Currently browsing posts filed under "All Things EphBlog"

Follow this category via RSS

Next Page →

The “Teach It Forward” Campaign–Where is it now?

The “Teach It Forward” campaign was launched by Williams in 2015. Ephblog had posted about this at the start of the campaign, but there haven’t yet been any follow-ups on the campaign’s progression. It’s useful to look at its results so far.

According to the TIF website, the college has raised $685.01 million so far, making TIF the most ambitious and most successful campaign “in the history of liberal arts colleges” to date. This value surpasses the $650 million target that was set initially. Alumni participation (in terms of donations) stands at 74.1%, just under the 75% target. Overall alumni participation (in terms of both donations and volunteering) stands at 85%.

It would be interesting to see how the college has spent and plans to spend the money it has raised. Have they released information to alumni regarding how much of the $685 million they have alotted to different areas of expense?

Facebooktwitter

A Six Month Experiment

EphBlog is like a keg party at Perry.

And I am the host.

What do I want? A fun party for everyone, with intellectual conversation, a little music, a lot of dancing and the moderate consumption of adult beverages.

But parties are tricky! I want everyone to be (and feel!) welcome, to have a good time, to come back next week. Yet, conflicts will arise. Some people want the music louder. Some want it quieter. Some want no music at all. The balancing act falls to me, as it has for last 6,013 or so days.

Which bring us to my co-blogger, former Williams professor John Drew (JCD). His contributions to EphBlog, while enjoyed by me and others, have caused great consternation among many people who I very much want at my Perry kegger. What to do?

With JCD’s kind indulgence, we will be running an experiment for the rest of 2019.

1) JCD will continue as a valued author at EphBlog, posting content directly related to “All Things Eph,” just as he has done for many years. Indeed, I think his last 20 or so posts have been exactly what EphBlog needs more of.

2) JCD will turn comments off on his posts. (Any author can turn off comments at any time on their own posts. It just seems to me that the comment threads in JCD’s posts have . . . uh . . . not always been very productive.)

3) JCD will not comment on any other posts. As much as I enjoy most of JCD’s posts over the last few months, his comments have . . . uh . . . not always captured the spirit of a good Perry party.

4) Comments about JCD will be deleted. There is nothing new that anyone could possible say on this topic that has not already been said before. Good parties are never boring.

What if JCD posts something that either a) you want to talk about or b) you think is wrong/misleading? You have three options. First, you can join EphBlog as an author! Authors write about whatever they want. Second, you can make a comment in another thread. Third, you can ask me to create a new post about the topic on which all might comment, as I did here, in reaction to this comment. But don’t forget Rule 4 above!

Comments on this (and predictions about) this experiment are welcome! But don’t forget Rule 4 above!

Picture from the Williams Record of September 13, 1988.

Facebooktwitter

Uncomfortable Wearing

Bachelorette – 2019 contestant Dylan Barbour ’16 has stirred up social media due to his leverage of a salmon suit jacket. Alert viewers have noticed that four of the men competing for the lovely Hannah Brown’s heart have worn what appears to be the same pinkish jacket.

Twitter is ablaze with comments about the blazer. So far Jed Wyatt, Tyler Cameron, Dylan Barbour ’16, and Connor Saeli have been spotted wearing the now famous salmon colored jacket. Unfortunately, a female Twitter user took a cheap shot at the fellows and teased them for being members of “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Salmon Jacket.”

Dylan, 24, took a B.A. in English from Williams and minored in leadership studies. He was on the football and track team. Before becoming a tech entrepreneur, Dylan was an associate at Morgan Stanley. So far, we have no evidence if Dylan is a regular reader of Ephblog.

Hannah, 24, attended the relatively easy to enter University of Alabama where she graduated magna cum laude with a degree in communications. Given the gap between their educational credentials, they may not have much to talk about. Still, Hannah did go on to become Miss Alabama USA in 2018. By all accounts, she used “…this platform to help others.” So there’s that.

 

Facebooktwitter

Ephblog Comment Moderation Transparency – Updated

In the spirit of transparency, and given that “free speech” is a frequent canard of Ephblog(‘s mostly more-conservative posters), I have included, below the break, the complete collection of comments that have been deleted on Ephblog that are available to me as an author.  I suspect that there are older comments not included below (I have had comments deleted in the past, for example, but none are included in the below compendium).  I have not in any way culled these comments: what I can see is what you see below, with one small noted edit to prevent a semi-anonymous poster from being formally outed.

Some quick observations:

  • although a handful of the comments below are personal attacks, the majority of deleted comments have at least some substantive component and relevancy to the discussion;
  • the deleted comments are overwhelmingly made by politically left-leaning posters;
  • the deletions are overwhelmingly made by politically right-leaning posters (mostly David and John C. Drew, who are ironically also this site’s most vocal proponents of free speech besides PTC);
  • a few of these were double-posted comments or comments deleted by the comment’s author (JCD deleted several of his own comments in his own threads, for example).

I wanted to also excerpt one comment that I think merits more attention.  From “Recent alum” (and deleted, unsurprisingly, by John C. Drew):

David, on this post John C. Drew, a person who has had no association with Williams for almost twice my lifetime and has perviously cyberstalked Williams students in the comments section of the Williams Alternative, is comparing a current Williams student to a fictional cannibalistic serial killer. Please look in the mirror and sincerely ask whether this is at all productive or whether you’re just creating a dangerous situation.

In fact, many of the deleted comments specifically question John C. Drew’s credibility or the wisdom of giving him a platform regarding Williams.  I think it is interesting–and worthy of additional consideration–that an entire topic of discussion is currently being suppressed by active Ephblog moderation.

***For the sake of full disclosure, I reserve the right to moderate comments in this thread, although I will try to note when I have done so and explain why.***

Update: I have added two additional comments below that were mistakenly flagged as “spam” and therefore deleted.

Read more

Facebooktwitter

Inside the Purple Rubble

The College Fix is linking to an article at Inside Higher Ed which reports that the committee created by President Maud Mandel last fall to make the school “both intellectually open and inclusive” plans to “focus on persuading, not ordering, student groups to avoid controversial speakers.” According to the committee chair, Prof. Jana Sawicki:

The goal is to not restrict who can speak on campus but to prompt the students who invite those guests to consider whether they have academic value and whether individual speakers’ views would offend minority students or make them feel harmed, she said, adding that speakers brought on campus by student groups are generally the most controversial.

One idea the committee floated was involving faculty advisers to student clubs in more of the discussions about which speakers to invite to the campus, Sawicki said. If a student group wanted to host a controversial speaker, the adviser could talk with the club members about whether they’d thought through how the speaker’s views would affect their peers, she said. The advisers, who currently are not involved in club operations, would never stop the students from hosting a speaker they wanted, Sawicki said.

The committee’s recommendations strike The College Fix as unrealistic. How, for example, can the school promote freedom of speech if the goal is to not offend minority students who have shown themselves to be intolerant of the views of even their white, liberal, elected student council representatives? One student was so offended by having to ask for funding for a black preview event that she went back later and called the white student representatives “d***heads.” As The College Fix reports:

Black student activists at Williams College are no shrinking violets. They took over a recent student government meeting, unloading a string of vulgarities against elected student leaders for allegedly favoring white students with more funding than black students get.

They used anti-gay and even anti-black language, if you can believe it: “to be here [at Williams] is like sucking white d*** every f***ing day.” “We want some money to f***ing cook some fried f***ing chicken and be n***ers.”

Williams College asks students not to invite speakers who ‘would offend minority students’

Facebooktwitter

The Left Eats Its Own Café

Over at The College Fix this morning, there is an article by Rory Walsh reporting on the  shocking livestream video posted on Facebook by the College Council.

Black students explode in anger at white students in vulgarity-laced rant (VIDEO)

In his article, Walsh provides us with redacted examples of the profane language used by I.B. as he called out liberal white student representatives for the way they dealt with an earlier request by S.O. for funding for a preview event for black students.

“… It’s time for you’all to figure this sh*t out and check yourself because I’m really losing it,” he said. “We are f***ing tired of having to come and beg and suck d***. And of course when we come and do it we face problems all the f***ing time.”

“… Every time to be here is like sucking white d*** every f***ing day,” he said. “Closing our mouths every f***ing day just to be here. And if we dare ask for a little bit of time, money and space we gotta suck some more d***. … It is so frustrating. It’s so tiring … to be here. To deal with you’all.”

“We keep our heads down, it don’t work,” he said. “We try to create space for us, it don’t work. We want some money to f***ing cook some fried f***king chicken and be n*****s for once, it don’t work. I just don’t get it.”

Walsh cites comments I made at my Anonymous Political Scientist blogsite too. He notes I had observed the video “…is an excellent example of the sort of political abuse that tore down Evergreen State College.”

Walsh reports that The College Fix attempted to reach several members of the College Council as well as administration for a statement. They have yet to respond.

The comments on Walsh’s article are generally adverse to the student activists.

Another tasty serving at The Left Eats Its Own Café.

What the Alt Left doesn’t understand is that white people aren’t out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity.

Williams is about as left wing as a functioning college can be. Blacks need to move across the river to SUNY Albany.

You’re not trying to create a community. You’re trying to create a segregated, black racist bubble. The campus in its entirety is your community, and if you don’t like it, you can always transfer.

Just for the record: I’m not Black and I love fried chicken.

According to his biography, Rory Walsh studies industrial labor relations, American politics, and business at Cornell University. He has interned for former New York Congresswoman Claudia Tenney. After completing his undergraduate degree he plans to study law and business.

 

Facebooktwitter

Disintegrating, 4

A Senior Williams Professor and I will be debating the following resolution: Resolved: Williams is disintegrating. Each Monday, one of us will make an argument. One week later, the other will respond. We will debate until we grow bored with the exercise. Readers are welcome to chime in at any time. This week, I respond to Senior Professor’s second argument. (His words in blockquotes.)

President Mandel’s embrace of “diversity and inclusiveness” as her agenda for her presidency is, quite simply, sophomoric.

I am very sympathetic to the general point that Williams ought to spend much more time worrying about excellence and much less time working on diversity. But nonsense is nonsense, whatever the ideological predilections of its proponents. And this is nonsense.

What evidence is there that Mandel has made “diversity and inclusiveness” the “agenda” for her presidency? Here is her induction speech. Although she mentions items about diversity and inclusion, they do not occupy a central place in her speech, nor in any of her talks since assuming the presidency. Yes, she cares about these things, but there is no evidence that she cares about them more than, say, great teaching or superb extra-curriculars or any other item which might, plausibly, be part of the “agenda” of a Williams president. If anything, the evidence points the other way, suggesting that Maud’s main agenda, at least in 2019, is to fix the Falk/Derbyshire disaster.

And her ‘agenda’ is a tired repetition of the mantra of our past several presidents, beginning with Frank Oakley, our last intelligent dean of faculty, who in 1978 proposed a fantastic Great Books program, but who then abandoned that idea as he saw that he might become President, which indeed happened.

You think the focus on diversity began with Oakley? Hah! Diversity was just as much a focus under Chandler, even going back to Sawyer and the increase in black enrollment in the 60s.

By the way, Oakley’s new book, From the Cast-Iron Shore: In Lifelong Pursuit of Liberal Learning, is available. Worth discussing?

Beginning with the College’s bicentennial, we’ve heard constant paeans to the supposed goals of diversity and inclusiveness.

I sometimes worry that Senior Professor is revealing too much about when he came to Williams! Although diversity has been with us for 30 years, these efforts go back, at least, to the Hopkins Hall takeover of 1969. Has Williams been disintegrating for 50 years? What is taking so long?

And what the College has wrought are dreadful programs in Women’s, Gender, & Sexuality Studies, African-American Studies, and Anti-American Studies, along with an assortment of other supposed ‘majors,’ all of which pander to the interests of various identity groups.

I agree that these programs are pernicious nonsense. Recall the wisdom of AF:

I think the value of identity studies should be actively questioned: I find it troubling that many students come to Williams only to major in themselves, as it were. In many of these departments there’s a emphasis on ideology and a paucity of facts — it is not unreasonable to say the only identity tradition that is critically studied is the Western one.

Exactly right. But the nonsense of identity studies is not our debate topic today.

Senior Professor finishes with:

I have little hope for the College’s future. I think that only when and if the College re-commits itself to intellectual excellence, first and foremost, shall it survive.

I will take the other side of that bet! The position of elite US colleges like Williams has never been stronger. They have a product to sell — and you can bet that “diversity” is part of what they are selling — and the demand for that product has never been better.

Facebooktwitter

I Now Delete Comments

This comment has pushed me over the edge.

The investigation gives us clues on how constipated Johnny Drew has been. My suggestions?

1) Dulcolax
2) Miralax

After 16+ years with no (meaningful) comment moderation — other than preventing doxing — I will now be using a different approach, deleting whatever comments I don’t like for whatever reasons I determine, all in an effort of better facilitate conversations among Ephs of goodwill.

Don’t like it? Go elsewhere.

Authors of individual posts have always retained the right to delete comments from their own threads. That will continue. But I will become much more aggressive in deleting garbage any place I find it.

Feel free to point out such garbage if you like, but I will not be refereeing pointless disputes or getting into endless battles about exactly what should or should not be deleted. Indeed, I am highly likely to delete silly arguments along those lines.

Thanks (?) to “Nation” for awakening me from my dogmatic slumber.

Facebooktwitter

Disintegrating, 3

A Senior Williams Professor and I will be debating the following resolution: Resolved: Williams is disintegrating. Each Monday, one of us will make an argument. One week later, the other will respond. We will debate until we grow bored with the exercise. Readers are welcome to chime in at any time. Senior Professors makes his second argument this week:

President Mandel’s embrace of “diversity and inclusiveness” as her agenda for her presidency is, quite simply, sophomoric. And her ‘agenda’ is a tired repetition of the mantra of our past several presidents, beginning with Frank Oakley, our last intelligent dean of faculty, who in 1978 proposed a fantastic Great Books program, but who then abandoned that idea as he saw that he might become President, which indeed happened. Beginning with the College’s bicentennial, we’ve heard constant paeans to the supposed goals of diversity and inclusiveness. And what the College has wrought are dreadful programs in Women’s, Gender, & Sexuality Studies, African-American Studies, and Anti-American Studies, along with an assortment of other supposed ‘majors,’ all of which pander to the interests of various identity groups. I have little hope for the College’s future. I think that only when and if the College re-commits itself to intellectual excellence, first and foremost, shall it survive.

What do readers think? I will respond in two weeks.

Facebooktwitter

Disintegrating, 2

A Senior Williams Professor and I will be debating the following resolution: Resolved: Williams is disintegrating. Each Monday, one of us will make an argument. One week later, the other will respond. We will debate until we grow bored with the exercise. Readers are welcome to chime in at any time. Senior Professor went first. His words from last week are in quote blocks.

The College has abandoned its traditional standards for tenure for faculty.

Evidence? I have spoken with lots of Williams faculty and heard many complaints. I have never heard one claim that tenure standards are lower today than they were, at Williams, in the past. If anything, the consensus view is that tenure standards, especially for publications, are much higher now then they were in the 80s, much less the 50s.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, one in four of faculty members who stood for tenure received it. Note that a normal core of junior faculty hired consisted of 20 assistant professors. Half of these would wash out at the 3-year renewal mark, leaving 10 in the cohort who would apply for tenure in their sixth year. Only four of those who stood for tenure would receive it. This was the historical norm at Williams College.

I have heard similar numbers. Indeed, a (different!) senior professor suggested that this change was one of the two biggest in the last 30 years — the other being increased diversity among the students.

2. What is the current rate of tenure at Williams College? There is no longer a 3-year washout of faculty hired. Essentially anyone hired eventually stands for tenure six years after hire.

3. As best as one can tell, 98 percent of those faculty who stand for tenure receive it. In the few instances where faculty are denied, several are given tenure after appeals.

98% is a dramatic overestimate. The real number is much closer to 75%. See the detailed evidence provided by BN. Also note this comment:

Most top universities have tenure rates in the 70-90% range these days. Williams does not look to be at all unusual in that sense.

Correct. If a higher tenure rate is causing Williams to disintegrate, why don’t we see the same thing at Amherst and Harvard?

But none of that matters! It is possible to have lax standards and only tenure 10% (if the initial pool you hire from is week). It is possible — and is the case at Williams today — to have rigorous standards and tenure 75% if your initial pool is very strong.

But we are only going to make progress with specific examples. Consider Political Science in 2017-2018:

There are two associate professors: Justin Crowe and Ngonidzashe Munemo. Laura Ephraim just received tenure last year and is now an associate professor. Compare this listing to the halcyon days of higher standards in 1987-1988, thirty years ago:

Annoyingly, there were no associate professors that year. But Raymond Baker and Richard Krouse were associate professors just a few years earlier, while Tim Cook and Mike MacDonald would be tenured in the next few years. Let’s look at selected publications from Crowe, Ephraim, and Munemo:

Crowe:

Building the Judiciary: Law, Courts, and the Politics of Institutional Development (Princeton University Press, 2012).

“Westward Expansion, Preappointment Politics, and the Making of the Southern Slaveholding Supreme Court,” Studies in American Political Development 24:1 (April 2010): 90-120.

“Where Have You Gone, Sherman Minton? The Decline of the Short-Term Supreme Court Justice,” with Christopher F. Karpowitz, Perspectives on Politics 5:3 (September 2007): 425-445.

“The Forging of Judicial Autonomy: Political Entrepreneurship and the Reforms of William Howard Taft,” Journal of Politics 69:1 (February 2007): 73-87.
Political Science

Ephraim:

Archer, Crina & Ephraim, Laura & Maxwell, Lida. Second Nature: Rethinking the Natural through Politics. New York: Fordham University Press, 2013.

Who Speaks for Nature?: On the Politics of Science, by Laura Ephraim, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017.

Munemo

Munemo, Ngonidzashe. Domestic Politics and Drought Relief in Africa : Explaining Choices. First Forum Press, 2012.

How Will Climate Change Transform Governance and Regional Security in Southern Africa?” in Daniel Moran ed. Climate Change and National Security: A Country Level Analysis. (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2011)

“Social Protection in Post-Crisis Zimbabwe: Challenges and Priorities for Reform,” in Dr. Admos Chimhowu ed. Moving Forward in Zimbabwe – Reducing Poverty and Promoting Growth. (Manchester, U.K.: Brooks World Poverty Institute, The University of Manchester 2009)

Munemo N. (2008) Political Incumbency and Drought Relief in Africa. In: Barrientos A., Hulme D. (eds) Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest. Palgrave Studies in Development. Palgrave Macmillan, London

We can quibble about these CVs. And note that I have not listed everything. But are they any less impressive than the CVs of the junior political science professors like Baker, Krouse, MacDonald and Cook at Williams 30 years ago? No!

I am happy to dive into the details for any department that Senior Professor prefers. A careful examination will show that the publication records of those tenured at Williams today are every bit as good as those tenured in the 1980s, much less then 1950s. To the extent that anything is “disintegrating” at Williams, we don’t see it in faculty research quality.

Facebooktwitter

Disintegrating, 1

A Senior Williams Professor and I will be debating the following resolution: Resolved: Williams is disintegrating. Each Monday, one of us will make an argument. One week later, the other will respond. We will debate until we grow bored with the exercise. Readers are welcome to chime in at any time. Senior Professor goes first:

1. The College has abandoned its traditional standards for tenure for faculty. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, one in four of faculty members who stood for tenure received it. Note that a normal core of junior faculty hired consisted of 20 assistant professors. Half of these would wash out at the 3-year renewal mark, leaving 10 in the cohort who would apply for tenure in their sixth year. Only four of those who stood for tenure would receive it. This was the historical norm at Williams College.

2. What is the current rate of tenure at Williams College? There is no longer a 3-year washout of faculty hired. Essentially anyone hired eventually stands for tenure six years after hire.

3. As best as one can tell, 98 percent of those faculty who stand for tenure receive it. In the few instances where faculty are denied, several are given tenure after appeals.

Senior Professor argues: this is a prescription for organizational suicide.

My response next week.

Facebooktwitter

Request to Contact PTC

From a reader:

PTC – I was hoping to ask you a few questions about Williamstown that really don’t have anything to do with the college, so I would rather not post them on EphBlog. If you’re ok with that, could you reach out to DDF so he can connect us via email? Thanks, WL

PTC: The e-mail that you use for commenting no longer works.

Facebooktwitter

The Ghost of EphBlog Future

abl writes:

I’m going to add my voice to all of the calls to please keep JCD out of this. There is room for interesting and important discussion on these points. Invoking (summoning?) JCD into the discussion is not a productive first step towards reaching any greater understanding of these issues. Nor, especially, is demanding that some of our most thoughtful contributors apologize to JCD over points that they have made in the past that are only indirectly implicated by this discussion–and definitely do not require apologies. JCD leaving this blog was one of the best things to happen to it in recent times; please do not drag him back in.

Is there no spirit of Christian forgiveness among the EphBlog community? Must we be defined by our sins forevermore?

My purpose is not to defend everything that JCD has ever done or said. I disagree with much of it. Some of his statement/actions in the past have been, as the kids say today, “problematic.”

But I believe in redemption, in forgiveness, in the possibility of rebirth for every Eph, no matter the sins of their past. Do you?

And I like to think that that faith has been justified, at least in the case of JCD. Since joining EphBlog as an author a month ago, he has authored 5 posts, each with a direct connection to Williams. Each is a perfect example of what we need more of at EphBlog. I don’t agree with every word, but that is all to the good! And, if you think JCD focuses too much on Williams mentions in the conservative media, then step up and write some posts about Williams mentions from the other side of the media aisle.

David, you need to work on tempering what seems to be an innate desire for controversy.

A majority of the (smart! hard-working!) people in Hopkins Hall would define “controversy” as any negative news story about Williams. Is that your definition? Do you not think that I should write about, say, athletic admissions, Bernard Moore, sexual assault or any of the dozen topics that Williams, as an institution, would rather were never discussed? I hope not!

I suspect, however, that you like — or at least don’t object to — my posts on those topics. That sort of “controversy” is fine for you. Indeed, this is one of, perhaps even the main, reason that you read and contribute to EphBlog. Cool!

Instead, what you mean is that my “innate desire for controversy” is fine if I write about controversies you are interested in but less fine if I write about other sorts of controversies. Or am I being unfair?

You have a good nose for Williams-related issues and, combined with your focus on and commitment to the College, you can make a real contribution to the college community. Ephblog often comes close to being a really wonderful resource for both Williams alums and those interested in the college more generally (like PTC).

“Comes close?” Compared to what? Your Platonic ideal of the perfect college blog? Does any such creature exist in this fallen world?

EphBlog is the best college blog in the world. (If you disagree, suggest one that is better.)

But you continually shoot yourself in the foot by taking things just one step too far or by making points inflammatory that really shouldn’t be.

One Eph’s “inflammatory” is another Eph’s “punchy writing.”

This is a good example of this. You’ve done a nice job finding Professor Maroja’s blog and tying it into a broader discussion that is happening at Williams–one that has national relevance. And you’ve done a good job in recognizing that there are nuances to these issues that those on all sides of this gloss over–including Professor Maroja specifically.

Thanks! Compliments from discerning readers are always appreciated.

But you really stumble with your entirely unnecessary bit re JCD.

Perhaps. Mistakes will be made. Feedback is always welcome.

Ephblog could be a forum for intelligent like-minded individuals with an important shared connection to consider many important issues.

“Could be?” Again, compared to what? There is no more intelligent forum (devoted to a single institution of higher education) in the world. (Contrary pointers welcome.) Even something as excellent as Dartblog in its heyday never allowed comments.

Ephblog is at its worst when it devolves into trolling and troll-baiting.

Again, I have been yelled at (not an exaggeration!) by a trustee (in public!) about my posts on athletic admissions. He viewed any discussion of admissions advantages for athletes as “trolling,” although, back in 2007, I am sure he would have used different terminology.

I’d like to think that we, as a community of Williams alums, are better than that–but I’m not sure we always are. As the de facto (official?) leader of Ephblog, you can and should and do play a big role in setting the tone for these discussions. You do so many things so well in this regard, it’s infuriating when you just can’t resist adding some poke or snark at the end. So often the result is to derail what otherwise might be a thoughtful discussion of an important issue.

Point taken! I will aim to do better in the future. Happy New Year!

Facebooktwitter

Professor Paul Red Pills the Left: Democrat Party Increasingly Represents the Rich

“Democrats won back the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections thanks to strong gains among the rich,” writes Williams College political science professor Darel E. Paul. “What many pundits have described as a Republican rout in the suburbs is nothing less than the party’s sharp decline among the wealthiest American households.”

Paul backs up his findings in a new article in First Things, America’s most influential journal of religion and public life.

The upshot of the 2018 midterms is that the Democratic Party now overwhelmingly represents America’s rich. At the same time, Democrats continue to represent the poorest Americans, at least those who are not white. Managing this contradiction is ever more the party’s great challenge.

You can check out professor Paul’s full analysis in the following article, The Rich Turn to the Democrats.

First Things is published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life. They describe themselves as “an interreligious, nonpartisan research and educational 501(c)(3) organization.” It was founded in 1989 by Richard John Neuhaus and his colleagues, in part, to “…confront the ideology of secularism.”

Facebooktwitter

Attention, Mr and Mrs America and all the ships at sea …

As the interests of Ephblog and its’ chief voice narrow and narrow, The tone and pace seem to increase. As an old fart, I am reminded of Walter Winchell and his frenetic delivery on both radio and television.

Hence the need for a name for the lede to shortcut attention:  a word or two that summarize the voices’ pov.

Here’s a sample of Walter Winchell … Attention, Mr and Mrs America …

 

Facebooktwitter

You Shall Know Them By Their Name

We need neutral — but descriptive! — terminology for students/faculty/staff at Williams who complain about and/or seek to change certain aspects of the College. I have, on occasion, used the abbreviation SJW (for Social Justice Warrior) for this group, but several readers complained about this usage. On Tuesday, I went with “social justice left,” which to my mind, has more-or-less the same meaning as SJW but without the sneering baggage.

What do readers think?

I am talking about Ephs who do things like attack Storytime or Dean Dave or the JA system or inviting Republicans to campus from an explicitly progressive or left-wing point of view. I don’t like using a shorter term like “progressive” or “leftist,” because doing so hides the fact that none of these are economic issues. These are matters of social and intellectual life with no connections to wages or other traditional left concerns.

If readers don’t like “social justice left,” then what would they recommend? An anodyne term like “activist” is no good because it does not even give a hint on the perspective from which these Ephs operate.

UPDATE: I am looking for neutral terminology like, for example, “neocon.” Not all neocons agree with each other and not all neocons care about the same issues. But there is a coherent neocon world view, related to the usefulness and morality of armed US intervention abroad. Having a word to describe people with these views is helpful. What word(s) should we use to describe Ephs with certain views on the problems with Storytime, Dean Dave, the JA system, Republican talks on campus and so on?

Facebooktwitter

Meet DDF and PTC!

I am available for coffee in Williamstown between 11:30 and 1:30 tomorrow, including at Weston at 1:00 for football kick-off. I am also available at 3:00. Leave a comment if you are interested in meeting up. That means you, PTC, Frank U and FemBot!

UPDATE: Now only available 11:30 to 1:30.

UPDATE II: PTC and I are holding court in the Purple Pub. Come join us!

Facebooktwitter

“Take a relaxing stroll through town,” they said. “It’s carbon neutral,” they said. Williamstown this day in 2018.

Facebooktwitter

“A New Hotel Comes to the Berkshires, Challenging the Catskills for Coolest Mountain Escape”

Check out the article in vogue about the new motel in North Adams. Wilco

You should also check out Fresh Grass , which is mandatory for all Ephs. Don’t miss the best party of the school year!

Williamstown is old and inaccessible in its lack of diversity and monopolization of both intellectual and monetary form, while North Adams is an open book to be explored. College students are well advised to step out of the bubble and see the world next door. Take a breath of Fresh Grass September 14-16.

 

 

Facebooktwitter

PTC — Where you at?

I am in Williamstown for reunion week-end. Have coffee with me! I love to chat with readers.

dave . kane at gmail.com

Also, look for me in the parade, at the Admissions meeting at 2:15 in Weston, and the Math/Stats reception at 3:30 in Bascom.

By the way, anyone catch that jerky question about the international quota at the Majumder/Mandel event yesterday? Who was that guy?!

Facebooktwitter

Name Game- The next three major Williams Construction projects this coming FY- Name today!

Winner to get a “Welcome to College Town” coffee cup with a purple bulldozer on it. Betting starts now, and ends in two weeks. Final results to be tallied on 30 September 2019. The rules are simple- the person who names what will be built (has to break ground by 30 September of next year) wins. Tie breaker is done by correct guess of “top three” (there are going to be over ten) of what will be destroyed/built in order of cost.

31789480_663161087352345_8710284755364478976_o

PTC bet, in order-

(1) New Art Museum.

(2) New Field House.

(3) The new dorm to replace soon to be demolished Garfield House (start of demolition = breaking ground).

Betting closes at 0815 on 30 May 2018.

 

Facebooktwitter

Here comes the taxman! (Williamstown loses)

The Senate has passed a federal tax increase on private universities and colleges such as Williams.

I have always argued that local governance should get more revenue from Williams either through a PILOT and/or a tax on real estate holdings. Dormitories and common eating/ food sales spaces compete with the local economy (rentals and restaurants). They should be subject to local property taxation.

Williams and Williamstown are inseparable, and as such, Williams relies heavily on things such as local schools, waste management, police, and fire. Williams relies on the adaptability of the local planning board to make space for growth, and the relative lopsidedness of zoning permits. Who can build and where is a college function in the cultural district.

As we like to say, “Rock, paper, college.” Not that there is anything wrong with that!

That said, the federal taxation of a place like Williams when compared to the benefit of federal tax reform on the townie (working class) populations in a place like Williamstown is inequitable. When one compares the relative economic cost (the opportunity cost) of what this federal income tax will take from Williams/ Williamstown when compared to the local benefit with regards to the local burden on working people- this is a bad deal for Williamstown Townies! Local real estate taxation has skyrocketed in the last eight years. This is not going to help Williamstown’s affordability crisis…

Looks like we are in this one together.

Facebooktwitter

Too many words …

PreviewInstanceData

How many thousands of words must be exchanged between real Ephs and JCD about his status, either real or perceived?

Dave, is there no cut-off point at which you can stop this inanity? It is repetitious and goes back to at least 2009 with the same deleterious dialogue!

David Dudley Field ’25 says:

Fair point!  Surely we can all do better!?!

 

Facebooktwitter

The Elks: Edifice Rex … (reissue of a reminiscence when the blog was more a place of easy-going writing and topics)

elks 3

Originally published Oct 11, 2009.

I was thinking as I am doing the series on the Houses of Williamstown, about other small towns and the outsize edifices of grandeur built to exude permanence, status, and a desire to go inside.

Of course, this is easy for me, I live in a small town.

And the answer is: The Elks! Small town belonging, particularly important when Sunday Blue laws made a private club the only place you could get a drink; before the lotteries when ditto for gambling; and in small towns, the only place the male burghers could go a couple of times a year for a ‘smoker’ with a stripper.

Membership soared until the seventies, when booze was suddenly available at Safeway, the states were sponsoring gambling instead of censoring it, and nudity was available everywhere including topless shoe-shine parlors.

And so we have on Main Streets across the Heartland, temples and lodges that parallel the houses on campi. Many, as you drive past, seem to be ‘for sale’ or have been converted into other uses.

Membership in Fraternal Orders named for animals or the job skills of construction are dwindling and their remaining members approaching their dotage.

Has small town America lost a way of life as well as Williams? And if so, does any one care except for aged Past Exalted Rulers?

Facebooktwitter

Paresky Meeting Today

An interesting invitation in the most recent all-faculty e-mail message:

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 01:18:03 -0400
From: message@williams.edu
Reply-To: noreply@williams.edu
To: DM-FACULTY-L@listserv.williams.edu
Subject: Daily Messages for Friday, Sep 22, 2017

______________________________________________________________________

D A I L Y M E S S A G E S Friday, Sep 22, 2017
______________________________________________________________________

=== Announcements ===
1. Food for Thought Fridays: Kane’s Record editorial

______________________________________________________________________

=== Announcements ===

1. Food for Thought Fridays: Kane’s Record editorial
Do you have a reaction to alumni David Kane’s editorial in the
Record? What does it mean to be “the best”? Come talk about it.
Today, Friday, 9/22, noon-1:00 p.m., Paresky 201
MORE: http://web.williams.edu/messages/show.php?id=43718
from Marlene Sandstrom, Dean of the College

The same invitation appears in the Daily Messages. Comments:

1) Op-ed is here. Seems like we ought to spend next week going though it in detail!

2) TL;DR: The mission of Williams is to be the best college in the world. To be the best college, we need the best students. Right now, we lose too many of the best students to places like Harvard, at least partially because the best students want to be surrounded by the smartest possible peers. To fix this, we need to change, at least for a few years, our admissions procedures so that our students are, on average, as smart as Harvard students. We also need to recruit desirable students, especially under-represented minorities, much more seriously.

3) Williams ought to invite this Kane fellow to give a speech on campus. He has some interesting ideas! Or would that be too uncomfortable?

4) Recommended discussion questions:

Does anyone disagree with the claim that, in order to be the best college in the world, we need the best students?

Does anyone disagree with the claim that Williams is a better college than Macalaster/Weslesyan, “not because our dining hall food is tastier, our professors are more learned or our facilities are more sumptuous, but because our students are smarter”?

Does it not follow that Princeton is a better college — on average, not necessarily for every high school senior — than Williams? If not, then why do 90% of the seniors admitted to both Princeton and Williams choose Princeton?

Are any of the claims made in the op-ed about the current Williams admissions process false?

5) If any readers attend the event, tell us how it goes.

Facebooktwitter

Jews at Williams, 13

Jews at Williams: Inclusion, Exclusion, and Class at a New England Liberal Arts College by Benjamin Aldes Wurgaft is both an interesting read and a source for dozens of fascinating anecdotes. Let’s spend a month or so going through it. Today is Day 13.

In this, at least, he exaggerates, for Williams was not as inhospitable to the most clubbable Jews as Candlestick makes it seem. Herbert H. Lehman (Williams 1899) was the first Jew to join a fraternity, namely Alpha Zeta Alpha, then a local organization but which later became the national Phi Gamma Delta. His sons and nephews would follow him into the organization decades later.

Again, just how antisemitic could Williams have been if Herbert H. Lehman’s wealthy family would choose to send him and if he, after thriving for four years, would choose to be such a generous donor?

It is curious that the Class of 1914 contributed so much to the establishment of multi-generational Jewish legacies at Williams. Almost half of the Jews of the Class of 1914 sent their sons on to Williams; as mentioned earlier, the Stone family became a truly prolific Williams legacy, with 10 members attending the college over the generations down to the graduating class of 2005.

This means that something of a mystery hovers over the 1910–14 period at Williams. The college was the site of one of the earliest anti-Jewish demonstrations, effectively anticipating far more effective attempts to diminish Jewish involvement in higher education in the decades to come—and yet the Jews of the Classes of 1913 and 1914, present for that protest, nevertheless produced legacies. Students who understood they were part of a group targeted for exclusion nevertheless managed to stick it out, remaining at the college and ultimately flourishing through their association with it.

I do not think that words like “curious” and “mystery” mean what Wurgaft thinks they mean. He keeps assuming that Williams was horribly antisemitic and is then surprised by how loyal Jewish alumni are. He needs to re-examine his assumptions. If Williams was, in fact, among the least antisemitic locations in the world from, say, 1900 to 1950, then the loyalty/generosity of Jewish Ephs from this era makes perfect sense.

Facebooktwitter

Jews at Williams, 12

Jews at Williams: Inclusion, Exclusion, and Class at a New England Liberal Arts College by Benjamin Aldes Wurgaft is both an interesting read and a source for dozens of fascinating anecdotes. Let’s spend a month or so going through it. Today is Day 12.

Gabriel wrote a study of the problem of being Jewish at Williams, thinly veiled as a coming-of-age novel: The Seven-Branched Candlestick: The Schooldays of a Young American Jew, a tale told in the first person. Truth be told, Candlestick is slight, didactic, and so moralizing in tone that one can almost miss the central social conflict Gabriel took as his focus: the meeting between more assimilated German Jews and their more recently arrived East European Jewish counterparts at American institutions of higher learning. This conflict evidently had at least as much impact on Gabriel’s years at Williams as the conflict between Jew and non-Jew.

Emphasis added. Let me revisit two of my favorite themes: First, the conflict of German Jews and Russian Jews at Williams would make for a great Williams senior thesis. Wurgaft covers some of that conflict, but he (purposely?) seemed to leave lots out. To note that German Jews were some of the most powerful and persuasive opponents of admitting Russian Jews is not a theme to gladden the heart of today’s social justice Ephs. Second, Steve Sailer covers this topic here and here.

Facebooktwitter

Jews at Williams, 11

Jews at Williams: Inclusion, Exclusion, and Class at a New England Liberal Arts College by Benjamin Aldes Wurgaft is both an interesting read and a source for dozens of fascinating anecdotes. Let’s spend a month or so going through it. Today is Day 11.

Jews at Williams, like their counterparts at other institutions, were subject to anti-Semitic treatment during this period, ranging from verbal abuse to exclusion from fraternities and clubs. However, the label “anti-Semitic treatment” may obscure more than it clarifies.

Indeed. Like many of the comments/observations that are labelled as “racist” at Williams today, some of these comments/observations are just simply the truth. Consider:

praise for the imagined business sense of the Jewish people,

What PC nonsense! Is Wurgaft seriously suggesting that “Jewish people” aren’t more successful in business than non-Jewish people?

Imagine that you were a 1950s Eph, perhaps minding your own business, hanging out at the Deke House, and you happened to mention that Jewish people seem fairly successful in business. Perhaps you even dared to praise Jews and/or Jewish culture for this achievement. Then the Benjamin Aldes Wurgaft of the era comes by and attacks you for antisemitism! That would be fairly annoying!

Especially when, today, you notice that the last 50 years have proved that your (allegedly!) antisemitic observation was spot on. Around 1/3 of the member of the Forbe 400 are Jewish, the vast majority of whom made their fortunes over this time period. Sure seems like “Jewish people” might have better than average “business sense.”

The same PC nonsense, of course, happens at Williams today to any student who happens to notice, much less publicly comment on, much less actually praise, the strong performance of Asian-Americans on the SAT.

This is a war — not so much against antisemitism or against racism — but against noticing true facts about the world.

The exclusion of Jews from upper-class social facilities, for example, was prompted by proprietors’ (not entirely unreasonable) fears that a marked Jewish presence would drive out their traditional WASP clientele.

I am, in theory, sympathetic to this argument. Perhaps one reason that Harvard/Yale/Princeton are more successful than Columbia today is that the former discriminated much more heavily against Jews than the latter? I don’t know but the case could be made. Is Williams smart to discriminate against international students for similar reasons? Recall Jim Kolesar’s ’72 argument more than a decade ago:

But a college that gave itself over to educating mainly international students, which is eventually what would happen given the numbers, would have a significantly different mission, very different standing with U.S. prospective students, and greatly altered relationship with government, donors, etc.

Is Williams smart to have a quota for international students?

Facebooktwitter

Jews at Williams, 10

Jews at Williams: Inclusion, Exclusion, and Class at a New England Liberal Arts College by Benjamin Aldes Wurgaft is both an interesting read and a source for dozens of fascinating anecdotes. Let’s spend a month or so going through it. Today is Day 10.

Williams was simply an unusual choice for Jews at this point, and not because it presented insuperable barriers to Jews but simply because most had not heard of it. It was off the map for American Jews unless their families had already become acquainted with the social groups from which Williams drew most of its students, or unless some stroke of luck—a chance encounter with an alumnus, for example—informed them about Williams and led them to believe admission was possible.

Williams was “protected,” as it were, from Jewish attentions during the gentlemen’s era by the social networks it served. They in turn served it by providing new students and loyal alumni.

My hypothesis is that this is exactly the dynamic which drives the lack of discrimination against Asian-Americans at Williams. There is no doubt that Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford discriminate against Asian-Americans, just as HYP discriminated against Jewish-Americans almost a century ago. One current mystery is whether or not Williams (and schools like Williams) employ the same policy. I don’t think we do, not because we are any more moral/non-discriminatory than HYPS, but because proportionally fewer Asian-Americans (relative to non-Asian-Americans) apply to and/or enroll at Williams.

But reasonable people differ on the claim about Asian-Americans and Williams admissions. Recall this discussion from more than a decade ago. I miss HWC!

Between 1880 and 1920, no other New England liberal arts college was as closely connected to the Social Register families of New York and Boston, a group that, with a few exceptions, emphatically did not include Jews. As Robert Farnum explains, it was the only liberal arts college in the “top five” schools (Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia are the others) to which the majority of “social registrants” flocked, particularly from the 1880s to the 1920s. It was in fact the fourth most popular destination for registrants from Boston and the fifth for New Yorkers. It was thus part of a tiny cluster of schools serving a social network that crystallized out of the East Coast’s Protestant elite families in the 1880s and 1890s; the first edition of the Social Register was published in New York in 1888.

Hmmm. This would make an great topic for a Williams senior thesis in history. Who will write it?

Related questions: How much does Williams status today as the #1 liberal arts college go back to enrollment decisions made 100+ years ago by the Social Register? How much were those decisions driven by geography? (My understanding is that the Berkshires were a common summer time retreat for the Social Register folks. Imagine what New York City and Boston were like in the era before air conditioning.) If so, did that familiarity give Williams an advantage over, say, Amherst and Wesleyan?

Facebooktwitter

Jews at Williams, 9

Jews at Williams: Inclusion, Exclusion, and Class at a New England Liberal Arts College by Benjamin Aldes Wurgaft is both an interesting read and a source for dozens of fascinating anecdotes. Let’s spend a month or so going through it. Today is Day 9.

However, what is remarkable about the early Jews at Williams (it would be too much to speak of “Jewish life” when only one, or two, or at most nine, Jews were present in a single entering class) is how loyal many remained to the college.

Furthermore the first Jewish “legacy families” donned purple during this period. One should not look for conflict between the Jewish identities of these students and their identities as Williams men, for many would not have experienced the unavoidable dissonance between those identities as an incompatibility. If they had, legacies would not have been the result.

Indeed. Perhaps the most interesting observation in the book — one that Wurgaft hints at only obliquely in passages like this — is how little antisemitism there was at Williams. Indeed, was any elite institution in the United States less antisemitic than Williams prior to 1960? Reader suggestions welcome. In many ways, this debate is similar to the one about how “racist” Williams is today. Of course, there are people at Williams today who say/believe racist things. (Let he who is without sin . . . .) But such claims are only intelligible in context. There are few places on Earth less marred by racism that Williams today, just as there were few places less marred by antisemitism than the Williams of 75 years ago.

Two years after Boas’ address, an increase in the number of Jewish students in the Williams freshman class (the Class of 1914), which included a few students of Eastern European background, would occasion one of America’s first student-led demonstrations against Jewish enrollment at a college or university. German Jews, present in small numbers, never received such a welcome. While no firsthand accounts of the demonstration have been found, President Harry Garfield described it, in a letter, in a secondhand fashion by saying that, afterward, he felt it necessary to take the pulpit in chapel to remonstrate with the students for their bad behavior.

Note the leap here. There is no real evidence for the claim that “America’s first student-led demonstrations against Jewish enrollment” happened at Williams. This is an attempt, I think, by Wurgaft to find more antisemitism than actually existed. (Note how he never found “firsthand accounts of the demonstration.”) Instead, there seems to have been a hazing-type tradition of an annual forced parade, featuring all the freshmen, which included heavy doses of upperclassmen mockery/”humor,” much of it involving ethnic/racial/religious themes. In 1910, this parade included antisemitic elements. Not very nice! But that is a far cry from a “demonstrations against Jewish enrollment.”

Facebooktwitter

Next Page →

Currently browsing posts filed under "All Things EphBlog"

Follow this category via RSS