Oft times in this blog I have discussed the ways collegiality, manners, and civility are used as weapons to protect those in power. Those are the folks who get to decide what is polite or discourteous and by using certain words -- uncollegial, offensive -- rally the rest of the elites. I do not mean they are always wrong, far from it. But let's face it. The collegiality card is often played when people are threatened by the truth.The other day I heard one of the worse presentations at a faculty talk I think I have ever heard, and that is saying something. As a friend on my faculty said to me, "do you think he over
intellectualized things a bit?" That would be an understatement. Most adults could have told the speaker what his conclusion would be after merely hearing the question and saved 40 minutes of listening to a presentation that seemed more designed to stifle discussion than to encourage it. In fact, efforts to draw the speaker into a discussion of his topic were met with an angry response. It was strange combination of aggressiveness, a voice going up a level, and then quickly retreating into victimhood.
Was the speaker rude to take 40 minutes or so rambling on when the audience was anxious to discuss the topic? Was it uncivil to shut down conversation until he was good and ready? Depends. In the world of elites -- let's call it "elite on elite collegiality" -- the definition of what rudeness or lack of collegiality means is quite different from what it means in the world of non elites.
Thus, despite the performance no one in the audience said:
1. You are using up the time of 30 people.
2. You are not getting to the point.
3. You seem to be purposely discouraging comment.
4. You seemed to have designed a computer to solve a simple problem.
5. It seems like that your computer got it wrong.
No doubt he left feeling he had shown the group a thing or two.
Nothing was said because that would be impolite. Is that harmless? For the sake of appearing polite an elite goes back to his sanctuary thinking wrongly that he is a success, emboldened to carry his manner and message further including to students who will go out into the world thinking they now have the "truth."
What better example of the misuse of collegiality. In fact, right now you might be thinking "this post is really quite rude and has an uncollegial tone. He is really being mean!" If you are thinking that, you might ask for what cause you would risk being labeled uncollegial. Would you turn the other way if a dean were siphoning funds from one part of the law school to a part he will soon move to? Would you vote yes if a colleague proposed a program than only he or she has any interest in? Would you vote yes on a tenure decision and a life time annunity funded by students and taxpayes because to do otherwise would make things socially awkward at your church where the underachieving candidate is also a member? Would you be a courteous -- even butt-kissing -- host to a Supreme Court justice who voted to ratify a possibly incorrect election outcome because she wanted to retire and control who got her spot? If you answered "yes" don't be critical of the speaker after the fact. All the previous audiences who were collegial, just like you were, made his hubris possible. Still, I am wondering what, if anything, in your cost benefit analysis you would put ahead of your desire to be viewed as "good company" by elites?
Yes the photo is the sun setting over Yale.
9 comments:
"Would you turn the other way if a dean were siphoning funds from one part of the law school to a part he will soon move to? Would you vote yes if a colleague proposed a program than only he or she has any interest in? Would you vote yes on a tenure decision and a life time annunity funded by students and taxpayes because to do otherwisse would make things socially awkward at your church where the underachieving candidate is also a member? Would you be a courteous -- even butt-kissing -- host to a Supreme Court justice who voted to ratify a possibly incorrect election outcome because she wanted to retire and control who got her spot?"
Of these four hypotheticals, the fourth seems out of place. The first three are all instances where your action could actually make a difference in the outcome. The fourth merely involves being rude to a Supreme Court Justice as a way of taking some type of moral stand about one of past her judicial decisions. That strikes me as petty, not merely uncollegial...and definitely not for the sake of any higher purpose.
I may be biased. I think your underlying assumption in this hypothetical is utterly rediculous.
Thanks for reading and mainly thanks for not being polite in your expression. If you had been it might have allowed me to discount the substance of your message. You are probably not an elite but note how important being anonymous is to permitting rudeness.
You are up late. Yes it is different but let me make two points. 1.Repeated incidents in which a person is allow to slide results in their bad behavior and, thus, Justice O'Connor's vote may be traced to the "permission" polite people afforded her throughout her career. 2. More importantly, the message is not so much for Justice O'Connor but for those making future decisions who are under the impression that people will be polite regardless of their hubris. Knowing they will not slide may curb their behavior just a bit. In short, pandering over Justice O'Connor just empowers others who are similarly tempted.
How exactly was I rude? I said your suggestion was "petty" and that the underlying assumption of your hypothetical was "utterly rediculous." I think both of those things are true. Is there a more "polite" way to say this? Or would you prefer I had not said it at all, because to do so would be "rude" not matter how I said it?
"More importantly, the message is not so much for Justice O'Connor but for those making future decisions who are under the impression that people will be polite regardless of their hubris."
-Accountability for the judiciary through the threat of future rudeness from law professors? Would that be likely to change jurists' bahvior, or simply encourage jurists to ignore law professors more than they already do?
Being rude to Justice O'Connor on this basis assumes she is dishonest. The alternative, of course, is that she disagreed with you about the outcome of Bush v. Gore. Assuming the former over the latter requires at least as much hubris as you accuse her of having.
And, I agree anonymity makes it easier for me to say things I would not say publicly. But, isn't that the point, i.e., allowing those who may be in a vulnerable position to speak freely?
Thanks again for a good discussion. Properly schooled elites never say "petty" and "ridiculous" unless it is anonymous. Instead they say. "your post concerns me" or "your post gave me pause." Actually that last one is my personal favorite. It is the collegial way to say "petty" or "ridiculous."
Two more points. If you read the press reports of Justice O'Connor's reaction to a possible Gore victory it is pretty clear what she was worried about. But more importantly on this. I assume you like O'Connor and that's fine. My problem is with the people who felt just the way I did but in the interest of collegiality kissed the butt of someone who it is not too far fetched to say had a hand ultimately in electing a President who sent thousands of Americans and tens of thousands Iraqis to their deaths.
Your point about the criticism of law professors is well-taken (the elite way of saying "good") but my comments go the culture of lower accountability for those whose approval you want. In this case the law professors want to be viewed favorably by Justice O'Conner.
On the anonymous point, I do not know about your personal vulnerability or even whether it is real or imagined. If it is real and significant I understand. In the context of the post, however, I am suggesting is that elites phrase their critism in different terms (more collegial ones) depending on whether they can be identified.
Thanks again for the comments and for having some passion about the matter.
I am a bit concerned that you neglect to mention how you handle "elitism." Are you an elitist? Do you conform to an elitist mentality? Do you ignore elitism around you? This may be a bit out of bounds but I personally think that your blog would gain or lose credibility based on your personal actions.
Great question because it is a very delicate matter. Elites will look for a reason to marginalize a non elite who is a critic or who can be labeled as rude. At the talk discussed in the post, I was the only one who attempted to challenge the speaker. As chair of the appointments committee at my University I made a point to look closely at non elite school graduates -- most of whom, by the way, have been enormously successful. I do not accept elite credentials at face value. I think it is fair to say, an article I wrote on the matter several years ago and one published more recently are among the very few addressing the issue. Much of this is decribed in prior posts. However, as I said at the outset, when threatened the elites like nothing better than to be able to label you uncollegial or even a "nut" and then you are completely ineffective. I have crossed that line on occasion which feels good but cuts down on effectiveness.
So for the most part you are an elitist in disguise fighting for the "commoners"?
And, btw, thank you for your response!
I do not think I am disguise. The first mark of an elitist is possessing degrees from elite schools. The resume may read Princeton/Harvard. I have none of that. Plus having the degrees does not mean that the person is an elitist. The pattern to look for is a constant need to remind people of the schools one graduated from and then acting in hiring and other decision like people with similar backgrounds are presumptively. There are other patterns.
Post a Comment