The Hussman School of Journalism and Media at the University of North Carolina recently offered the prestigious Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism to Nikole Hannah-Jones. Hannah-Jones is an alumna of the Hussman School who has received many honors for her writing. She recently won a Pulitzer Prize for “The 1619 Project,” which she organized and for which she wrote the lead essay, recasting the role of Blacks in American history.
But there was one hitch: Unlike previous winners of the Knight Chair, she would not receive tenure. This decision was made not by the faculty of the Hussman School, but by the trustees of the University. Mega donor Walter Hussman—for whom the journalism school is named— conveyed his disappointment to Board members and university officials about Hannah-Jones’ appointment. Hannah-Jones said she would not accept the offer unless it included tenure.
Black students and faculty were furious and saw the treatment of Hannah-Jones as evidence of systemic racism at UNC. The faculty of the Hussman School was outraged that the university board overrode their decision.
Yesterday the University board of trustees reversed their decision and agreed to offer tenure to Hannah-Jones. The vote was 9-4. They had to choose whether it would be more dangerous to offend the state’s Republican legislators or to offend their Black faculty and students and the faculty of the journalism school.
They chose.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Really good to hear.
The central tenets of the 1619 Project have been refuted by the most esteemed historians of early America – all of them political liberals. Yet more evidence that academic standards take second place to preferred narratives. Same for journalism at the impact press level.
What right-wing propaganda source did you get this utter nonsense from, Mr. Johnson? And what, exactly, do you think the “central tenets of the 1619 Project” are?
Don’t write about matters about which you know nothing.
Or speak about them. Leave that to Repugnican Congresspeople and Senators.
🙂
To swine like Gaetz and Cruz and Hawley
As I expected would be the case, this blog’s host and her commenters aren’t even aware that serious scholars have major problems with the 1619 Project. Never venturing outside of one’s ideological bubble does that to people, wherever they fall on the political spectrum, Left to Right. I link just two of many responses written by informed dissenters to the 1619 Project. For anyone interested in actually becoming informed about this issue, there are many more like them.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174140
https://www.city-journal.org/1619-project-history-without-truth
If you were a regular reader of this blog, you would know that I posted the critique by Princeton Professor Sean Wilentz and four other historians. They differ with Hannah-Jones on interpretations, not facts. Have you read The 1619 Project? Or just hostile articles about it? I thought it was powerful, informative, and worth studying. Don’t write back until you have taken the time to read it.
Mr. Johnson, is there a lot of call for racist standup these days? Have you taken your performance on the road?
And yes, I’ve read the essay by Ms. Hannah-Jones and a number of reviews of it, and those reviews hardly constitute a “refutation” of “[t]he central tenets of the 1619 Project.” There are minor matters in the work of ALL historians that are quibbled about by other historians. That’s in the nature of the doing of history, as any historiographer can tell you.
Eugene Johnson,
I have read the criticisms of “serious scholars” and I have also read serious scholars refuting those critics.
Have you?
Most interesting is that the “serious scholars” you link to make the types of criticisms that have been made about dozens of white historians whose work has been celebrated for decades. I get that when it is a woman who isn’t white who those in power criticize, there is a level of perfection demanded that white historians do not have to meet. In fact, I could criticize the first long letter those historians signed onto – in which those historians gave undue importance and weight to a few sentences in the 1619 project and ignored what 99.9% of the 1619 project was all about — which is the same standards they demand that a woman who isn’t white be cancelled for doing. I guess they should cancel themselves.
The 1619 project gives weight to circumstances and facts that other historians deem less important. Those historians criticized the 1619 project by giving weight to sentences that people without their biases deem less important. As long as all those critics apply the same standards and cancel themselves, I’m good. Otherwise, they should look in the mirror at their own biases.
I will say it again:
The essence of white privilege is whites telling blacks what they are allowed to write about their history.
The piece by KC Johnson, in particular, is mere bloviation. The responses from the Time and its reference desk were quite convincing.
Btw, here is the “great emancipator” Abraham Lincoln, speaking in his opening remarks, on 18 September 1858, to the fourth of seven debates with Stephen Douglas, his opponent in a race for the U.S. Senate from Illinois:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
These words are shocking to us today, but it is clear that Lincoln, despite changes in his views throughout his life and despite his overall opposition to slavery, harbored racist views of the kinds that were common in his day.
Are we to report the truth about our history, or are we to whitewash and mythologize it? THIS is the question.
City Journal is a product of the Koch-linked Manhattan Institute. A review of the article titles by author K.C. Johnson shows, IMO, a steered ideology and anti-Biden skewing.
Best quote of the day. It should be a bumper sticker! “The essence of white privilege is whites telling blacks what they are allowed to write about their history.”
Eugene Johnson’s linked City Journal article was written by KC Johnson aka Robert David Johnson who attended Groton (tuition for boarding students approx. $60,000).
Back in my days on the wrong side, in the 1990s, I was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. It’s a rightwing think tank that sponsors the City Journal.
June 22, 2021 article at MI by KC Johnson
(aka Robert David Johnson, Brooklyn College Professor) – “An opening for dissenters… thanks to the 2018 Janus ruling…”. Johnson also wrote about “Due Process, DeVos and the Courts”.
Sourcewatch has an entry for Manhattan Institute, “…concerns itself with faith-based issues (blurring the line between church and state).” Given the right wing connections e.g. Christian flags waved during the Capitol riots in Jan., “blurring” should be of grave concern to minority religious.
As legal representative for the Society of Porcine Welfare of Missouri I ask that you cease and desist in referring, in any fashion, to Hawley in Porcine terms. Our proud members have bombarded us with emails demanding you retract your statement. If not, you will be hearing from our Puerco Police.
Senor Swacker, Esq., I shall. This was indeed unfair to pigs.
I feel certain that you never read “The 1619 Project.” If you had, you would learn that it is brutally honest portrayal of the history of Blacks in America. I posted Hannah-Jones’ essay on this blog and I also posted the critiques of five eminent historians. They disagreed about interpretations, not facts. In no way did they “refute” her essay. The central tenet of the 1619 Project is that Blacks were treated brutally by whites for hundreds of years. The historians did not challenge that “central tenet.” They agreed with it. Just a suggestion: read Nicole Hannah-Jones’ essay and write back if you find any factual inaccuracies. The historians didn’t.
Eugene Johnson says that the “central tenets” of the 1619 project — which are of course that there was slavery and racism in America and that racism and slavery is part of US history — has been “refuted”.
Mr. Johnson, is that why you support cancelling Nikole Hannah-Jones and everyone else who thinks America SHOULD NOT cover up its racist history?
well said
Thank you. I wish I didn’t have that typo in the last sentence, as I intended to write:
“Mr. Johnson, is that why you support cancelling Nikole Hannah-Jones and everyone else who thinks America SHOULD NOT cover up its racist history?
I will fix it
Thank you!
I have to agree with Glen Loury that Nikole Hanna-Jones was not “canceled” by UNC offering her a five year contract to teach there instead of committing the institution to lifetime employment. I have taught for over 30 years in the academy without tenure and did not feel I was “canceled”. Dr. Ravitch was also an adjunct faculty member for her academic career. Perhaps she could speak to this as well.
As a side note, I think the end of mandatory retirement was the beginning of the end of tenure. Universities will be very hesitant to give more than a handful of faculty the guarantee of 55 years of employment that tenure now requires. It was doable when it was only a 40 year commitment. In general, the 15 years between 70 and 85
are not the most productive for an academic, though of course there are exceptions.
All of those who previously had been offered the Knight Chair at the Sussman school of journalism were offered tenure. Singling her out to be treated differently is suspicious since her record as a journalist is impeccable. Also, Mr. Sussman gave $25 million to endow the journalism school and he let it be known that he was not pleased by her appointment. Asa rule, the faculty decides who gets tenure. Their voice was overruled by the UNC board. That is out of the ordinary.
By the way, I never said she was canceled. I think even the Board ultimately recognized that she was treated unfairly.
Dr. Ravitch,
For the record I was commenting on NYC PSP’s post which does say that Nikole Hannah-Jones was canceled. I agree that a far better characterization is that she was treated unfairly. I have long been a fan of here work and have often suggested, with no effect I must admit, that her reporting on the Normandy School District be discussed on this blog.
Even though I have never held a tenure stream position, over the decades I have learned a great deal about the tenure process. Faculty play a central role in recommending a person for tenure at the department, school, and university level, but the only group that is actually able to award tenure is the board of trustees of the institution. For almost all cases the board defers to the collective judgement of the faculty and administrators (who are also typically very experienced faculty members themselves), but there are exceptions: the Steven Salaita case comes to mind.
Teachingeconomist,
Since I was replying to an anti-CRT person, I was using the far right/anti-CRT definition of “cancelled”, which encompasses everything from “victimized by students peacefully protesting offensive racist speech”( even when students are quiet but turning their back) to “not being able to say offensive things anymore without my boss citing me” to “people are publicly criticizing me for offensive things and I lost my job.”
Nikole Hannah Jones was punished for doing nothing but having a different opinion than some very powerful people. Sean Wilentz didn’t try to “cancel” white Harvard historian Jill Lepore. Wilentz didn’t even try to discredit and undermine Jill Lepore and devote his time to “proving” that Lepore was a shoddy scholar whose work must be amended or condemned. Wilentz did not want to “cancel” Lepore and hurt her career. But he felt so strongly that Nikole Hannah Jones use of Jill Lepore’s perspective in the 1619 project demanded a retraction.
What do you call it when African Americans are attacked and destroyed for not meeting a standard of perfection that white people don’t have to meet? I know the far right doesn’t call it “cancelling” when they use their massive media arm to try to undermine someone’s career solely because they don’t like that person’s scholarship. They just call it “cancelling” when a powerful media figure gets criticized by his bosses for using a word that is no longer acceptable to use.
Teachingeconomist, maybe you can provide an example of what you believe is “cancelling”. Presumably you can provide an example of the right cancelling someone who isn’t racist, and the left cancelling someone who is.
Nycpsp,
I think that Steven Salaita case is a good example. You can read about it on Wikipedia. In short, he lost his career as an academic because of tweets about Israel’s 2014 Gaza war (he had been a tenured professor at Virginia Tech and offered a tenured position at the University of Illinois that was later rescinded) and is reported to be a employed as a school bus driver.
Nyspsop,
Nikole Hannah-Jones is now a tenured named professor at Howerd university, and Steven Salaita drives a school bus. Which of the was “canceled”?
Eugene,
Two of the most vocal and persistent critics (Sean Wilentz and Keith Whittington) roost at the legacy-rich and privileged Princeton…paint me surprised.
BTW- your Fox ditto head is showing. The terms liberal and conservative are no longer adequate descriptors of the American political landscape. Right wingers feast on crafting, manipulating .and exploiting binary situations.
Walter Hussman who is at the center of the Hannah Jones story is one of the most prominent pushers of school choice in Arkansas. School privatization was first proposed by racist Georgia Gov. Talmadge to avoid court mandated integration. Again, paint me surprised at what happened at the hands of the entitled board wrongly in charge of the PUBLIC University of N.C.
With justice, scholars will pour through the writings upon which Whittington and Wilentz were granted tenure to make sure their work had no critics and that, no critics can be found today.
“With justice, scholars will pour through the writings upon which Whittington and Wilentz were granted tenure to make sure their work had no critics and that, no critics can be found today.”
Yep. Remember, Wilentz must not give too much weight to any one factor in any of his writings if any other historian disagrees and says that more weight should be given to a different factor. By Wilentz’ own standards, he must give up his chair and return all his compensation and admit he did not deserve tenure if there is any disagreement about the weight he places on one factor over another.
Just kidding — Wilentz clearly believes that historians should be free to have disagreements on the weight they place on different factors as long as he and other privileged men decide to give them that privilege. If Wilentz doesn’t decide to give a female African American the privilege he only reserves for those he chooses to give it to, Wilentz demands they be publicly condemned.
This is implicit racism. This is privilege. Wilentz demands others be held to an impossible standard that he and his privileged pals never have to meet.
NYC
Your final paragraph captures the injustice that men like Wilentz disingenuously deny exists.
Off topic, thanks for not prefacing your comment with a caveat that you don’t agree with everything I write. The disclaimer serves, unnecessarily, to diminish my comments. No one assumes you agree with me about everything.
“thanks for not prefacing your comment with a caveat that you don’t agree with everything I write. The disclaimer serves, unnecessarily, to diminish my comments. No one assumes you agree with me about everything.”
Are you suggesting that I usually preface my comments to you with that caveat? I didn’t think I did.
I am trying to figure out if you are referring to something I wrote elsewhere, and the only thing I can think of is that I could have referenced you as someone with whom I can disagree with but also have an interesting discussion with. But that would only be in the context of a discussion about how it is possible to have interesting discussions with people I don’t always agree with! Not as a disclaimer before I replied to something you wrote.
I certainly agree with you that it would be pretty snarky and insulting if I prefaced all my replies to your comments with a disclaimer that I don’t agree with everything you write. If I have unwittingly done so in the past, then I apologize.
The preface occurred at least twice.
Thank you for your willingness to listen to my view.
Linda,
Could you cite those 2 times? Not trying to be snarky, but if your goal is to have me more aware of something you see me doing frequently in my replies to you, you should be able to direct me to examples so I understand. I don’t get your desire to bring this up when I clearly didn’t do it, referencing some unknown past times where you believe that I did. Just call me out if and when I do it – I would apologize since my intent is not to diminish your comments.
For example: You wrote an interesting reply that began
“Eugene, Two of the most vocal and persistent critics (Sean Wilentz and Keith Whittington) roost at the legacy-rich and privileged Princeton…paint me surprised…”
I would expect you to be rightfully offended if my reply was “thanks for not prefacing your comment with an attack on the Catholic Church…” and then expected you to apologize for all the unmentioned past incidents where you supposedly attacked the Catholic Church.
As I said, if I unwittingly do that again, just let me know so I can see my mistake and apologize. If I do it a long comment, copy and paste a quote of what you find offensive. I get a lot of knowledge from reading your comments – thanks for posting them.
They may have also lost Megadonor Walter Hussman. That’s okay. Someone like a progressive billionaire (if there is such a thing) that isn’t a far-right Trumpish freak may step up to replace him.
BTW, in a shocking congruence of the macabre, Donald Rum[p]sfeld owned the very farm where the brutal overseer Covey beat the enslaved Frederick Douglass.
The same Frederick Douglass whom that renowned historical Donald Jabba the Trump said “is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more.”
Historical ignorance expressed in toddler English. That’s Donnie Dumbo!
Interesting.
cx: historian, ofc
autocorrect error
It’s my birthday. I’m 83. I have no ambition for political or any other kind of power. I am not funded by anyone. I write what I believe to be true while acknowledging that truth is often elusive. Often, where you sit determines where you stand. I have the power of the word, derived from half a century of scholarship and a few years in the U.S. Department of Education. I will continue to write what I know and believe and to admit when I’m wrong. I understand history writing. Historians frequently disagree and debate. That’s the nature of historical work.
Oh my Lord! Happy birthday, Diane! And much love to you and yours. What a treasure you are, and thanks, again, for the brilliant, beautiful, discerning, compassionate, careful, intelligent essay on Critical Race Theory. What we’ve come to expect and treasure from you.
“where you sit determines where you stand”
My,, that’s beautifully put!
Diane,
I can’t improve on Bob’s sentiments so I’ll just add, he speaks for me, too.
Me, too. Happy Birthday.
Ditto, a most Happy Birthday! I hope I am as sharp, brilliant and cogent as you are when I reach your age, (in 3 years).
Happiest of Birthdays! 🙂
Happy belated birthday Diane!
I’ve read the deeply flawed 1619 Project and the serious criticisms of it – these criticisms are not minor points. No credible person disputes the sad history of racism in America, but the 1619 Project is breathtakingly reductionist in its scope, forcing all important events through the lens of a preferred political narrative.
The replies to me reflect the glaring weakness of this blog: the endless name-calling and ad hominem attacks directed at anyone who doesn’t toe the party line. I’ve read this blog over the years from time to time, and there is no longer any meaningful diversity of opinion here, and other commenters are infuriated when anyone dissents in the slightest. This blog needs far more informed reflection and much less polemics. This blog is the left-wing version of Breitbart – you could be so much better than that.
Hold on…my popcorn isn’t quite ready…
Mr. Johnson, the 1619 Project is an attempt at correction of a U.S. public school history curriculum that has been slanted in the other direction for a long, long time. I worked in textbook publishing for most of my life. I could go on and on, in enormous detail, about the whitewashing in K-12 history texts, but the worst of those texts are the sins of omission–the largely absent history of the horrific experiences of indigenous people and people of color at the hands of white Americans through the centuries. However, I will spare you. We will never fix these problems until we face that history squarely, unflinchingly, in all its horror.
Why did the folks who sold black flesh at markets reserve the auctioning of the young women until the end of the day?
The height of white privilege is white people telling Black people how to write their history.
Eugene Johnson says: “the 1619 Project is breathtakingly reductionist in its scope, forcing all important events through the lens of a preferred political narrative.”
Funny how forcing all important evens through the lens of the white supremacists’ preferred narrative doesn’t bother you much.
I never hear those like you who prefer the white supremacists’ narrative bothered much that millions of American school children are taught that Abraham Lincoln was not racist at all. I guess when it comes to truth and your preferred political narrative, you go for lies.
I often ask myself whether this stuff comes from a place of equivocation by secret white supremacists or from simple ignorance of the enormity of the history of racism in the United States and the lived experience of racism by people of color in this country throughout its history up to and including today. I suspect that the latter is quite common–that some folks simply have no visceral understanding of how enormous the problem has been and is.
Bob
“where it comes from”, Eugene’s link is to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal (Koch). Read the titles of the other K.C. Johnson articles.
Isn’t it amazing how a supporter of right-wing propaganda admonishes those who advocate for the truth with “evidence” from the very institutions and organizations that notoriously seek to squelch it? On second thought, it’s far too commonplace to amaze. If only the same folks would put so much energy into improving these systems instead of denying how they came to be.
Eugene,
“You could be so much better than that”… taken from the lexicon of manipulation and shutting down response.
For the most part I enjoy reading this blog and the comments by readers. I like to know what people think about issues in education and why. I do get a bit tired of some of the name calling in the comment section. I prefer civilized discussions and disagreements to playground mudslinging and snide remarks. I find it much easier to believe that opinions have been formed rationally and based in fact when the writer doesn’t feel the need to resort to making up unpleasant names to call individuals or groups holding opposing views.
I agree.
It would be very difficult for me to refer to the deluded, malignantly narcissistic, ignorant, vile, vindictive, extraordinarily dangerous oaf who currently thinks that he is the rightful president in exile with anything other than a term like one of the following:
Vlad’s Agent Orange
The Moronavirus trumpinski orangii
Donnie Dumbo
Trumpty Dumpty
Glorious Leader Who Shines More Orange than Does the Sun
Jabba the Trump
Moscow’s Asset Governing America (MAGA)
The Stable (Haaaaaaa) Genius Who Thought That a Dementia Diagnostic Was an I.Q. Test
And so on. My mother, who is in her late eighties, has a more economical approach. She simply uses a POS emoticon in place of his name. And Greg B, a regular reader of this blog, has another economical approach. He simply calls him “The Idiot,” and everyone knows who is being referred to.
During his unpresidented, darkly humorous if it hadn’t been so tragic term in office, Trump, of course, added a number of new words to our language: unpresidented, covfefe, bigly (his pronunciation of big league). Returning the favor, I have suggested that certain changes be made in informal speech to commemorate the four years of his slimy presence in what he turned into the Offal Office of the Trump Whiter House:
In Trump’s recent speech, beginning his Revenge Tour, he referred to Law and Auto. I personally believe that all drivers of autos should obey the law.
Diane Ravitch and Donald Trump agree on one thing! LOL
An example of an oxymoron-
the Koch network presenting “opinions formed rationally “
These discussions typically sound to me like this:
Sailor 1: There’s a massive hole in the hull. The ship is taking on water!
Sailor 2: But what about the bright work on deck, huh? That’s a problem, too. What about that? It really needs polishing.
Sailors 1, 2, and 3: The freaking ship is sinking. We have to repair the hull!
Sailor 2: And what about breakfast last Saturday? Sailor 3 took the last biscuit.
Sailor 1: The Hole! In the hull! OK. Jeez. Never mind.Come on, the rest of you. Let’s go fix this thing.
Oops. Cx: Sailors 1, 3, and 4: The freaking ship is sinking!
Sean Wilentz from The Atlantic, 1-22-20: quote- On December 20, the Times Magazine published a letter that I signed with four other historians—Victoria Bynum, James McPherson, James Oakes, and Gordon Wood. Our letter applauded the project’s stated aim to raise public awareness and understanding of slavery’s central importance in our history. Although the project is not a conventional work of history and cannot be judged as such, the letter intended to help ensure that its efforts did not come at the expense of basic accuracy. Offering practical support to that end, it pointed out specific statements that, if allowed to stand, would misinform the public and give ammunition to those who might be opposed to the mission of grappling with the legacy of slavery. The letter requested that the Times print corrections of the errors that had already appeared, and that it keep those errors from appearing in any future materials published with the Times’ imprimatur, including the school curricula the newspaper announced it was developing in conjunction with the project. end quote
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-project-new-york-times-wilentz/605152/
Did you notice the (implicitly racist) double standard that Sean Wilentz has in his essay?
Sean Wilentz refers to “DISTINGUISHED” Jill Lepore, a white historian at Harvard, and makes no sweeping attacks on Lepore’s scholarship, nor does Wilentz denounce the entirety of Lepore’s work because he found an instance where Lepore assigned too much importance to something that Wilentz – as the supposedly superior scholar — deems unworthy of such weight. I kept searching via google for Wilentz demanding that Jill Lepore’s publishers stop publishing her book until Jill Lepore offers up an abject apology and revises her books so that they conform to Wilentz supposedly superior view of history. But I could not find Wilentz treating Lepore with the contempt that he did to Nikole Hannah Jones.
Wilentz didn’t spend years concern trolling about how Jill Lepore was giving students inaccurate information and needed to be stopped for the good of scholarship. Does he only treat women without privilege with contempt and hold them to a standard that those with privilege — including himself – never have to meet?
Sean Wilentz writes: “To buttress his case, Silverstein also quoted the historian Jill Lepore: “Not the taxes and the tea, not the shots at Lexington and Concord, not the siege of Boston: rather, it was this act, Dunmore’s offer of freedom to slaves, that tipped the scales in favor of American independence.” But Silverstein’s claim about Dunmore’s proclamation and the coming of independence is no more convincing when it turns up, almost identically, in a book by a distinguished authority…”
I would like to put forward an opinion, not as a journalist or historian, as I am neither, but as a long time academic. For most of us the process of obtaining tenure is a lengthy six year process requiring proof of our abilities as teachers and scholars and our willingness to provide service to our institutions and surrounding communities. The type of position awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones does not. These positions are generally awarded to individuals who, in one way or another have achieved fame. Individuals are awarded these positions for the sake of institutional bragging rights. I strongly suspect that the offer was made in order to enhance minority recruitment as well as a way to appeal to potential donors. These positions generally carry minimal teaching responsibilities. As a professional academic, I rather tend to resent these appointments, however, I recognize the right of institutions to make such offers, provided that the department in which the position is housed has the right to determine whether or not to award tenure in discipline and determine the responsibilities of the individual who is to be associated with the discipline. It is my understanding that the journalism department was in favor of awarding tenure. As far as I am concerned, this decision is the one that matters. In short, while I disapprove of awarding tenure to someone solely based on fame, I recognize the right of an institution, with the support of its faculty, to do so. I also do not see the need for continued debate over a closed matter.
Thank you for this comment, C. I agree with you. I never received tenure, although I was elected to the National Academy of Education, the American Association of Arts and Sciences, and the Society of American Historians. My books have received numerous honors, including the Grawemeyer Award, and I hold a dozen honorary doctorates. I have never been an ordinary member of the faculty. I never had a heavy teaching or even a normal teaching load. I never thought I deserved tenure. In Hannah-Jones’ case, as you note, the department wanted to offer tenure as an inducement for this accomplished journalist to join them at the UNC school of journalism. Her presence there adds to the J-school’s prestige and its ability to recruit students. As you point out, that is their right, and the rejection of the faculty’s decision by the UNC board brought them more grief than if they had taken the usual route and acceded to the wishes of the Hussman School faculty. Although Mr. Hussman donated $25 million to UNC, he should have no right or power to change the decision of the faculty.
Boards of Trustees often make high-handed and arbitrary decisions(often in collusion with upper level administration) that affect the well being of faculty, staff, and students, but are rarely forced to back down. Had this case not involved such a well known individual and been so well publicized,
there would have been no reversal.
C
The genie’s not going back in the bottle, “…continued debate over a closed matter”. Wealthy right wing donors (whether they call themselves Dems or GOP) have a history of exerting influence to protect colonial systems. The more scrutiny that they and their minions receive, the better for American democracy.
Based on your familiarity with the academy, why would individual political science and/or history professors omit from their college-linked cv’s, published articles in their field, particularly those employed by public universities?
Diane,
Do writers for the City Journal receive financial compensation?
Thanks, C, for bringing the discussion back to its proper focus. I agree with you. This is a matter of the department’s intellectual and professional sovereignty, and really nothing else.
Amen to that. And yes, thank you, C.
Adding-
Recognition of the differences in the conflicts that are under review is also important. The wider community benefits from an understanding that institutions of higher learning have a legitimate role in advancing society.
As an example of the point, one tenure conflict may involve the work of a professor whose expertise in epidemiology lent him authority to tell the public that masks were not scientifically proven to be effective
prevention (later changed his/her opinion). The professor may be criticized by academicians (or, college donors) who supported mask wearing from the beginning of the epidemic. The conflict could be characterized as a discrete discussion without broader context.
The other example is tenure influencers known to be school privatization advocates, anti-government libertarians, etc. If racist Georgia Gov. Talmadge lived today and found company within universities and/or with their boards, the public has an obligation to protest against him and his allies in order to assure civil rights. Gov. Talmadge’s objection to tenure for a professor who advocates for public schools (Talmadge wanted privatization to avoid court-mandated integration) has the broader context of well-advised community involvement.
Linda,
I am somewhat confused by your question about publications omitted from CVs. It’s possible that some scholars might wish to highlight their most recent work or their most important work. History and poly sci aren’t my disciplines. If someone with a long publication record is job hunting, they might choose to highlight certain publications on the CV and provide a separate extended list, but this is pure speculation on my part. Generally, academics don’t have the opportunity to switch jobs much unless they are truly exceptional or choose to move into administration. Institutions usually prefer to hire faculty at the lowest rank possible.
C
My hypothetical scenario –
a 2020 updated professor’s cv, linked from a public university site, that excludes multiple publications in 2019 and 2020 that aimed at influencing public policy and appeared at publicly available sites. The sites are funded by political partisans of the anti government spending variety. The writings are consistent with the donor’s ideology. At blogs, the writings are linked and identified as examples of scholar independence.
Your opinion about professional integrity in the scenario, rightful expectations of students, taxpayers and the university?
C,
I am concerned about your comment “I strongly suspect that the offer was made in order to enhance minority recruitment as well as a way to appeal to potential donors.”
So what is your take on the previous tenure offers by UNC to the people with no academic background who held Knight chairs before Nikole Hannah-Jones?
Did UNC award tenure to other Knight Chairs at UNC — white women Penny Abernathy and JoAnn Sciarrino — to enhance white student recruitment and to appeal to potential donors?
Your biases are showing. Implicit racism. I noticed that Penny Abernathy produced research AFTER being awarded tenure and becoming an academic. Implicit racism is the belief that African Americans must be held to a much standard that white folks with that position don’t have to meet.
Please let us know if your deep concerns are allayed!
NYC public school parent,
I am always cynical of these types of positions . Colleges and universities don’t award chairs with tenure and (I’m assuming) limited teaching requirements unless they feel it that they’re going to get something out of it–prestige, donations, grant money, more students, better students, etc. My statement had nothing to do with my perception of the value of her scholarship, but if you’d rather assume my statement has to do with implicit bias, feel free. I am not a historian. As she is a prominent person, I am sure the quality of her research will continue to be debated for some time. I have neither the time, or inclination, or background to to the research necessary to have a responsible opinion about her work.
Hannah-Jones received tenure in the School of Journalism, where she earned a master’s degree. I can’t think of anyone better qualified for The Knight Chair of Race and Investigative Journalism than Nikole Hannah-Jones.
C
Fortunately, the people, especially the community of the public University of North Carolina, formed “responsible opinions” about Walter Hussman. Now, the public needs to form “responsible opinions” about the demographic make-up of the Board of Governors.
Can you and I agree that no legacy admission school should receive
tax funding?
Linda,
I will try to reply to both of your posts.
First, I don’t think public institutions should take legacy status into consideration. I am not sure how this issue relates to this discussion. For the record, I went to a rather non-selective public institution. A super selective institution would have been a very bad fit for me. I applied to and was accepted to my local community college, got my AA and move on from there. It was a good choice and I have no regrets, even though there are a number of folks out in the world who look down on those of us who attended what they consider to be a ‘lesser’ institution. I got an outstanding education–not all of which was in the classroom. (In case you are wondering, I have some pretty explicit biases about this issue.)
Second, if the UNC school of Journalism was racist, Hannah-Jones would not have been considered for the position and we wouldn’t even be discussing whether or not she should be granted tenure. Are academic divisions/departments/schools always fair? No, but there are checks and balances within colleges and universities which hopefully serve as checks on malicious behavior. Do they always work? No.
C
When “they don’t work”, does the community e.g. you and I have a responsibility to act?
The difference between a university and a think tank with students e.g. Stanford, is substantial.
Private schools that admit based on legacy should never receive tax dollars except on contractual terms for work output. Tax dollars should be exclusively reserved for public schools.
Faculty at public universities should be expected to view their roles expansively as a public trust. Private school employees can attempt to craft, carve out, some semblance of codified professional integrity, but the public should always be wary of self-appointed experts from places like the Hoover Institute and the MIT corporation.
And, religious schools like Notre Dame and Koch -friendly Catholic University of America
Linda,
There are many instances of unfairness in academia, as there are elsewhere. iThe only reason people know about the Hannah-Jones situation is that she is a very public figure. Most tenure denials are very quiet. Most decisions are fair, but some are not. Most faculty do not pursue recourse outside of the institution. Doing so is career suicide. You may wish to consider reading inside higher Ed and the chronicle of higher education. Both publications are free on line. You may also consider reading Academe(not all articles are free, but you should be able to access it through just about any college or university. It is a publication of the AAUP.
Recently, several colleges used the corvid pandemic to eliminate tenured faculty. Adjuncts and less senior up tenured (cheaper, easier to get rid of later.) There has been no public outcry. Why? They aren’t well known to the public. They are just ordinary faculty teaching students. In the case of more senior faculty, there will be no second chance at a position. A college going through a hiring process won’t hire someone who will retire in five years unless they are a superstar. Meanwhile, these faculty who have honed their teaching skills will no longer be there for students.
“Financial exigency” appears in the AAUP contracts with which I am familiar. The “what aboutism” of false equivalencies is the lame argument style of the unthinking or those sloppily attempting subterfuge.
Let’s ask your champion, Flerp, attorney at law, if he recognizes the difference in the examples.
I was simply trying to point out that there was nothing ‘usual’ about this case. In particular, the publicity surrounding issue is atypical. If I understand you correctly, you have concerns about the both the board of trustees and the school of Jounalism making the decision. I am not sure who you think should decide. The majority of academic faculty probably view this issue as one of academic freedom–even those faculty who disagree with her work likely support the UNC Journalism faculty position.
As far as your reference to the financial exigency issue you raised: In the instances I referenced, financial exigency was not declared and even if it had beeen, the institution s in question did not follow AAUP guidelines for the elimination of faculty positions. As a result of investigation by the AAUP, six colleges (Canisius College, Keuka College, Medaille College, National University, Wittenberg University) have been sanctioned by the organization. There has been little or no publicity outside of the academic community and little to concern in the communities where these institutions reside.
C
The 2020 SCOTUS verdict in Biel v. St. James Catholic school rendered by a conservative Catholic majority was the handwriting on the wall for the faculty at the Catholic colleges (40%) of your list.
All university faculty who vote Republican seal the fate of their profession’s standards. Those who vote Republican assume their personal entitlement will be strengthened by conservative policy.
National is an “entrepreneurial non-profit” and the others on the list are also private. The standards of a profession have negligible foundation in places where boards are selected by the self-serving. The Koch’s alliance with conservative religious leaders creates a formidable force against the common good, privatization versus public institutions.
Is your inferred point that discrimination based on race, gender, etc. happens at private, religious AND public schools and, UNC was merely caught (oddly, disputes your point about “checks and balances”)? The paper trail and FOIA was essential to Hannah-Jones case and to the public’s ability to win for her.
To understand the struggle to hold accountable, private entities like those run by the religious, we need look no further than the experience of Boston Globe’s Spotlight journalists. The reason those in the church communities themselves didn’t act should weigh heavily on their consciences but, it doesn’t appear to have.
It’s evident in UnKochMyCampus.org’s fight against Koch at the
public George Mason University that a community is requisite to protection of its universities. Private universities may have weak communities They didn’t sacrifice tax dollars to build the schools and the more prestigious ones are heavily skewed toward class privilege.
C,
It’s fine to be cynical – you wrote a long reply about your cynicism.
But why didn’t you just say “I also strongly suspect that the offers that UNC made to Penny Abernathy and JoAnn Sciarrino were made in order to enhance recruitment and appeal to potential donors.”
I don’t understand why you didn’t just say that in your long reply. Yes or no, do you also strongly suspect that the offers that UNC made to Penny Abernathy and JoAnn Sciarrino were made in order to enhance recruitment and appeal to potential donors?
When you see the question written like that – about people who are white – can you understand how insulting your comment was?
Do you also strongly suspect that tenure offers were made to Penny Abernathy and JoAnn Sciarrino to enhance recruitment and appeal to potential donors?
If you don’t also “strongly suspect” that Penny Abernathy and JoAnn Sciarrino were offered their chairs — with tenure — to enhance recruitment and appeal to potential donors, then perhaps you might consider whether you have some implicit bias.
Of course I do. I thought that is what I said. Yikes! I know little to nothing about any of these people. i was expressing a general opinion, not an evaluation of the merits of any of these individuals. The journalism department made a decision. As far as I am concerned, it was their right to do so. What I think is irrelevant. Talk about implicit bias. Why do you find it necessary to nit pick over perceived and unintended slights?
Welcome to the message board, C. This is what she does.
C
If Hannah-Jones was denied tenure by a racist academic department …it’d be o.k.?
NYC isn’t nitpicking.
You are correct about one point- fair outcomes require people who act not just “think”.
C says: ” I know little to nothing about any of these people. i was expressing a general opinion, not an evaluation of the merits of any of these individuals.”
C, you now acknowledge you know absolutely nothing about Nikole Hannah-Jones, but yet your mind immediately went to: “I strongly suspect that the offer was made in order to enhance minority recruitment as well as a way to appeal to potential donors.”
While FLERP! apparently agrees with you that it is perfectly reasonable that a “non-racist” person like yourself would “strongly suspect” that a very qualified African American woman was offered a position “in order to enhance minority recruitment as well as a way to appeal to potential donors”, that sentence you wrote reveals the kind of implicit bias that the anti-racist movement is all about. We all have those kinds of implicit biases – it doesn’t make you a bad person – and the point of trying to be anti-racist is not being defensive but maybe recognize when you have those implicit biases and how it affects your perception of the world.
FLERP!, do you also strongly suspect that Nikole Hannah-Jones was offered the UNC Knight Chair in order to enhance minority recruitment? Or do you just feel like you need to champion people who do strongly suspect that Nikole Hannah-Jones was offered the UNC Knight Chair to enhance minority recruitment and not because she had the same qualifications as the other Knight Chairs?
FLERP!, why does it bother you so much that I did not want to let that insulting comment about Nikole Hannah-Jones stand without comment? If you don’t share C’s view, is it because of your deep concern for the fragility of white people?
FLERP!, do you even think that comment was insulting to Nikole Hannah-Jones? Perhaps if you don’t, you might look to your own implicit biases.
I don’t see anything wrong with adding a distinguished journalist to the journalism faculty in hopes of recruiting more Black students. The main reason to offer a Chair and tenure to to NHJ is because. She deserves it. It’s a chair dedicated to Race and Investigative Reporting. On that topic, she’s the best in the nation. It’s an added benefit for the J-school that her presence will attract more Black students to apply.
NYCPP: Try commenting less incessantly and in fewer words. Also try not accusing as many people of racism.
Diane,
There is a big difference between the way you included all of Nikole Hannah-Jones’ many qualifications when you discussed her, and someone who – in a discussion of a woman who was clearly denied tenure because her views on race were not approved by some in power – refers to her as someone hired to “enhance minority recruitment” without even mentioning all of the other reasons she would be qualified. It is insulting to her. She was hired because she was talented and qualified and had a body of work to demonstrate it. That added benefit that her appointment might help recruitment is secondary, which is why you didn’t focus on that fact alone and minimize or ignore all the other reasons.
Diane, I guess we will have to agree to disagree that the way that C casually wrote that sentence exhibited any implicit bias on C’s part.
FLERP!,
Instead of spending so much time policing my comments, why don’t you go post some more links demonizing teachers by anti-CRT folks?
I noticed you would not just admit that you also “strongly suspect that the offer was made in order to enhance minority recruitment as well as a way to appeal to potential donors.”
I think the offer was made because Nikole Hannah-Jones’s work made her extremely qualified for the position. Anything else was an added benefit, not the reason that the offer was made.
Can you tell us your views on AOC or Bernie Sanders?
FLERP!, If you wanted to change the subject because you are now embarrassed that you defended the comment: “I strongly suspect that the offer was made in order to enhance minority recruitment”, you should have just posted another one of your multiple links to Mythinformed MKE’s anti-CRT, anti-teacher tweets.
FLERP!, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually know that Nikole Hannah-Jones has admirable credentials that made her exactly like the other (white) tenure-appointed Knight Chairs. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that while you are willing to concede that Nikole Hannah-Jones has significant qualifications for that position, you just sincerely believed that there was no need to mention any of those significant qualifications when someone posts that they “strongly suspect” that the reason she got the offer from UNC was “in order to enhance minority recruitment”.
But let’s agree to disagree about whether Nikole Hannah-Jones got her offer “in order to enhance minority recruitment” or because of her strong credentials. While both can be true, mentioning the first while leaving out the second is (in my opinion) wrong, and you believe it is fine.
But really, AOC? Couldn’t you have just posted yet another link to an anti-CRT troll’s demonization of a teacher if you wanted to change the subject? You do seem to like Mythinformed MKE’s anti-teacher tweets so much that you frequently post links to them.