Search The Site
 
More options | Back issues
Home
News
Opinion & Forums
Careers
Multimedia
Chronicle/Gallup
Leadership Forum
Technology Forum
Resource Center
Campus Viewpoints
Services
The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle Review
A weekly special section
Brainstorm: Lives of the Mind Mark Bauerlein

The AAUP and Ward Churchill

cross-posted from howtheuniversityworks.com

Last week, which I’d dedicated primarily to family time, I jumped on to post breaking news about UAW’s successful organizing of 5,000 University of California postdocs, and a fairly uncontroversial AP profile of Cary Nelson’s service as AAUP president.

In the profile, Cary gets credit for turning around organizational missteps in the membership office and staff leadership, and leading a long-overdue structural overhaul to create interlocking but legally distinct operations for collective bargaining, professional association, and a foundation in support of academic freedom. From its low point of 39,000 during the era of Greed is Good, membership has climbed to 47,000; a capital campaign has made significant progess, and the problems in the membership office responsible for the nonrenewal of thousands of members have been resolved. Most important, AAUP has continued to defend faculty rights — of members and nonmembers alike — in an era of profound repression.

And under the leadership of Nelson (and immediate past president Jane Buck) the association has taken an aggressive stance on the core issue of the profession today, the fact that the norm of faculty employment has become contingent appointment, what I call the global warming of our professional lives.

A thread began based on one reader’s remark, “The AAUP’s defense of Churchill also prevents me from renewing my membership. What a waste of resources!”

This inflamed one of Brainstorm’s regular less-pleasant commenters, who posts screeds accusing AAUP of acting in ways diametrically opposed to its mission and generally accepted record of distinguished professional citizenship (levelling bizarre charges of censorship, fiscal malfeasance, hostility to dissent, etc.). Of the 28 comments on the thread, my count is that 13 belong to this one commenter, including a doozy that compares Cary Nelson to a Nazi sympathizer. Being on the topic of this individual’s obsession, the nearly 50 percent figure (by number, over 50 percent by word count) is somewhat higher than this individual’s usual percentage, though it’s not uncommon for this person to account for a quarter or a third of the remarks on any one thread, and a higher percentage of the word count.

In fact, as I promptly pointed out, and Michael Berube joined in to underscore, AAUP was not asked to investigate the Churchill case, and has not. It therefore hasn’t taken a position. I for one would very much like to have seen what a Committee A-led investigation would have revealed about the matter.

So I explained how Committee A works, and that in a decentralized organization individuals and local chapters are going to have very different opinions, and that most folks thought that was a good thing:


Fred, there can’t be a national AAUP position on a matter it hasn’t investigated. It can’t investigate unless an aggrieved party so requests.

As a decentralized organization, AAUP chapters take extremely diverse views on all matters — whether to bargain collectively or not, for instance. Most folks think that’s a good thing.

The same freedom applies to individual members of the association, including its officers, who take quite divergent views on many of the issues we have to consider officially, as well as on matters outside our purview. Most folks think that’s a good thing too.

I have opinions on Ward Churchill’s situation, having read many of the publicly available reports.

I may or may not share them in this forum.

Should I choose to discuss them, you’d find they differ from some of the views held by others who are AAUP’s officers, and resemble the views held by others.

That is, if they chose to share them with you.

Which they very well might not, since they don’t believe their views on an individual case should be used as a litmus test for an organization which has an unparalleled record of distinguished service to the profession.

I may not agree with some of them about the Churchill case. But I agree with them that AAUP is, has been, and remains a beacon for all of us in very rough waters. I’d urge you to join, get active, and come talk to us in person — at the Annual Meeting, perhaps.

Those who disagree with you about a whole range of matters will still be glad to see you there. Solidarity, M

Michael Berube, who warned me on camera that trolls on unmoderated fora were going to be the bane of my existence, also got into the action, posting two or three times:


it is incredibly rude for Prof. Berube to blast the reading public for “ignorance”, when in fact the AAUP is complicit in creating that public perception.

Sigh.

Once again, I am not blasting the “reading public” for “ignorance.” I am, rather, addressing two people who are offering uninformed opinions about the AAUP in a public forum, and who refuse to admit it when they’re called out on their misinformation. There is a difference, after all, between being uninformed about the AAUP’s operations (as most people are, through no fault of their own) and being uninformed about the AAUP’s operations and mouthing off in blog comment sections anyway.

It really is kind of surreal. When Fred here learned that the national AAUP is not defending Churchill, his fallback position was “well, people have that impression, so I’m still right.” This is a very strange argument. If I said, “the United Nations is going to destroy the United States and install a world government,” and someone pointed out (with whatever degree of “condescension”) that I was wrong about this, would I be justified in replying, “yes, but some people believe this, and the U.N. has not dispelled the impression, so I’m right”? As for the Colorado chapter: as Marc points out in comment 17 (with, I admit, far more patience than I have), it doesn’t speak for me.

And as for aha — sigh again. In the course of one comment he says that Committee A “very carefully selects which cases it will ‘officially’ investigate so as not to rock any important boats,” and that this explains . . . why the AAUP has allegedly given people the impression that it is defending Ward Churchill? Quoi?

On other matters about which aha is half-informed: the shutdown of the AAUP listserv had nothing to do with “dissent,” and everything to do with the realization that a once-useless forum had become a vicious one. And I’d really like to hear how the Ivies have been violating the 1940 Statement with regard to tenure, since the statement doesn’t say anything about whether a university has to grant tenure after a probationary period.

The AAUP investigation of universities affected by Hurricane Katrina, by the way, is a marvelous piece of work. Anyone interested in forming an informed opinion of the AAUP and its operations should check it out.

That wasn’t enough for our friend, who is quick to Google and even quicker to judgment, who raced back on to post comments #23, 25, 26, 27, and 28, including the claim that

Once again, AAUP National Council members are themselves the source of “misinformation” on this blog thread (cf. especially Comments 17 and 22). Rather than admit that the National AAUP took public positions on the matter, the National Council members instead deny that the National AAUP could make any pronouncements without a full-blown Committee A investigation — which the results of a few minutes’ research on the Web belie.

The substance of this person’s “few minutes research on the Web” are two related statements made in February and March 2005, before the UC administration had initiated an investigation into its charges of scholarly misconduct or moved to terminate Churchill’s employment.

Both simply urge faculty due process in the case — that “the decision process belongs with his faculty peers, and should not be influenced by inflammatory statements by public officials that interfere in the decisions of the academic community.”

I’ve reproduced the March 2005 statement below in its entirety. The statement actually congratulates UC-Boulder for refraining from inititating an at least openly politically motivated inquiry and then cautions that the same political motivations should not affect the faculty inquiry into the charges.

The decision of the administration of the University of Colorado, Boulder, not to initiate action against Professor Ward Churchill on the basis of hostility toward his statements was in keeping with principles of academic freedom. A university truly committed to academic freedom will do its utmost to resist pressure from those who want to rid the institution of an offending professor, even when the pressure is intense and threatening.

The Boulder administration has, however, decided to refer allegations of research misconduct against Professor Churchill to the Campus Committee on Research Misconduct. We note that the administration acted on these allegations after it had investigated Professor Churchill’s controversial writings. We trust that the professor’s offending opinions and reactions to them will have no role in decisions to be reached in this case. In the event that the committee concludes that a full investigation is warranted and recommends possible disciplinary action, the administration will be required, under the university’s own rules and generally accepted standards of the academic profession, to demonstrate before a faculty hearing committee adequacy of cause to impose punishment. Adherence to these rules and standards not only protects the individual, but also, like academic freedom, benefits society at large.

The controversy stirred by those who objected to Professor Churchill’s remarks about the victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001, is a forceful reminder that there are many who, misunderstanding the mission of the university, would curtail academic freedom rather than allow the expression of unsettling, even repugnant ideas. We believe, to the contrary, that society is best served when members of the academic profession are free to take strong issue with the most deeply held beliefs and are at the same time afforded responsibility for judging whether one of their own is fit to continue on the institution’s faculty.

In other words, AAUP made strong statements about academic freedom and due process, but didn’t pre-judge the case. Since it was not asked to investigate the process that actually lead to the termination of Churchill’s employment, it has not taken a position. That of course does not prevent individual members, including officers, and chapters, from having opinions of their own. These opinions, to my knowledge, do in fact vary widely and are based on very different knowledge and experience.

You can join AAUP here. As I told Fred, you’ll be welcomed warmly, even by those with whom you disagree on any number of issues.

Posted at 08:30:41 AM on July 20, 2008 | All postings by Marc Bousquet

Comments

  1. I was a member of AAUP for 40 years (and, assuming that membership continues after retirement, I still am). On the pragmatic level, the organization has accomplilshed quit a bit for faculty, including, at my university, TA’s and adjuncts) by way of salary increases, oversight of the administration’s promotion decisions, and the like.

    But on core issues of principle, like academic freedom, I have seen AAUP become increasingly wobbly over the years. It has declined to defend faculty rights, or done so only pro forma, in many cases, while justifying dubious behavior under the inapproriate claim of “academic freedom.”

    Specifically, AAUP has been quite reluctant to vindicate faculty (or students!) when they get into hot water over allegations of “politically incorrect” remarks and the like. Where, for instance, was AAUP when Daphne Patai was being sued by Catherine MacKinnon for publishing an eminent justifiable critique of MacKinnon’s “feminism”? Similarly, what did AAUP do to intervene when Mary Lefkowitz was hit with a lawsuit from her ostensible Wellesley “colleague,” Anthony Martin? Or when Elizabeth Loftus was effectively hounded out of U. of Washington on phony ethics charges for antagonizing the “Recovered Memory of Abuse” lobby? Has it made itself heard at Colorado College, where the administration has tried to punish students for the horrendous offense of turning out a parody of a militant-feminist newsletter?

    On the other hand, the recent number of “Academe” devoted to “advocacy” teaching, was a disgrace. Most of the articles passionately defended the right of ideologically-committed professors to turn their lectures into dogmatic indoctrination sessions (provided, of course, that the dogmas concerned are on the “approved” list like radical feminism or various other brands of identity politics). Academic freedom covers a lot; specifically, it authorizes publishing and public advocacy of any views whatsoever, in professional journals, magazines, op-ed essays, and so forth—but NOT to a captive audience in a classroom, at least not without explilcitly opening the discussion to other views in an atmosphere where it is clear that agreement with the professor brings no favors and dissent no retaliation.

    AAUP is entirely too smug about its own supposed virtues and far too unwilling to reconsider its ideological commitments.

    — Fossil · Jul 20, 10:23 AM · #

  2. The blog host has omitted my Comment 29 which queries whether the Colorado chapter of the AAUP has asked for a Committee A investigation and been rebuffed.

    The reader is encouraged to consult the comments posted in rebuttal to the National Council members “screeds” – which were reproduced in their entirety on this thread while my own and Fred’s cogent responses were reduced into single “remarks” out-of-context.

    The National Council members need to retreat from their statements that the AAUP only makes fficially” after a complete Committee A investigation that has been completely ratified by the AAUP governance process. That is, quite simply, not the case inasmuch as the reprinted statement above is not only an example – it is not the only example (cf. my comments on the preceding thread).

    Further, the National Council members seek to obfuscate the fact that the AAUP is a “toothless tiger” which refuses to investigate violations of the 1940 Statement in the Ivies. When challenged as one reads above, I produced the example of the flagrant and rampant violation of the seven-year limit which the Ivies have transformed into a ten-year limit with nary a censure from AAUP. Different strokes for different folks, indeed.

    Again, while the blog host wishes to paint critics as verbose “ignoramuses” who know not of which they speak, he forgets that, indeed, the Web stands by with official documents which support his (and his fellow National Council member)‘s critics more than they would care to admit.

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Jul 20, 11:01 AM · #

  3. Typo and omission in Comment 2:

    The third paragraph should read: The National Council members need to retreat from their statements that the AAUP only makes “official” statements to the press after a complete Committee A investigation that has been completely ratified by the AAUP governance process. That is, quite simply, not the case inasmuch as the reprinted statement above is not only an example – it is not the only example (cf. my comments on the preceding thread).

    Again the reader is encouraged to read the comments at the preceding thread where linked official documentation is provided in support of my and Fred’s objections: http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/bousquet/associated-press-profiles-cary-nelson

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Jul 20, 11:09 AM · #

  4. Fossil, the blundering in the membership office notwithstanding, your membership status is easy to determine. Did you pays dues this year? If so, you’re a member. There are quite reasonable rates for students, retired faculty, and faculty serving contingently.

    As for the cases you name—I’m not on Committee A. But it can only act when asked. And it has INCREASINGLY LIMITED resources… ‘cause the whole profession wants AAUP to helicopter in from Washington when for the 10,000th time in a year an administration violates the rights of faculty… but few of the 10,000 whose rights were violated were members, paying dues. The association runs on a budget MUCH smaller than my disciplinary associations, the Modern Language Association and CCCC.

    Academe is a journal, edited by an individual. It does not represent “Association policy,” and publishes the views of Anne Neal as well as those of Cary Nelson. You’re entitled to your view of advocacy teaching, as am I; we would disagree about it. But it is simply not correct to insinuate that AAUP exists to promote what you call identity politics.

    So in answer to your question, where was the AAUP? We’re right here—taking over 1,000 calls for help a year, mostly from non-members and doing what we can about them.

    We’d like to a do lot more. We welcome the active participation of retired faculty in every capacity, and there’s no political litmus test to join, serve as an officer, etc.

    — Marc Bousquet · Jul 20, 11:39 AM · #

  5. Does the AAUP ever investigate faculty unions? My own experience suggests that one consequence of the adjunctification of the faculty is that junior faculty on the tenure track are more vulnerable then they have ever been. For example, at my former institution, it was easier for the administration to deny me tenure, than it was for them to terminate the contract of my friend—a full-time lecturer. My former union was quite willing to go to bat for lecturers, and they led me strongly to believe that my future was secure (historically, tenure was denied to less than 2% of TT faculty), but when the chips were down, they hung me out to dry, by accepting my grievance of the tenure denial, but then doing almost nothing on my case. At the beginning of my case, the union all but assured me that I would not only get tenure, but a promotion as well, but after a few months (and a newly negotiated contract after a strike, and significant staff changes in Academic Affairs, including a new Provost), they urged me to simply drop the grievance and walk away. So, sorry to take this thread in a different direction, but the blog host has spoken repeatedly about the adjunctification problem, but, as far as I know, has not addressed how this sea change in academia has affected the careers of junior faculty who were lucky (?) enough to land in a TT position. Has the AAUP looked into this? An unintended consequence of the movement to unionize adjuncts may be that faculty unions will step up to protect adjuncts and lecturers while hanging TT junior faculty out to dry (this seems to be the unspoken trade-off of the new contract at my former institution).

    — in denial · Jul 20, 12:42 PM · #

  6. Oh, thank you so much, “in denial”, for Comment 5.

    A little known fact is that the AAUP does not interfere in the workings of its related unions – and that might also include AFT since some of AAUP’s union affiliates are listed on the AAUP Website as AFT unions. At least according to a report to me concerning a Collective Bargaining Conference officer who was asked that very question.

    So, that’s just one more little “bait and switch” for your AAUP membership dolllars!

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Jul 20, 12:53 PM · #

  7. “in denial”—I obviously can’t comment on your individual case, and I don’t know of any formal committee A reports on situations resembling yours. I have certainly heard of faculty who are disappointed in the advocacy of their union, or faculty senate, or the AAUP, though I’ve tended to hear more often about the nontenurable being less-energetically supported.

    What does ring true to me is that tenure is increasingly visible as a less and less substantial form of job security, and that the securities and expectations resulting from collective bargaining are often superior, in the academy and out.

    I don’t know of tradeoffs of the sort you describe, but in general, unions—like universities, like the AAUP, like faculty senates and faculty committees—are imperfect instruments, composed of even more imperfect human beings.

    I urge you to write about your case—in Academe, in IHE and CHE, and by all means, to contact the staff for Committee A for help.

    Solidarity, M

    — Marc Bousquet · Jul 20, 02:12 PM · #

  8. In response to Prof. Bousquet, Comment #4 above:

    Believe it or not, the world does not (or should not) revolve around the formal actions of Committee A. There are plenty of situations where academic freedom is on the line that don’t involve transgression of AAUP’s tenure and employment principles—I’ve just cited a few, quite deliberately—but which one would expect the AAUP to take notice of in some fashion. Many of the Committee A cases are murky when looked at from the point of view of acaemic freedom; mostly, they seem to arise from purely pecuniary motives on the part of administrations, or from personal quarrels over governance issues. Real threats to academic freedom, per se, are seldom addressed by these cases.

    As to the attempt to suggest some important gap between AAUP as such and its house organ, “Academe,” this seems to me disingenuous. The people responsible for the journal, its contents, and, presumably, its tone are largely co-extensive with AAUP’s officers. I think that any disinterested observer would have to acknowledge that the tone is, indeed, strongly resonant with identity politics. In any case, it’s a severe embarassment to AAUP, as well as “Academe,” to publish such a one-sided and dogmatic package of essays on an imprtant topic. It hardly strengthens the case that David Horowitz & Co. are guilty of misrepresenting the biases of university faculties.

    PS: I’m trying to ascertain whether my retirement package covers some kind of continuing AAUP membership. If not, I’ll gladly sign up, just to have bitching and moaning rights.

    — Fossil · Jul 20, 03:05 PM · #

  9. It was disingenuous for Marc to write this blog post, and to conceal that the CU chapter of AAUP did in fact support Churchill.

    Furthermore, AAUP president Cary Nelson was publicly defending Churchill as late as June 2007. I have lost a great deal of respect for Cary Nelson personally over the past few days, as I look more closely at his history of involvement in these issues. For the AAUP president to be publicly parroting Churchill’s talking points as late as June 07 is incredible. Anyone paying attention to the Churchill case knew that he was a total fraud by June 2006 at the latest, when the CU investigative report was published, and corroborated by extensive investigative reporting in the Rocky Mountain News. For Nelson to take the position he did shows that he cares more about politics than ethical substance.

    In addition, we’ve seen the AAUP journal and AAUP official Bousquet defend advocacy teaching — which is not only unprofessional, but a real danger to academic freedom. AAUP official Berube is co-publishing with extremist, fringe types such as Churchill, Dana Cloud, Robert Jensen, etc.

    While I personally am a left of center person, I do not think it is productive for the academy’s major advocate for faculty to project such an extremist, politicized face. A case can be made that those voices should be heard in the academy, but I do not believe that they should be running the show at the AAUP. The AAUP should take care to represent faculty on substantive issues of employment such as the ones that Marc routinely raises in this blog, and not permit itself to be used as a public platform for the advocacy of fringe issues that do not affect most faculty.

    — Fred · Jul 20, 03:21 PM · #

  10. Fred, I’m one of the least disingenuous folks you’re going to meet anywhere, and I didn’t “conceal” anything about UC—AAUP: I don’t know much about them. Likewise I didn’t “defend” advocacy teaching—just indicated that I didn’t share “Fossil’s” views. I furthermore don’t keep track of Cary’s many speaking engagements and publications: he writes more than most Americans read. But I suspect you’re not being accurate by describing him as “publicly parroting Churchill’s talking points.”

    In any event, we do agree that employment issues need to be front and center, and I hope not just in the AAUP, but a lot of other places as well. As for who should be running the organization, as a “left of center person” you already know the answer: join, run for office, make yourself heard.

    Fossil, glad to have your bitching and moaning on board! (But you may want to take your complaints about the Academe issue to Paula Krebs at Wheaton, who doesn’t take marching orders from anyone at AAUP HQ…)

    — Marc Bousquet · Jul 20, 08:28 PM · #

  11. re Nelson’s reiteration of Churchill’s talking points, hear:

    http://www.insidehighered.com/var/podcast/media/2007-06-06_nelsonpodcastfinal.mp3

    Nelson repeats the “limited number of paragraphs” defense: “How representative are those patches that were focused on? Are they characterizations of his work as a whole . . . ?”

    Think about this for more than a second, and any ethical scholar will conclude that it is a fatuous and irrelevant argument.

    — Fred · Jul 20, 08:49 PM · #

  12. On Comment 9:

    Academe does contain an “up front” disclaimer that the opinions expressed are those of the authors but, nonetheless, the point about the need for “balance” on a hot-button issue is well taken. Oh, to have John D. Lyons back as editor….

    On Comment 11:

    The “double standard” in the assessment of academic plagiarism is striking. Litmus test: If you’d fail a student who did that, then the colleague must “fail” as well. The demonstrable reticence to evaluate and condemn a colleague’s plagiarism does give the impression that “There but for the grace of God go I” is on the mind of the speaker.

    On Comment 10:

    The reader simply expects that members of the AAUP’s board of directors (National Council) are aware of major developments in the organization like important policy press releases. The chapter’s statement in support of Churchill (more an ethical call for a third-party examination of the processes used – implying Committee A?) was formally released to the press by the National AAUP as an official AAUP response: “AAUP Responds: UC Boulder Decision on Churchill’s Statements”
    http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/newsroom/prarchives/2005/churchllstatement.htm

    Election to National Council should be more than a resume-builder for faculty cliques; it should entail the responsibility to research before responding – as befits a professional holding office as an elected representative of AAUP members.

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Jul 20, 09:48 PM · #

  13. Fred—Are you sure that you’ve read the actual documents in the Churchill case? You do understand that the charges of “plagiarism” in the case amount to one co-authored essay/pamphlet in which the co-author’s name was eventually dropped by the press when Churchill revised the pamphlet into a book chapter, plus some substantial ghostwriting? There were six charges of of “misconduct,” found by the external review, three of which were dismissed by the appeal commitee. Neither the investigative committee nor the appeals committee felt that dismissal was warranted.

    In any event, Nelson isn’t—as you’ve repeated over and over again “parroting Churchill’s talking points” in this interview or elsewhere. He is asking questions about the process consistent with AAUP policy.

    Here’s Nelson in the middle of an MLA Delegate Assembly debate on a Churchill resolution:

    “Nelson, of the AAUP, noted that some professors believe Churchill received due process and that the faculty role was respected at Colorado. He proposed an amendment ‹ a version of which eventually passed ‹ that criticized Colorado for starting the investigation as it did, but that offered no opinion on the decision to fire Churchill. ‘We [the MLA] are not set up to judge the character and quality of that investigation,’ he said.”
    INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION
    DECEMBER 30, 2007

    Why not save your energy for a real debate, Fred? So far your original charge about AAUP “wasting resources” on a “defense” of Churchill seems to have utterly evaporated.

    Now a real debate might be whether it should have expended resources defending his academic freedom, or whether the Committee A structure needs overhaul, etc.

    — Marc Bousquet · Jul 21, 07:56 AM · #

  14. >>> From a cross-post of this thread over at THE VALVE:

    Comments
    “Fred” and “Anti-hypocricy advocate” regularly troll elsewhere—Yglesias and Crooked Timber, I think, maybe Kevin Drum.

    For whatever reason, mild-mannered centrists draw the nastiest and most diligent trolls.
    By John Emerson on 07/20/08 at 06:26 PM |

    I wonder if that “Fred” is the one who shows up here, sometimes as “Fred” and sometimes as “Phred”? When he shows up as “Phred” he’s awfully like the ToS.
    By Bill Benzon on 07/20/08 at 06:49 PM

    Anti-hypocrisy advocate also trolls Inside Higher Ed, fwiw.
    By joseph duemer on 07/20/08 at 09:31 PM

    — anon · Jul 21, 08:04 AM · #

  15. “Trolling” is in the eye of the beholder. And, of course, name-calling rather than addressing the more uncomfortable issues is easily perceived by the reader as a diversionary tactic.

    AHA-Erlebnis

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Jul 21, 08:31 AM · #

  16. AAUP official Berube is co-publishing with extremist, fringe types such as Churchill, Dana Cloud, Robert Jensen, etc.

    In my defense, I was unaware that it was not permitted for me to do this. In the future, I will strive to publish forewords to collections of essays only when I agree with every contributor thereto. But the afterword I just wrote for the collection Marxism, Cultural Studies and Sport, to which some actually existing Marxists contributed — well, I can’t take that one back now. My apologies.

    — Michael Bérubé · Jul 22, 09:26 AM · #

  17. As an “outsider” who followed the Churchill case, I think the AAUP’s actions were pathetic. It seemed like their board was more interested in getting some attention from themselves out of it than bothering to actually review the case and make a real decision. Clearly, their own membership has had a lot of issues with how the AAUP handles themselves, and this to me was another “black eye.” They went about it all wrong, and lost some credibility.

    — Grant Crowell · Jul 26, 06:11 AM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education | Contact us
User agreement | Privacy policy | About The Chronicle | Site map | Help
Subscribe | Advertise with us | Press inquiries | RSS | Today's most e-mailed
Home | Chronicle Careers | The Chronicle Review