Dem
51
GOP
49
Wow. We got so many letters related to America's university system that people are going to confuse this for the letters page of the Chronicle of Higher Education.
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Having read Donald Trump's petition to the Supreme Court regarding the Colorado case, I actually think they may have the right of it. I don't think they were asking SCOTUS to find that Colorado misapplied its election code. Rather, the point they were trying to make is that the Colorado decision acknowledges that the secretary of state does not have a duty to disqualify candidates or to verify whether the affidavit filed by candidates is accurate. In the absence of that duty, there's been no violation of the election code.
But even if you get past that, even more persuasive is the argument that there needs to be a consistent standard of review and process for adjudicating a claim under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and only Congress can pass such legislation.
We've seen that only a few states have a provision where voters can challenge a candidate's appearance on the ballot. So, what about the other states? Are they out of luck to exclude insurrectionists because their election code is written differently?
Moreover, CO admitted that its process was designed for quick resolution and doesn't allow for discovery or other standard pre-trial litigation practice. SCOTUS will likely find that this process is insufficient for a Constitutional issue that is so fact-intensive.
I doubt the Court will reach the merits of the case because it doesn't have to. Instead, the Court can hold that Congress also needs to define "insurrection" and what constitutes "engaging in" an insurrection.
For all these reasons, I predict the Court will hold that the Colorado Supreme Court erred in disqualifying Trump and will hold that no state can exclude Trump from the ballot based on Section 3 absent Congressional legislation.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I agree that Trump is making the argument that the Colorado Supreme Court misapplied Colorado law, but is trying to put a federal fig leaf on it by claiming this "misapplication" violates the Electors Clause of the Constitution. That fig leaf is enough to pass the "laugh test" for the argument, though I do think it's a loser.
However, I don't see where Trump is asking the Supreme Court "to consider the findings of fact made by the Colorado courts and/or to find that the Colorado judges applied state law incorrectly." The Colorado courts' decision that Trump "engaged in insurrection" is not a factual finding, but a legal conclusion. That is to say, the factual findings are that the Capitol was overrun by Trump supporters seeking to block the counting of electoral votes, that Trump issued certain tweets at certain time, did not say or do other things for some amount of time, etc. No one is taking issue with these factual findings. Instead, it is a question of applying those facts to the language of the Fourteenth Amendment to make legal determinations as to whether the overrunning of the Capitol was an "insurrection" or not, and whether Trump's actions and omissions constitute "engagement" with such insurrection. I've seen a number of commentators erroneously stating that "Trump engaged in insurrection" was a factual finding entitled to deference by appellate courts. It is not; it is a legal conclusion that a certain set of facts constitute engagement in insurrection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellate courts are free to accept or reject lower courts' legal conclusions.
To illustrate the point, let's say you were a convicted criminal defendant who was refused a lawyer. That you were not permitted a lawyer is the fact. Whether or not that denial violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments was a legal question that the Supreme Court has answered (yes, if it was a felony or misdemeanor where imprisonment was imposed; no, if it was otherwise).
I think the arguments against "insurrection" and "engagement" are Trump's best, and that if the Court decides to rule for Trump, it will be on either or both of those bases.
R.S. in Vancouver, WA, writes: I am not writing in on strategy. Some clients want you to make the arguments they want to make; I routinely tell my clients that court is not Festivus and so is not the place for a ritualistic Airing of the Grievances. I'm paid by a government contract and not directly by my clients, so I don't feel compelled to make bad arguments to keep the billable hours rolling in.
I do want to say something about appellate procedure that lay commentators often miss. There was a trial court finding of fact on whether or not Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. Finding of facts at the trial court level are not supposed to be overturned or reviewed unless they are an abuse of discretion, such as there being no evidence on the record that supports a given finding.
For the most part, unless SCOTUS wants to throw appellate procedure completely out the door, the question of whether Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection or provided aid and comfort is settled. The only way around this, without throwing out the book on appellate procedure, would be to redefine the word "insurrection."
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: If the reporting from the last seven years is correct, then the establishment Republicans desperately want to figure out a way to be rid of Donald Trump without angering his already-too-volatile base. If that is true than it seems to me the Fourteenth Amendment case regarding Colorado being decided by the Supreme Court is the best and probably only option the establishment GOP has to rid themselves of Trump. By letting the Supremes get rid of that meddlesome ex-president, the elected establishment Republicans can then feel free to act all victimy and scream their righteous indignation to their hearts content on Fox—I hear they're quite proficient at the performative arts, so this shouldn't be a problem. They can say, "Those crazy judges. What are you going to do? They're appointed for life, but we'll be sure to appoint some pro-Trump ones the next chance we get! Besides it's all the Democrats' fault for putting them in that position."
Yes, the Freedom Caucus will scream bloody murder. They might even try to bring impeachment proceedings against the Republican-nominated judges who ruled against Trump but that's a political dead-end. If Biden is reelected, will even the Freedom Caucus be willing to give up their conservative Supreme Court for one where Biden picks their replacements? There would go Dobbs (and the fundamentalist Christians as well) plus a lot of rulings near and dear to the Republicans' hope of reclaiming power. Additionally, clearly Trump is extremely nervous about this ruling. Just this weekend in Iowa, Trump was back to making not so veiled threats of violence if the Court rules against him. (I personally think his ability to summon the angry mob is overrated now that so many of his insurrectionists are in prison.) His trained attack Chihuahua/lawyer, Alina Habba, has even gone so far as to singular out Judge Kavanaugh—I'll get to why she made a point of stressing how grateful Kavanaugh should be to Trump later.
The question now is this even a feasible option? Of course, the first and biggest ask is: Does the Republican establishment have the spine and other body parts to defy Trump, even in such a hands-off method? The past certainly gives us no hope of that, but I think Republicans would be well served to remember two important facts. One, they know from past experience, they can't control Trump. In fact, in the years since the 2020 election, he has gotten even more impulsive and chaotic. Second, any Republican who has leveled even the mildest of criticism against the God-Emperor himself, will have a very good reason to pause for the purpose of self-preservation. Trump has admitted many times that 2024 is his Revenge Tour. If Trump overthrows democracy, as he is promising to do, then Mike Pence and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will join Barack Obama in swinging from whichever limb is closest to Trump at the time. Just looks how he makes pretend that Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) rebukes after 1/6 doesn't bother him but the fact that he keeps bringing up that subject up over and over shows that it really does get under his thin orange skin. I would never want to be in Graham's pumps, but double that if Trump is reelected.
The next big ask is: Does the Supreme Court have the votes to block Trump from running? I'm pretty sure that Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and probably Neil Gorsuch will turn the Constitution into an origami swan in order to keep Dear Leader in power. Although, I do keep hearing that the Uber-Rich and Big Business types are keen on another Trump term. Their thinking is that Trump is unpredictable and a chaos maker, and wealth is hard to make in chaotic situations. If that's the case, then the Uber-Rich already knows the asking price to get Thomas and Alito to change their votes—and it's a really cheap price. Nonetheless, let's just assume that for once Thomas and Alito can't be bought (ha-ha), then there are three votes to keep Trump in the election.
While not a sure thing, especially if Trump's lawyers make a compelling argument (not very likely, with the low-hanging fruit he has on his team), the three Democratic judges, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, will probably vote to uphold the Colorado decision. That leaves Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Of the three, Barrett is the most elusive as to how she might rule. She seems to have equal parts establishment and MAGA Republicanism in her. It might just come down to who gets to her first.
Roberts makes a big deal about calling balls and strikes, and one could certainly question the convoluted shape of his strike zone, but still he has been known to rule for the other side in order to appear "fair and balanced." Roberts also makes a big huff and puff about maintaining the integrity and reputation of the Court (trying saying that with a straight face), but while I think that is more posturing than actual commitment, it still is a line of argument that the establishment could use to persuade him. While I don't think Roberts has the spine and fortitude to defy Trump and certainly won't go out on that limb alone, he is also on the other hand very much an establishment Republican, who will do as the party wills.
That leaves Kavanaugh, who also strikes me as very much as the establishment Republican. I don't agree with his school-age "hijinks" nor with most of his rulings but occasionally he can side with the not-straight-party line. I do think that Kavanaugh is very aware of his reputation and is open to ways to refurbish that. I think he would be the best path to booting Trump from running—and clearly, the Trump camp is worried about this as well or else Habba wouldn't have done the heavy reminders that Kavanaugh owes Trump for sticking beside him during the confirmation process. If Kavanaugh is willing to uphold, Roberts will jump on. They could then go after Barrett, because Roberts would prefer a 6-3 ruling over a 5-4. So I do think it is possible that Trump has a very real reason to squirm about this case. Plus, wouldn't it be something else for the Democrats to have to praise Kavanaugh for saving Democracy! Cue up that Alanis Morissette song.
J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: I think Chief Justice John Roberts must work hard to get at least a 7-2 vote on the Colorado's banning of Trump, and preferably 8-1 or 9-0 regardless of which way the ruling goes. However, I think a large majority decision on the question of eligibility is lilely impossible—Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas will not vote to kick Trump off and I don't see how one of the liberals agrees that he can stay on the ballot.
Failing to get a large majority decision, I think Roberts will push hard to kick the can down the road with a ruling that says the case is premature because the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to candidates in primaries, only candidates in general elections. (The real nightmare would be the Court ruling that it only applies to candidates who have won the election.) That will at least push the issue back a few months and would allow the Court to see whether it's even necessary to kick Trump off the ballot if he's being crushed by Biden (or the GOP chooses not to have a convicted felon as its nominee).
If Roberts allows the decision to go forward, I think it is quite possible that the decision is a plurality, with three voting that Trump stays on the ballot, three saying he's ineligible and three saying the amendment doesn't apply for one reason or another, but they concur in the result of... probably the three saying he stays on the ballot.
Ultimately, I think the Court (in whatever size vote) will say that Section 3 of the Fourteenth amendment is not self-executing and that Congress needed to pass a very clear law on the subject, which Congress never did. The reason that will be attractive is that some states (Texas and Missouri) are making noise about kicking Joe Biden off the ballot. Without a very clear ruling on this matter that takes the matter away from individual states (and gives authority to either only SCOTUS or only Congress), every election will have the risk of a bogus move by one state or another to disqualifiy someone they don't like.
Finally, the Court could rule "he's off the ballot and now the matter goes to the Senate for a vote on whether to remove the disqualification; okay, we're outta here!"
J.E. in Akron, OH, writes: Most legal commentators seem to think SCOTUS will find a way to keep Donald Trump on the ballot. I propose another use of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since Congress can vote to remove an already-incurred disqualification, introduce a resolution to do just that, making clear that Trump has been disqualified, but that Congress deems it best for the Nation to allow the People to have the final say. Then watch Trump's minions squirm over having to take a vote that can be characterized either as admitting that Trump is an insurrectionist or voting that he should be disqualified.
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: I have to strongly disagree with your opinion that a New Hampshire independent would have more impact writing in Democrat President Biden than voting for Republican Nikki Haley. There is no question that President Biden will be the Democratic nominee, regardless of what happens in New Hampshire. Even if he was to lose the state, not being on the ballot is a pretty good excuse and it would quickly be forgotten when he wins the remaining states by huge margins. If anything, it would motivate Democrats to get out and vote for him in the primary for fear of a spoiler handing the presidency to the Republican.
However, if there's any chance of derailing Trump from the nomination, then Nikki Haley MUST win New Hampshire and the larger the win, the more momentum she'll have going forward and the greater the chance of stopping Trump.
I also disagree that she would be the weaker candidate against President Biden. Trump has a ceiling and everyone already has an opinion about him. There are very few undecided voters left to fight over. It will be all about the ground game and who can get their voters to the polls on Election Day. If anything, Trump's only going to get weaker once his various trials start and become the only thing the country is watching and talking about. And a conviction is certainly not going to help his campaign. Yes, it will likely be close and with a few thousand votes in two or three states he could still win. That terrifies me, which is why I would urge a New Hampshire independent to vote for Nikki Haley.
On the other hand, even though I think he's been a great President, Biden has never been a good campaigner and with age he just doesn't bring much enthusiasm. We know most Americans are looking for an alternative to both Trump and Biden. Nikki Haley's rise is because she's been able to do well at the debates and attract more and more support. She's likable enough and between her and President Biden, she will be the one most people would rather have a drink with. Historically, that's usually the person who wins the presidency. I don't expect it to even be close and she'll be our next President. (If I may say so, you seem to have a blind spot about her and have continued to undervalue and underestimate her since she announced. I think there may be a little confirmation bias going on here when it comes to Nikki Haley.)
R.C. in North Hollywood, CA, writes: In response the question from reader M.J.F. in Clementon about whether Donald Trump or Nikki Haley would be the stronger candidate in a general election, it seems obvious to me that the general election campaign of any non-Trump Republican candidate is doomed. If Trump fails to win the nomination, he will have no choice but to run as an independent, because his whole strategy for surviving the various criminal charges against him is to win the election: If he's President, he won't go to jail. But an independent Trump candidacy would almost certainly doom any other Republican by splitting the conservative vote. To my mind, the Republicans have no choice but to hand the nomination once again to Trump.
As much as I don't want a Republican in the White House, my fear of Trump winning outweighs all other considerations. He must be stopped in New Hampshire and if the result of that is a Nikki Haley presidency, then c'est la vie.
D.S. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: Your description of Joe Biden's strategy is the most hopeful thing I have read for a long time. In addition to this, it is clear that since 2016, Democratic organizations have sprung up to improve the ability to fundraise, to promote Democratic themes, to deal with the most egregious voter suppression tactics (thanks, Mark Elias), and in general to get out the vote. Fingers crossed.
R.G. of Minneapolis, MN (temporarily in Tucson, AZ)
I visited Penzey's Spices today to pick up some items. They are offering customers up to 4 packets of spice blends to try for free. The owner of the business, Bill Penzey, does not mince words or hold back about the modern Republican Party. He even printed his opinion about the January 6 Capitol insurrection on the back of the "Outrage of Love" spice blend:
Thought your readers would be amused. I certainly was.
A.A. in Branchport, NY, writes: A good line about Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) has been making the rounds: DeSantis started on third base and stole second.
S.J.Z. in Darien, IL, writes: R.L. in Alameda writes that Dean Philips is "a centrist in the Clinton/Obama mold."
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not centrists. They are moderate liberals. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is a centrist. Please try to avoid being bamboozled by the Berniecrats, who want to paint everyone to the right of Joseph Stalin as a centrist.
A.G. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Your comments on wristwatches are comically out of touch. Almost every man in corporate America wears a wristwatch. I rarely see a male member of an ET (executive team) not wearing a watch and middle management does as well. Women much less so, but still very frequently. The watch industry is doing quite well it seems with $4.5 billion worth of Swiss watches sold just in the USA in 2022.
As to not being able to see the difference between a $100 watch and one sold for $25,000? Well, I guess you won't notice a difference between a 2000 Geo Metro and a new Rolls Royce either. I would challenge anyone to go to a Walmart and then a Rolex/Omega/Tag Heuer/Grand Seiko shop and tell me the watches are the same. Mind you, most watches at those stores are well under $25k.
Lastly, in terms of wearing something visibly expensive, $25,000 is really not that expensive. Sure, for most people it would be an unfathomable luxury, but we are talking about a guy who likes gold bars. I am surprised he didn't have a $50k+ watch like athletes/F1 drivers/celebrities tend to wear.
P.W. in Valley Village, CA, writes: Something you missed.
Some women like having expensive jewelry. Necklaces, earrings, and the ever-so-fancy tennis bracelets. One reason for this is that during a divorce, clothing is excluded from community property. So that extensive collection of tennis bracelets that Trophy Wife #3 insisted on having is hers and hers alone. No prenup needed to assure she'll be able to walk off with a tidy sum when Trophy Wife #4 comes into the picture.
The equivalent for men of the tennis bracelet collection is ridiculously expensive watches. Thereby, one of the reasons for $25,000 watches to exist. And even if it isn't for the community property issue, some men want to buy themselves fancy jewelry, and the earrings and tennis bracelets option isn't available to them.
A.C. in Kingston, MA, writes: I'm a huge fan of your snarky commentary, but as I read the paragraph about Menendez, I started answering your questions...
"First of all, how many people even wear wristwatches anymore?"
My husband. He wears (as do a lot of people) a smart watch on a daily basis, but has long been a connoisseur of high quality watches. We can't afford them, of course, but he enjoys watching video reviews on the craftsmanship, and over the course of our almost 30 years together has bought me a few watches as gifts, none of which I have ever had an interest in wearing. Which brings me to...
"Second, as a byproduct of that, how many people can actually tell the difference between a $100 watch and a $25,000 watch? Is it really worth the risk to impress one person in a hundred? Maybe one in 200?"
One person in even 200 is still actually a LOT of people. I live in a small town. One percent of our town's population is about 140 people. One percent of the UCLA undergrad population is more than double that.
But that's actually not the point, especially for a corrupt politician like Menendez. The real appeal of expensive watches (like other small luxury goods) is their portability. I read this paragraph out loud to my husband and was treated to a long (and frankly boring) explanation of how the highest-end watches maintain and even increase in value over time, so are great if you're looking to hide money. Even better, say you want to move money out of the country—you hop on a flight to Switzerland or the UAE wearing your five-figure watch, and then sell it once you get there. The top watches contain precious metals and/or jewels and run from $40,000-$80,000. That's a lot of loot that can be moved around the world without attracting too much attention.
C.W. in Carlsbad, CA, writes: Having spent several years of my own life as a grad student, I totally get the "publish-or-perish" atmosphere of academia. But subsequent years of exposure to the social changes we see in this country brought on by various factors (including technology shifts and immigration) have made me aware that there are many ways to view a thing. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs being promoted and implemented in secondary and post-secondary schools are changing the way we look at how things are taught and learned. I've come to believe that there are other ways academics can contribute to society in a meaningful way, other than cranking out publications.
Claudine Gay is a child of Haitian immigrants. Being Black and female, she succeeded in the university system despite clear obstacles. According to her Wikipedia article, she graduated from Stanford, winning the Anna Laura Myers award for best undergraduate thesis, and earned her Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard, winning the school's Topan Prize for her dissertation. She has spent much of her career in administrative positions, and her research, first at Stanford and later back at Harvard, centered on America's social and political identity as influenced by race, culture, and other complicating factors.
The points I want to make are these: We don't necessarily understand what Harvard was looking for in a president. It could very well be that she was precisely what they were looking for. They certainly had their eye on her from the early 90's, enticing her away from her then Stanford-based career track. We also cannot see the difficulties she had (has) in conducting her research, which, coupled with administrative work, could easily (in my mind anyway) account for the fewer publications. I don't see that as a fair criticism. Finally, as far as the plagiarism complaint, I can easily see that individual perceptions can influence what appears to be an "idea" and how that idea is expressed and/or attributed. But it's hard for me to imagine that her peer reviewers wouldn't have caught something that was actually a problem. I have to dismiss in my own mind any accusations of plagiarism, barring a full analysis of how the issue came about.
We all know that this whole thing is part of a larger effort by the GOP to discredit higher education in general and DEI in particular. Why not call Gay's resignation for what it is: A travesty and an abuse of the powers of Congress. If anyone should be ashamed here, it's Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY).
B.G. in Houston, TX, writes: As a Harvard alum, I'd like to respond to the question of "Why on earth was Claudine Gay chosen to be president?" You wrote, "There are so many candidates, we're just going to go with one that checks a lot of good boxes, because how can we possibly identify the BEST one?" This response is patently ridiculous.
Gay has no track record as a fund raiser, and her scholarship (particularly in comparison to the faculty she was supposed to lead) is pathetic. She checks exactly one box: DEI evangelist. This isn't some sort of secret. Her very first missive to the Harvard faculty described how she planned to drive DEI initiatives across the university; that is clearly what she was "selling" during the hiring process. As such, she isn't some sort of collateral damage of the culture wars, targeted unfairly by a rabid conservative right. Whatever one feels about the DEI conflict, she's a major figure on one side of it.
With respect to the dismay and confusion shown by The New York Times' opinion columnists, recognize that group has largely incorporated DEI as an absolute good whose value is beyond question. The former opinion editor James Bennet, who was forced out by this group for the crime of publishing a piece by a sitting U.S. Senator, has produced a worthwhile piece on how the new guard has managed to terrify the adults in the room. (Also of note: one of those columnists, Roxane Gay, is Claudine's cousin.)
The vast confusion around Claudine Gay is a wonderful example of cognitive dissonance. Elise Stefanik (another Harvard alum) has utilized it to catapult herself to frontrunner for the orange one's VP slot.
B.B. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: I've been reading this site since 2004.
Many years ago, I had immigrated from Soviet Union to the U.S. with my wife and two small daughters as refugees. Reason? Prosperous antisemitism. And we hoped that we would never meet this monster again.
Unfortunately, in last several years, especially since 2015, we are observing with growing fears the antisemitism on a rise in the U.S.
I was shocked when, just two days after Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack by Hamas on Israel, numerous American universities—including top ones like Columbia, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania (my daughter's alma mater), MIT, etc.—saw organized antisemitic demonstrations by students and, in some cases, faculty members. There was nothing done by university administrations to make them stop. Presidents of universities must be first and foremost guarantors of everybody's safety in university campuses. Otherwise, they must resign, and they did. The University of Pennsylvania president did it first and then the Harvard University president also resigned.
Sadly, the second, much unexpected shock that I experienced, happened when I read in this blog the item "Gay Resigns" by (Z) about the Harvard president's resignation. Just one quote: "...There's really no question Gay had to go. Her clumsy answers about antisemitism were problematic, but survivable, since there was no ill intent..."
Does (Z) really think that the answer to the question about antisemitism in Harvard University was just "problematic, but survivable" for Harvard president and real problems and reasons for resignation were other things like plagiarism, billionaire Bill Ackman's actions, Elise Stefanik's inconvenient questions and so on?
How should we understand the word "survivable"? Having the only this problem ("clumsy answers about antisemitism") is OK but if there are other problems (see above), results might be different? So, inaction in the face of antisemitic demonstrations is not big enough sin?
And what does the following passage mean "since there was no ill intent..." Does that mean that Gay did not organize or participate in those demonstrations? That is, of course, good thing, but not good enough to be innocent of wrongdoing.
I am really disappointed by this commentary, which is talking not about very serious and sometimes deadly threat of rising antisemitism, but talking mostly about internal academia employment/firing controversial problems.
Also, I believe, words "witch hunt" in this blog should be used only in citations! These words are from a very different environment and have very specific flavor.
(V) & (Z) respond: Since you worded your comment as a sequence of questions, we will answer that when Gay's only problem was the lousy Congressional testimony, she received a statement of support from the Harvard Board of Overseers, and another from the Faculty Senate, affirming her job was safe. Then, when the focus shifted to plagiarism, both entities withdrew their support, and she was gone. We make no judgment as to which misstep of hers was worse in a moral sense. However, the facts on the ground and our experience as academics tells us which was not survivable in a professional sense.
A.B. In Minneapolis, MN, writes: Shame on you for characterizing the action against Claudine Gay as a witch hunt. You have shown the same attitude to unethical behavior as Donald Trump, and even chose the same terminology. Elise Stefanik should be praised for rooting out that parasite. You have no integrity.
E.M. in Poughkeepsie, NY, writes: I suspected a trap when I first heard that three university presidents would be testifying before Congress, but only afterwards did I see how well that trap was laid. It might look at first like they chose to pick on women, but I thought that there was more to it than just that. After all, six of the eight Ivy presidents were women at the time of the hearing. So I looked at the presidents of all the Ivy League schools and comparable private schools (from the top of the US News list for National Universities):
The table is sorted by the year the president took office. If you wanted to select someone new to the job, you would start at the top of the list, except that the first two have many years of prior experience leading other institutions, so skip over them. As you can see, almost everyone else has prior experience as a provost, the chief academic officer of a University. As (V) and (Z) know, provosts and deans deal primarily with internal matters, while presidents have to spend more time with external relations. A new president is more likely to do poorly or make a mistake in public. On top of that, Claudine Gay skipped over the long-serving provost at Harvard (he's now interim President), so she might be considered the greenest of the lot. To me it looked like she and Sally Kornbluth and Liz Magill were chosen because they were new to the job, and possibly also because they are women. When I did this I was not aware of the connection to Bill Ackman, so thank you for that. It seems that Ackman and Stefanik really did their homework and saw a serious vulnerability (or several) for Gay, and threw in Kornbluth and Magill for good measure.
P.R. in Kirksville, MO, writes: As a fellow academic, I think your analysis of the Gay resignation was absolutely correct—the resignation came for the right reason, but only as a aftershock from a very poor showing at the hearing. I would only add that obtaining a Harvard full professorship is usually a very, very difficult thing. At least in the fields I am familiar with, they never grant tenure internally. A "tenure-track" position at Harvard is an extended postdoctoral appointment, a springboard to a tenured position elsewhere. Full professors with actual tenure are hired from elsewhere, usually mid- to late- career scholars who have made a significant name in their field with multiple books, grants, awards or fellowships. Gay was hired from outside (Stanford), but as you note, with a very weak publication record. I find it just as unusual as you do, that she was given tenure at Stanford and then recruited by Harvard with no published books.
J.K. in Portland, OR, writes: A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away (Star Wars, 1977), I was on the faculty at the university across town from (Z) whose name cannot be mentioned (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, 1998). In my social psychology courses, I offered the option of a term paper on a topic approved by me in lieu of "the hardest final examination they'd ever seen," which meant that I almost never had to write up said exam. I also stated that the only way they could fully flunk the course (as opposed to getting credit for their tuition dollars with a grade of D) was to plagiarize. All of this was in writing.
I created groups of four students based on the paper topic and met separately with each group for an hour-long discussion, where they were assigned to read each other's papers. At some point in each discussion group, I would read a full sentence or two from each student's paper and ask the student what they were talking about. It was my belief that if a student had written that paper, the student could correctly answer that question. I took the risk that students who plagiarized were also too lazy to read carefully what they were submitting as their own work. Before the discussions, I already had a pretty good idea who might have plagiarized—undergraduates rarely fully understand the concept of written style, and papers purchased from professionals were generally in a style that students at this university could not achieve. If a student flubbed a first read, they were given a second chance.
Over the 10 years of my tenure, I failed fewer than five students in such courses. One of those students appealed my decision on the basis of prejudice. I was called up before an assistant dean and the student, and she so accused me. I stood my ground. Because I could not identify the original source of the material, the assistant dean was inclined to overrule my grade, so I came up with a proposal, which the assistant dean and the student accepted. The student would give the paper to a professor of English who taught creative writing for adjudication. The student submitted the paper she wrote for me, along with a paper she claimed to have written a semester earlier that was given an A grade (the median grade, even then at my institution). The professor, who was not knowledgeable about the topic of the paper, reported that the paper was a document from three different sources, and noted where the plagiarized material switched from each source to another. The professor also noted that the earlier paper had also been plagiarized. Given that, my grade stood.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: I may know of the most egregious case of academic plagiarism in the history of peer review. About three years ago, my spouse received a paper for review. Before settling down to read it, he flipped through to look at the graphs and other data illustrations. He thought they looked really familiar. He began reading, and by mid-paragraph he realized that this was his own paper! The entire thing verbatim with three paragraphs of "original work" tacked onto the end, which, incidentally, was completely wrong. The paper was submitted by an academic and graduate student from an eminent Chinese university.
Quite the cultural eye opener, to say the least.
G.P. in Las Vegas, NY, writes: As someone who didn't go to Ivy League Schools but did work full time while earning two MS degrees at Northeastern University in Boston, I take some exception to plagiarism. I worked very hard to make sure my thesis was clear, properly notated and free from anything remotely related to possible plagiarism. Thesis-writing is a long, drawn out process. But done correctly, it is very satisfying and leaves you with a great sense of accomplishment.
I am saddened, but not surprised, this has come to light. My sympathies, however, are with those of us who feel anger towards someone who attended an Ivy League or equivalent isn't held to the same academic standards that applies to everyone else. I suspect (V) & (Z) would agree with this 110%.
Leaders lead by example. If they get caught, they should face the consequences. Regardless of party, demographics or political views. Cheating is simply cheating and should be treated impartially.
J.K. in Silverdale, WA, writes: Since plagiarism was a much discussed topic this week, I thought the readership would enjoy this quiz answer that a political science professor shared with me:
C.H. in Atlanta, GA, writes: I'm writing in response to the question from J.L. in Paterson about hiring business professionals in lieu of academics to lead a university. My alma mater (University of Iowa) in 2015 incurred quite a bit of dissension after the Board of Regents hired Bruce Harreld (MBA, Harvard) as president. The faculty senate, student government, and staff councils all vocally shared their disappointment in the appointment and he was viewed with a great deal of skepticism. Indeed, the AAUP ended up sanctioning the university for failing to solicit meaningful feedback from the faculty. I was aghast that they'd put someone so seemingly unqualified at the head of the university.
I found a recent article that explores the changes he implemented at the university which I thought might be illustrative (if a very small sample size) in response to J.L.'s query. A cynic could read the article as a bit of a paean for a retiree, but it nonetheless contrasts his actions on shared governance as opposed to peer institutions.
Having abandoned my ambitions at joining the professoriate (history) and finding myself in corporate america for the past 15 years, much of how President Harreld approached the job makes a great deal of sense based on the interactions I've had with fellow executives. There's no doubt something to be said about contrasting the realities of the different skill sets needed for being a great academic professional and the leader of a large corporate organization.
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: The letter from J.L. from Patterson, asking about the academic vs professional background for a university president, brings to mind a controversy in the Austin ISD public schools right now. They have named a candidate as the sole finalist for superintendent who has never taught. He has a strong background in operations management and has gained a lot more support and trust during his tenure as interim superintendent, but many people are upset by his lack of classroom teaching experience.
Personally, I think the biggest challenges in the district are related to budget and facilities, and he has been great about listening to teachers and the community. So, I think he's a great choice. He has been able to win over many educators in the district as well over the past year despite his lack of teaching experience.
M.S. in Williamsburg, VA, writes: You wrote: "British universities often have a ceremonial head, so they can hire a celebrity to "lead" the university while not actually having that person do anything." Not just British universities. At William & Mary (note - they no longer use the word "college" and use the ampersand), the current chancellor is Robert Gates, and the chancellors before him were Sandra Day O'Connor, Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher, Warren Burger... all the way to George Washington. They don't have to do anything, but usually show up and give a speech at Charter Day (commemorating the 1693 Charter). Occasionally they help lobby the Commonwealth in Richmond for more funding.
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, writes: In your item about the Fox list of "wacky" college courses, my first thought was, "Did they not go to college themselves?" Anyone who's gone to college knows there are always some classes offered that seem odd to them. For example, I've taken bowling, ballroom dancing and square dancing, all of which could count as P.E. credits or electives. I also received one credit hour each fall semester when I was a music major for being in marching band. Being in it was required for all music majors, so the university had a course set up just to give us extra credit for it. (As I recall, it also counted as a P.E. credit.) To a non-major that course name would look really strange.
But even within majors classes can seem odd. For example, I had to take a history of math course to get my Computer Science bachelor's degree. What did that have to do with computer science? Nothing directly, but it was part of a "capstone experience" all CS majors had to take that counted as a math credit, not a history one, which was also odd. Along with that was taking a 300-level history course, which is why I took a course on the history of the Crusades and the Middle East. It was a great course, since the professor turned out to be one of a handful of worldwide experts on certain aspects of the subject matter. (Z) may be interested to hear that I took so many history classes (and got such good grades) that I was invited to join Phi Alpha Theta, the National History Honor Society. All the professors at the induction ceremony were amazed that a non-history major qualified.
After I had that thought, I checked and it turns out that Rush Limbaugh dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University after only two semesters, so he was showing his ignorance by creating those lists. I'll bet all the on-air talent at Fox have degrees, though.
M.B. in San Antonio, TX, writes: You nailed it on the head when you wrote: "It's a pretty good case study for how right-wing anti-education types either don't know what they are talking about, or are being deliberately disingenuous." I would go even further and assert that these pundits and politicians are typically revealing their god-like omniscient attitude, since fundamentally they are saying: "Since I don't understand it, it must be worthless and untrue." I myself don't understand the finer points of astrophysics or string theory, but I would never describe them as worthless and stupid, yet that is precisely the attitude we see in delusional conspiracy theorists, flat earthers, and other assorted anti-intellectuals. My favorite example is Sarah Palin's 2008 inane comment: "Sometimes these [research] dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not." (This one was particularly ironic, since the fruit fly research Palin was mocking was instrumental in understanding autism, a disease she allegedly cared about because her nephew had it.)
The one course on the list that I can relate to personally is UConn's Introduction to World Puppetry. I teach a course in World Music, and a lot of what we cover is related to puppetry, since numerous cultures have historically used that medium (as well as drama and opera) as a fundamental representational art form, in many cases for hundreds or even thousands of years. The list includes, but is not limited to: Japanese Bunraku, Indonesian Wayang Kulit and Thailand's Nang Yai (shadow puppets), Indian Kath Putli, Burmese Yok Thei, Vietnam's Múa Roi Nuoc (water puppets), Italy's Oritigia and Commedia Dell'Arte, France's Guignol, England's Punch & Judy, and, yes, the U.S.'s Muppets, as well as the long ventriloquist tradition. Though I only touch on some of these superficially in my class, one could easily spend an entire semester examining the historical, cultural and musical representations of each of these traditions. I suspect this kind of in-depth examination and analysis could be part of each of the courses that you listed, courses that are decried by right-wing types who, again, have no idea what they are talking about, and for whom they are worthless since they are not part of their own personal experience and world view.
E.C.L. in Blacksburg, VA, writes: Tree Climbing: I wasn't certain until I looked it up, but the purpose of the course is teaching single rope technique and rigging appropriate for climbing trees for arborism and other research and tree maintenance. I don't know if Cornell has a forestry program, and the course lives in the outdoor education program. I know several professional tree trimmers who use techniques that would be taught in this class (plus they are applicable to speleology and recreational caving, and to rope access, at varying degrees).
R.G.N. in Seattle, WA, writes: Tree climbing is an important course for academic scientists such as ecologists, zoologists, botanists, etc., who study the ecology of tree canopies. Cornell may be an Ivy League school, but it is also a land grant college with a respected natural sciences program directed towards resource management. Cornell teaches many tree climbing courses directed toward specific groups. Along with recreational tree climbing, there are classes in educational tree climbing, and researcher tree climbing. Although the recreation course may fall into the "Take a Break" course group, researcher tree climbing falls into the "Check the Department" group. Just as a marine biologist needs to learn scuba diving and studying the ecology or geology of mountains now needs to know rock climbing technology, climbing trees can be serious business and dangerous if you do not know how to do it safely.
I took a class in recreational fishing at University of Washington College of Fisheries Science and the course was useful to ichthyologists, marine biologists, and fisheries biologists because we often have to interact with the general public. At the same time, it was also a popular Advanced Basket Weaving course popular with the Husky Football Team. As long as football players attended all the classes and took the tests, they were assured a passing grade. The rest of us needed the skill set of knowing the language or a portion of the public we interacted with.
A.K. in Alexandria, VA, writes: Cornell's tree climbing course is a P.E. course. Something like this would also be invaluable to field biologists who do collections or surveys of plants, animals and fungi. In other words, it is not the frivolous course that Fox thinks it is.
G.W in Oxnard, CA, writes: You listed Introduction to Surfing at Pepperdine University as a course Fox ridiculed as "15 of the wildest, wackiest college classes taught in America today." I would like to point out that Pepperdine is a few miles from surfing beaches. You can see the ocean from the campus. It is certain that students will surf, many with little or no experience with the dangers of the ocean. The university has a very strong incentive to give the students an opportunity to be prepared before they venture into the ocean. There could be a liability issue, too. Were a student attempt to surf not knowing what they are doing, especially when the waves are huge, and come to harm or drown, then the university could be held liable for not offering the student the opportunity to be prepared. Also, drowned students can't pay tuition. A surfing class at Pepperdine is very far from wild and wacky and is consistent with common sense.
C.L. in Glendale, AZ, writes: Without commenting on/evaluating the rest of Fox's list of "crazy" classes, I must defend the first course on the list. I earned my undergraduate degree at Pepperdine in the mid '70s (BA English/History, secondary teaching credential), and have regretted for almost a half-century not expending one credit to learn how to surf while living in MALIBU. So it was with a sense of correcting past mistakes that I encouraged my son to take Northern Arizona University's skiing class during his senior year, and cheerfully paid my portion of the tuition cost. (Yes, there IS snow to be found in some parts of Arizona, and NAU's main campus is only a few minutes away from Flagstaff's Snowbowl ski resort.)
D.L. in Uslar, Germany, writes: Looking at the universities on Fox's list of wacky college courses, I spotted a couple of red-state private schools, both of which have a religious affiliation (High Point and TCU), and at least one other religiously affiliated school (Pepperdine). Both Pepperdine and TCU at least lean evangelical, so either the rot runs very deep or things aren't what Fox would like its viewers to believe. That's at the surface, before even beginning the more critical assessment offered by (Z).
The remedial university in downtown LA may offer Underwater Basket Weaving, but if they do, they copied the idea from the blue and gold. Forty years ago, UC San Diego offered just such a course. It was one quarter and one credit, pass/fail, and more importantly, students who passed received SCUBA certification. Once again, there was more to it than what it says on the tin.
J.M. in Markleeville, CA, writes: Donald Trump should take NYU's Failure class.
J.E. in Manhattan, NY, writes: In your item, "Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republicans," there are a lot of important things to note here about polling journalists' political party affiliation and why it seems few conservatives (however defined) are in the profession. This will be a bit long but that is because the issues are a bit complex.
First, my bona fides: I was a reporter starting in the mid-90s at several local papers in the Bronx, Florida, the Boston area, and Connecticut. I was a reporter covering finance in New York for a decade after that, and a freelancer covering science and technology in the decade after that. I worked in both print and radio, though the latter was a brief internship in 1992 in upstate New York. I left the field in 2017, after 23 years in the profession, to become a teacher.
Americans in particular have a fetish for the idea of "objectivity," but as media scholar Jay Rosen points out (as do others) if you are a journalist and support government transparency, accountability, the ability to ask government for redress, and the engagement of citizens with their government when they are given information about what it does... you are taking a political position. If you think that private, powerful organizations should be held accountable for their actions, you are taking a political position. If you think it important that people who are not usually given access to lobbyists for legislators should be heard, then you are taking a political position.
It's also the case that if you are doing local journalism at the community paper (many of which, sad to say, are in trouble and much reduced), it's because you care. You can't do local reporting without caring about what happens to the people in that community. And the same is, for the most part, true of the people who work at The Washington Post or The New York Times. They care about something enough that they want to tell the stories that will help other people understand the word around them.
None of these things lends itself to right-wing thinking, by and large. And the GOP has moved very, very far right in the last two decades. So I suspect that there are a lot of journalists who would have been or voted Republican in the past who would not now (for example, I know for a fact that at least one person I worked with voted for George Bush in 2004, and he wasn't alone).
The pervasive idea that media people are a bunch of left-wing ideologues isn't borne out by reality or the reporting that gets done; the fact is that a lot of reporting has biases towards the people in power. For example, when I did police beat work—lots of young reporters were often assigned to that because it was, ostensibly, hard to screw up—we took what was in the police reports as truthful, but there really is no reason to do that. Often media outlets will say there are "two sides" to an issue, but let's ask ourselves what the "two sides" are, for example, to giving civil rights to Black people. This obsession with both-sidesing is why politicians of any stripe are allowed to spout lies that are effectively unchallenged; when you don't call a lie a lie, but treat it as one side of a debate, then you accept the premises of that lie.
The charges of liberal bias have been going on since the Vietnam War, even though the people who were reporters there were, to a large degree, veterans of World War II and Korea (this makes perfect sense when you think that these were mostly men in their 30s and 40s, and the United States had an active draft from 1945). So it isn't like it was a bunch of Harvard- and Yale-educated "woke" folks in the profession.
Even now, elite institutions don't tend to produce a huge number of reporters. It was a rather working-class job for a long time, though that has changed some in the last two decades. This is largely due to the proliferation of unpaid internships; when I started in the business, most newspapers offered paid internships (not much, but enough for me to pay my rent and eat in Buffalo, NY). Now at many publications—and online outfits are particularly egregious in this regard—internships are unpaid. Television was always worse than that. You can guess the class of people this favors; it is really hard for anyone who needs the money to survive to break into the profession.
One thing that has happened—and I should say this is in spite of, rather than because of, the management in newsrooms—the profession has become a lot less white and male (though most of what we consider elite outfits are still white-dominated by a fair bit, see above about unpaid internships). That in itself introduces biases—but then ask yourself why we, as a society, tend to think a profession that is largely white and male would be unbiased. (If you think a Black person can't be "objective" about race, ask yourself why you think a white person can.)
I hope this is helpful for your readers, as media is one of those industries that for people outside it tends to be rather opaque (pro tip: almost every TV show or movie about reporters gets what we do all day badly wrong; the exceptions are All The President's Men and Spotlight).
I.M.O. in Norman, OK, writes: As a professional journalist (BA/MA in Journalism), and actively working in the field for 20+ years for a small national outlet, I would like to cite another factor that is likely influencing the trend of political preference, which you covered. Journalism is one of the lowest paid professions, particularly upon graduation. Most journalists do not work for the cable or broadcast TV networks, or for the large national branded papers. Most work in their communities.
In years past, when there were local newspapers, many newly-minted worked as city reporters as a first job, often earning little more than minimum wage. Even working as a local TV news stringer or and associate broadcast producer is a low-paying gig for a new journalist. As local papers have declined and blogs have emerged, true news-focused blogs can rarely pay the wages that the same person, with the same degree, could make in public relations or marketing.
With this outlook, those aspiring toward a degree in journalism often come from families where high incomes are not the first priority. This doesn't necessarily mean they place a higher value on community service, or lofty ideals (integrity, truth, democracy, et al), although I'd like to think they grow into this path of thinking. Conversely, those from wealthier families are more likely to direct their studies (and that of their children) toward more lucrative careers.
Also, as Stephen Colbert has noted: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: Two thoughts about the Syracuse University poll on the political party affiliation of journalists.
First, you noted, rightly, that "the 'independents' column is probably doing a lot of heavy lifting." No doubt! Note that the percentage of Democrats has stayed almost constant over the five decades presented, except for a small blip up in 1992 and a small blip down in 2013. But the percentage of Republicans fell through the 1970s, stayed about constant until 2000, and then plummeted, while the percentage of independents stayed pretty constant from 1971 to 2002 and then ballooned in 2013 and 2022. It seems there can be little doubt that the type of Republicans who are journalists and the type of Republicans who are Trumpists do not overlap much, and that there has been an exodus of journalists who used to self-identify as Republicans to journalists who self-identify as independents.
Second, one should be cautious in interpreting this secular trend data because the measured population has changed tremendously over half a century. Most obviously, it's not that the same group of journalists that was 26% Republican in 1971 is now only 3.4% Republican. But even if one interprets this appropriately as reflecting the makeup of the profession as a whole (even as the individual members change), journalism as a profession is vastly different now than it was in 1971 or 1982. In particular, after Watergate and All the President's Men journalism became a fashionable career that attracted hordes of talented and ambitious young people. Today, young people perceive (probably correctly) journalism as a dying field overtaken by social media reporting by untrained individuals and soon to be rendered obsolete by generative AI. The field has shrunk. It is entirely plausible (though unknowable from these data) that in response to changes in the industry, Republican journalists have fled to other careers more quickly than Democratic or independent journalists.
D.M. in Wimberley, TX, writes: Pondering the question of why so few journalists today are Republicans you wrote:
Journalists are supposed to value facts and the search for the truth. It's pretty hard to resolve the cognitive dissonance between that and the fantasy world that many Republicans inhabit today.Thank you. This is a great example of how stating a fact will get one accused of bias, but these things need to be said.
R.L.P. in Sacramento, CA, writes: I was glad to see Dolores Huerta in your list of important Latinos and Latinas. She is still a very active force in Central Valley politics. I have worked with and contributed funds to her organization since 2018, mostly for get-out-the-vote efforts, plus some community-building work, which I think is her main focus at the moment, all within the realm of Democratic politics. She's a real hero. And a persistent and long-lived one, fortunately for the people of Central Valley (and the world, for that matter).
K.C. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: Che Guevara: influenced Kissinger and Nixon and Reagan and North in their rabid anti-communist policies and unintentionally hugely influenced the direction of US foreign policy.
Augusto Pinochet: Kissinger and Nixon's means of carrying out more of the above; continuation of modern-day disastrous U.S. foreign policy and belief in the right to overthrow a democratically elected government of a stable democracy, if we disagree with the choice of that country's citizens (also, the real life peron upon whom George Lucas based Darth Vader).
S.S. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: I think Joan Baez was one of the most influential Latinas. From about 1960 on, she influenced, through her music and related activism, a huge number of young Americans who were beginning to turn toward the peace movement and civil rights issues. She was one of the early "protest singers," following in the footsteps of the likes of Pete Seeger, and demonstrated how powerful music and powerful lyrics could bring moral principles to prominence and activate people to march, write, speak and generally support the civil rights and anti-war movements in massive numbers.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: Thanks for mentioning Sylvia Rivera in your Latino/a list!! She threw the shoe that started the Stonewall Riot. One of my sheroes!!
R.H. in Santa Ana, CA, writes: You mentioned Sylvia Mendez. It just so happens that the Gonzalo y Felicitas Mendez Middle School is here in Santa Ana. I'm a lawyer; when I first moved here, my wife asked if I'd ever heard of them.
"They were the parents who brought the lawsuit that ended school segregation in California seven years before Brown v. Board." Mendez (and Brown) ended de jure segregation, but of course that didn't end discrimination.
My wife was the daughter of a farm worker and a house cleaner, who went to a "white" high school in Orange County in the 1970s. When she wanted to sign up for advanced courses, her counselor said there was no need, since "You're just going to get pregnant and drop out, anyway." That counselor told her she was "not college material".
To her face.
The person whose job it was to advise high school students on how to navigate school and life told my wife that she was not the type of person who goes to college. She was on the "Mexican Track".
One way to make absolutely certain that my wife would do something was to tell her that she wasn't smart enough to do it. She went to community college then transferred to Berkeley for her BA, then she got a Master's in Ethnic Studies and another in Counseling at SFSU, then she got a Doctorate in Educational Leadership from Cal State Long Beach, all while working full-time.
Doctora S. spent the last 30 years of her life as a Counselor at UC and as Director of a TRIO program in South Central LA. (Yes, THAT South Central), where she worked to retain first-generation, low-income students (as she had been) in STEM programs in higher education. Not bad, for someone who was not college material, eh?
Oh, and you also mentioned Dolores Huerta. Thanks to my wife, I was able to meet Doña Dolores a couple times. I asked her "What made you and Cesar think it was possible to organize the farm workers?"
She replied "I did not think it was possible, but I knew it was NECESSARY."
As an aside, when she was talking to me, she called him "SEE-zer", and when she was talking to my wife, he was "SAY-zar." Code-Switching: It's a thing, even for Doña Dolores.
S.B. in Hood River, OR, writes: I am going to have to disagree with J.N. in Columbus. While we didn't discover this until after the war, the German bomb program was a joke, and much of this had to do with Adolf Hitler himself. He didn't trust the theoretical sciences, feeling that they were decadent. Any publications by Jewish scientists were banned. Hitler sent German scientists into the draft. An entire generation of physicists were lost. The effort was fragmented and poorly funded. The V weapons programs, which were the kind of armaments Hitler could understand, got as much funding as the Manhattan Project did. Add to that the arrogance of the leaders of the German effort—for example their decision to use heavy water as a neutron moderator, rather than graphite. The U.S. had a working nuclear pile in 1942. The Germans never achieved it. After the war, the Americans bugged the captured German scientists. They did not believe the U.S. had achieved the bomb. They calculated that it would take a factory the size of the entire country to produce enough fissionable material, and that a bomb had to be at least 10 years away. Any Nazi bomb scenario would require the absence of Hitler.
D.M. in Burnsville, MN, writes: You write: "With this said, a great many of those [Jewish] intellectual and cultural figures had escaped beyond Hitler's reach before the Holocaust commenced, and had taken up important positions in American and European society. So, there is no chance, in reality, that the story would not have been told and re-told."
I offer what I believe is a fully believable alternative reality, one of many "what if the Nazis had won" realities, but a story that's still worth defending (I believe). That is Robert Harris' Fatherland, set in 1964, in which a successful but weakened Nazi power had taken all of Europe and America/Amerika was still an enemy overseas. This novel (and highly watchable DVD starring Rutger Hauer) makes a compelling argument that opposes your respective points of view. This Guardian review of the book is, I think, quite accurate and fair.
My point: High crimes (and even misdemeanors) can be swept under the cultural rug and quickly forgotten. One need only look at how the Trumpist camp has "co-opted" (to use a sixties term, sorry) the daily news feed and is even now attempting to make Jan 6 a kind of victory. As the old saying goes: The victors get to write the history books. They've already started.
G.B. in Dallas, TX, writes: The question of how a post-fascist Nazi Germany would work has come up in one of Harry Turtledove's more serious books. In The Presence of Mine Enemies tells of a 21st-century Reich that undergoes a political thaw under a new führer, analogous to the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev. Told from the perspective of some of the few remaining Jews (who have survived by passing as Gentiles), the new Germany pointedly does not become less antisemitic; a coup led by the SS to halt the thaw is thwarted when the agency's head is accused of being a hidden Jew himself. The new führer goes out of his way to insist on what a great man Hitler was, but also that the modern Reich has strayed from his vision such that reform is necessary to keep it going. If a victorious Nazi Germany were ever to reckon with its misdeeds directly, it would be attacking the foundational assumptions of Nazism itself.
N.E in San Mateo, CA, writes: In your response to J.M. in Silver Spring, you wrote: "Turtledove produced the second type of alternative history, wherein historically impossible events are introduced into the narrative." While that's absolutely true for the two cases J.M. mentioned (both more Sci-Fi than alternate history) a lot of Turtledove's work has been of the other sort.
He's a fiction author writing to entertain at novel length, so it's never going to be the same as shorter essays written by historians, but in the straight alternate history he tends to play the history a good bit straighter than a lot of other commercially successful writers, and when he extrapolates out a bit far it's often to parallel real events—most notably in his very long "what if the South won the Civil War" series which starts playing it relatively straight, but turned into "what would World War I and II have looked like with a divided American continent?"
Last, I'm surprised that (Z) didn't mention that Turtledove is a fellow UCLA graduate.
(V) & (Z) respond: (Z) thought about mentioning that, but it felt gratuitous.
P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, writes: Thank you for your paean to the brothers Smothers, as tribute to Tommy's passing. They were a very important part of my teenage years and are missed exceedingly. Recalling their TV shows brings back how avant-garde their progressive political perspective was. Tommy was truly amazing with his witticisms and was such an excellent foil to brother Dick. This world today desperately needs their ilk once more.
D.L. in Uslar, Germany, writes: In your response to J.S. in Durham, you suggest that CBS canceled the Smothers Brothers out of concern that Richard Nixon would use, abuse, or misuse the powers of the presidency to make life difficult for the network. It's a lot simpler than that. William Paley, who owned the network and wasn't above involving himself in decisions at any level, was a supporter of the GOP and Nixon. He frequently interfered with the news side of the organization in Nixon's favor, quashing negative commentary after presidential speeches and downplaying early Watergate coverage. A few complaints from Nixon made it easy for word to come down from the very top to get rid of a show that had already butted heads frequently with the network and Standards and Practices.
G.R. in Tarzana, CA, writes: In the 1960s, Tommy was a huge part of my comedy education. Years later, I was fortunate enough to spend many an evening sitting with him (and other funny people) at the Improv in Hollywood. He couldn't be funnier or nicer, and in the comedy world, one was a given, the other was always a pleasant surprise.
E.S. in New York City, NY, writes: Just so's you know, the Smothers Brothers Christmas song was "Tzena, Tzena," which is an Israeli song in Hebrew (it's about young women told to come out and greet the young men/returning soldiers). Maybe that's an inside folk song joke, that it's definitely not a "Christmas Song."
(V) & (Z) respond: We know; that's the bit. Their Christmas songs always went off the rails, one way or another, with them often ending up singing lyrics that were not Christmas-related.
G.W. in Avon, CT, writes: Your piece on the passing of Tommy Smothers reminded me of two anecdotes, one personal and the other quite public.
The public one is simply to note that the incident with The Who happened exactly the same day as The Doors were banned from Ed Sullivan for singing the proper lyrics for "Light My Fire." I always found that coincidence of musical notoriety amusing.
The personal one is that while I am slightly too young to have seen the Comedy Hour in its initial airing, my mother was a fan and I learned to appreciate them as well. Thus I was quite tickled many years later to open up the locker I was assigned for my senior year of high school and find an old Pat Paulsen bumper sticker with the slogan "We Can't Stand Pat."
Nothing important to say. Just sharing some memories the news has brought up.
J.T. in Orlando, FL, writes: As a disciple of Dr. Seuss, I was properly and righteously indignant at Flash's trying to pass off a Cat in the Hat hat for the staff Christmas photo. This is personally sacrilegious to me, to debase a sacred relic in this way. Unfortunately, my numerous e-mails to the Complaints Department have just recently started bouncing back, not sure why. Do you happen to know the direct line to HR? Thanks. (Even though there are whispers HR's in Otto's pocket, I'm still very naively hoping they'll be neutral and won't retaliate against me for complaining about a close ally.)
T.C. in Los Angeles, CA, writes:
S.O.S. in Madison, WI, writes: When it comes to the stealing of treats, be aware you may not be dealing with a 1-foot dog vs a 4-foot shelf. But rather TWO 1-foot dogs in a trench coat.
A.E. in Leeds, England, UK, writes: One has to wonder if one or both staff dachshunds have perfected the Fosbury flop.
Well, at least you're getting your steps in!
C.W. in Littleton, CO, writes: Looks like the boys got into a lot more than dog treats this time:
G.M. in Vista, CA, writes: I wanted to thank you for liberally incorporating Wikipedia into your articles, and specifically for referencing the one on American Civil War. As a Wikipedian (I focus mostly on early spaceflight) it is always gratifying to see the world's most used and comprehensive encyclopedia employed in a scholarly fashion.
Of course, not every Wikipedia article is ready for prime time. We have a rating system, which is only visible if you have a Wikipedia account, that lets you know how refined and double-checked any given Wikipedia article is. This system goes from "Stub" for brand new articles, to Start, to C, then B, and finally "Good Article" and "Featured Article." In general, once an article has made it to B (which is what American Civil War is), it is perfectly serviceable. Good Article requires a peer review, and the Featured Article status is very lengthy and comprehensive.
Wikipedia is not only a terrific resource, but it is also a lot of fun. We are always looking for more editors. The brilliant, educated, dachshund-loving folk who frequent Electoral-Vote.com are all invited to give it a try. They will likely find it rewarding and addicting!
C.S. in Newport, Wales, UK, writes: In 1929, King George V was ill and spent 3 months recuperating in the English seaside resort of Bognor (which, because of this visit, was renamed Bognor Regis). There is a myth that when he lay dying in 1936, someone said to him that he would soon be well enough to revisit the town, and his last words, in response, were: "Bugger Bognor!"
The reality is more gruesome: As the King lay dying, becoming gradually weaker and drifting in and out of consciousness, his doctor wanted to protect his dignity by sparing him a long agony before the eyes of those present in the dying room. He also wanted the death to occur early enough to be announced in the morning edition of The Times and not the evening tabloids, so he injected the king with a deadly mixture of cocaine and morphine. But George V realised that he was effectively murdered, and his real last words were: "God damn you!"
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.