Ben Sasse and Paper Tigers in Academia

 This quote caught my eye in the Gainesville Sun today. It is about, Ben Sasse,  the likely new president of UF, and faculty opposition: "I think many of my colleagues feel that his  academic credentials are not where we would have wanted them to be."

I've deleted the name of the person quoted because that quote is representative of  law professors speak. They say things that mean nothing or, put differently, allow for total deniability while at the same time stirring the pot ever so gently.  It's the reason I was always an outsider in the Ivory Tower. 

 The statement, and that of law professors' generally, reminds of a something John Cage said, "I have nothing to say and I am saying it."

For example, note the speaker only "thinks" this could be the case. This leaves room to say, if asked to defend the statement, "It's only what I thought or the impression I had. I could be wrong."And then there is the word "many." What is "many?" Is it 12? Could be. Is it a majority? Maybe, maybe not. 

 This reminds me of what I call faculty trolling. For example, say you think someone up for tenure does not deserve it but you are too much of a wuss to say it. You go office to office and say, "I have heard that some people are concerned about Joe's (the candidate) scholarship." Not you, of course, unless the person you are talking to says someone like "Yes, I too was wondering about this." If that is the response, the troller has has hit pay dirt and gets a movement started without ever actually taking a position. If the answer is "I have not heard anything about that." The troller moves on to the next office.

And could someone tell me what "where we would have wanted them to be" means. How about, "are not satisfactory" What on earth does "where we would have wanted them to be" actually say. "We would have/" Would have what? In a different universe? On Mars?

But wait. In the same passage the writer does use the word "we" which includes "I." So it could say "I wish his credentials were better." The problem is nearly everyone wishes everything were better. I  wish my car got better mileage but what it gets is fine. I wish my dinner was better last night but it was fine. Wishing for better or wanting better is saying nothing. 

So what would my quote have been of the Sun had asked me? "I can't speak for everyone but his academic credentials make him unfit. In addition, he is obviously the product of a rigged search that was guaranteed to produce a candidate to the liking of our right wing, mean spirited Governor."

No Heroes at UF: The DeSantification of a University

 I cannot help but think of Joseph  Welch and his historic face off with Joseph McCarthy when he finally said, in effect, ENOUGH, "Have you no sense of decency." The answer was obvious, Joseph McCarthy had no such thing.

Nor does the despicable, demagogue  Ron DeSantis who will do anything to appeal to the worst values in people. Rather then lead people to embrace the moral high ground,  he encourages people to wallow in the mud of racism, homophobia, and xenophobia. Rather than ask people to be better he asks them to be worse, much worse.

And among his staunchest enforcers is the University of Florida particularly President Fuchs, Provost Glover, and Law School Dean Laura Rosenbury. With respect to the latter especially, one would expect some sense of decency, or at least the courage to resist what is clearly a case of moral lawlessness.  But no, in the Desantification of the University of Florida, rather then stand up against a bully, as did Joseph Welch, these so-called leaders cowered and when ask to jump simply asked "how high." Any one of them could have been a hero in the world of higher education if they had simply said I will resign before I follow the orders of a maniac.

So, at the height of the covid crisis faculty were allowed to teach remotely but only after weeks of in person teaching.  In the next year, while other schools required masks -- a small price to pay perhaps to save a few lives -- UF did not require masks.  Fuchs, Glover, and Rosenbury were just trying to keep Florida's McCarthy happy. And then, when professors were asked to testify as experts witnesses,  they all folded again and decided it would displease their master if a word were uttered to upset his seemingly fascist agenda. 

When the Desantis' bizarre choice for Surgeon General appears to have needed a little extra dough, he was appointed to UF Med School. Not sure if the opening was announced ahead of time or whether a search took place. But who cares when it is to please the Governor. What was Fuchs' response? Once again he simply said "how high."

And remember, this cowadise occurred in the context of administrators who all had a guarantee of life time employment. In fact, even their professional aspirations might have been enhanced if they stood up against a demagogue. In short, some show of courage would have been easy but, then again, there are no heroes at UF. 

NO, You Cannot be a Law Professor

                                                                     

About once a year a student comes to my office to ask about becoming a law professor. I have to tell him or her there is virtually no chance and that may be overly optimistic. The reason, of course, is that they are not attending one of a tiny handful  of -- mainly expensive private -- law schools that produce what people who went to those schools, and are in charge of hiring,  regard as good enough to be law professors. This always seemed odd to me since some of the smartest people I know went to mid level law schools and some of the dumbest and most narrowly educated  (including some law professors) went to the fancy schools.

Even if they apply to be a law professor they will be quickly vetoed -- without so much as a second look -- by someone who did go to one of those law schools. Strange isn't it. The privileged attend the fancy schools, get all puffed up about it but they actually do not think they are very good teachers. How do we know this? Because rarely, if ever, do they think they have been effective enough in class to elevate even the smartest student to be a potential law professor. They must be lousy teachers since they cannot even explain to others what they claimed to have learned in law school themselves.

So what is up with this. It's either about rankings or some delusional notion that you have to have gone to a fancy school to be an effective teacher and researcher. I've said enough in other blogs about how law schools will sacrifice everything to advance in the rankings. It is the least ethical conduct I have seen in legal education. And, I do not know whether going to a fancy school is correlated with good teaching and research. I once attempted an empirical study of this but could not find enough people who went to non fancy schools to make the study valid.

So what's is it really about? It's about status  and preserving status-- anyway you can. Think about it. You've spend a few hundred thousand to attend a fancy school and you are a law professor. (And you are sure to remind the students of your days at Harvard or Yale,)  Then someone is hired who did not go to a fancy school and is running circles around you both teaching-wise and research-wise. What does that mean about you? It may mean that you are not so hot after all since some poor schlub from the University of Florida is kicking your elitist ass.

So don't feel bad. It's just a way elitists ensure that the caste system is perpetuated. It has nothing to do with your merit and, most definitely, nothing to do with theirs.