the dubious usages that “honor” and “honorable” are put to, now and in the past.  You nicely illustrate your contempt for Shakespeare, Emerson and the rest who raise questions about “honor” and “honorable”.  You nicely illustrate your intolerance towards divergent views and your tyrannical viewpoint that the traditional concept of “honor” helped enforce.  You aid the enemies of freedom and liberty. You aid the champions of oppression, exploitation, censorship, exclusion and silencing. 

    Bravo! ;-)

  • swapan2011

    “Politics Is Killing Us” this is not true always. But some of the politician misleading
    needy people and getting benefits using people. They always want power and
    money. They always try to making problem intentionally everywhere. Thank you very much to inspire me to write something about “POLITICS”. I will write down a blog “Bangladesh Politics and Politician” in my website.

    http://bux2get.com/_e2366786.htm

  • insouciant

    This reminds me of the old joke:
    Why are the politics so nasty in academia?
    Because the stakes are so low.

    Academics will fiercely fight over the smallest bit of resources and, most of all, ego.

    I think part of the problem is the tenure system.

    Academics can get away with being petty, mean, nasty, and selfish because there usually is no great consequence of such behavior.  They have tenure.

    Replace tenure with a renewable 5-year review and contract based on performance, and we would see the civility and “honor” return to academia.

  • danielled514

    I couldn’t agree with you more with your post.  Many times people forget that politicans are also people in the education field.  I am a 5th grade teacher in a public school and things have changed drastically since I was in school.  We are held to such higher standards to not only the state, but to the district.  However, the Board of Education is the first to criticize the teachers if our scores are not up to par.  They want us to meet these standards, but yet they don’t supply the resources we need to help our students succeed.  We never see the Board members come into our schools and see what we do every day, yet they are the ones who make critical decisions for our schools.  To them it is a popularity contest.

  • bscmath78

    girl37, I see that in my posts in this thread that I have referenced Shakespeare, Emerson and . . . Death.  Reminiscent of the title of a thesis that I mentioned earlier. Is this what perturbed you?  Should I have gone with Milton?  Used a few lines from Lucifer? ;-)

    I notice that you still haven’t discussed the actual article or the other posts.

  • landrumkelly

    Let me get this straight.  “Politics. . . [is] about power.”

    And administration is about. . . ?

    The “politics-administration” dichotomy has long been with us, but most persons consider it to have been discredited.  The “politics of administration” is a much more viable concept.

    “Honesty, integrity, and ethics” (elements of your trilogy) are always in season, in all realms of human endeavor.  Serious ethical analysis would certainly consider the importance of self-effacement and even selflessness, but ethics is the larger umbrella here under which we speak of all of the virtues, including honesty and integrity.   Any discussion of honor apart from all of the virtues would seem to be a bit vacuous.

    Landrum Kelly, Jr.
    Livingstone College
    Salisbury, North Carolina

  • 22273509

    I’m curious, bscmath78, whether you work in academia and, if so, in what capacity.  Thanks.

  • belindaprihoda

    Would the author of this blog please contact me? I would like to ask a question about a “reprint” of this blog. My email address is belinda_prihoda@hotmail.com.  Thanks!

  • emwhitephd

    If anyone knows the origin of this adage (not an old joke), I would be happy to hear it. I have heard it attributed to Mark Twain, Woodrow Wilson, Jesse Unruh (CA legislative leader), Lionel Trilling, and several others.

  • robjenkins

    Henry Kissinger.

  • robjenkins

    I would suggest, Landrum–in fact, I sort of did suggest–that honor is the larger umbrella, under which fall ethics, honesty, integrity, and a host of other virtues.

    Rob

  • duppy_conqueror

    If I didn’t know better, I would say you were describing my college and colleagues. Politics is a fact of life wherever you have 2 or more humans working together on something, but the increasingly cut-throat nature of today’s workplace politics follows a decrease in resources and in many cases enrollments.

    In Japan, it is not unheard of for the top executive of a company that has collapsed under his leadership to commit suicide, which is the other extreme of “honor”.

  • mickfan

    Thanks, C19 colleagues.

  • sand6432

    Of course, not all universities support their own presses either; there are only about 85 universitires in the U.S. that do. Long ago, in the Report of the National Enquiry into Scholarly Communication (1979), it was recommended that the burden of supporting the system be shared more widely among universities. It has yet to happen…. —Sandy Thatcher

  • Chris B

    ……

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037