SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Mrs. Warren’s Profession

PLANK MAY 29, 2012

Mrs. Warren’s Profession

BY ALEC MACGILLIS

Elizabeth Warren’s supporters breathed a sigh of relief last week when polling emerged showing her running neck and neck with Scott Brown despite several weeks of stories about her and the universities that employed her having at various points made highly dubious claims about her having Native American roots. But clearly, things are not going as well as hoped for Democrats in the race that seemed a few months ago to present the party with its best pickup opportunity in the Senate—a fiery, well-funded liberal heroine, arch-nemesis of hated Wall Street, running to reclaim the “Kennedy seat” from the affable, Wall Street-funded Republican who wandered into the seat from the state Senate. Massachusetts Democrats are sufficiently anxious that her remaining primary rival, a young immigration lawyer, is getting pressure to leave the field. Heck, there’s now even tabloid talk about Jose Canseco, the former baseball slugger and steroid-era truth-teller, getting into the race.

It’s tempting to generalize about Warren’s difficulties. Such as: what’s up with the Massachusetts Democratic establishment twice in a row lining up behind Senate candidates who end up being less ideal in reality than theory? This, I would argue, is going too far. Yes, state Democratic leaders should’ve realized that Martha Coakley, the capable but colorless attorney general, was going to be a lackluster candidate, and considered others in her stead. But it’s easy to understand why the seas parted for Warren—she was the woman of the moment, she has deep grass-roots financial support across the country, and she is pretty darned good at articulating a forceful case for the Democratic agenda. She even flirted with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show—not something one could imagine the buttoned-down Coakley doing. No, the broad (overbroad?)  conclusion that comes to my mind as I watch her recent struggles is a different one: Elizabeth Warren is paying for the sins of academia.

Consider: both of the main obstacles that have arisen for Warren so far are related not to her outspoken liberalism or to her out-of-state roots or to her recent work in Washington. They are related to her career in the academy. There is the matter of Warren’s wildly overstated Cherokee heritage, which, it’s becoming clearer by the week, were definitely used by her employers, especially Harvard Law School, to make their faculties look more diverse—even as it remains unproven whether Warren herself deployed the claim to advance her career. One does not need to be George Will to note that this represents a David Lodge-quality parody of higher education’s affirmative action neurosis.

Then there is the matter of Warren’s handsome Harvard salary —together, she and her husband, a fellow Harvard Law professor, made more than $600,000 last year. Now granted, these are not Romney-level riches we are talking about, and pickup-driving Scott Brown is no chump in this department either—he and his wife, a local TV reporter, earned more than $500,000 last year. But there’s no doubt that Warren’s role as champion of the beleaguered working and middle classes is somewhat undermined by the People’s Republic of Cambridge comfort in which she’s been ensconced. Yes, I know, there’s nothing to stop the elite from having populist convictions, and I don’t think Warren’s pitch is anything but sincere. But when you’re worrying about getting your kids through college in an era of $50,000 tuition, room and board, it is, shall we say, a little bit dissonant to have the rally for the little guy coming from a professor whose bottom line has benefited from those sky-high tuition rates.

There is a difference between these two examples, of course. In the case of the Native American claims, it was Warren herself who ill-advisedly got that ball rolling years ago, only to see it blown up like a Fenway Park bleacher ball by academic administrators. In the case of her salary, well, that’s just the circumstance of a high-profile law school professor at a top school these days; no one’s expecting Warren to have signed her pay away to, say, the American Indian College Fund. Taken together though, Warren’s recent troubles seem to suggest that elite universities, which are striving so hard to prove their relevance and purpose, may have made it difficult for those in their ranks who truly want to make the leap into the public sphere, so rarefied an environment have the universities created for their top employees, both in terms of their cosseted lifestyles and the air of political correctness they are made to breathe.

It’s remarkable, really, how few academics-turned-politicians we’ve seen in the past few decades—there was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Paul Wellstone, and of course Barack Obama, though he was never really more than an adjunct hanging around campus while he built his political career. Now comes Elizabeth Warren, who seems at first blush as suited to make the leap as anyone—she hails from real America (Oklahoma! Degrees from the University of Houston and Rutgers-Newark!), she’s shown she can hold her own in the Washington game, and she’s running in the state that, while hardly devoid of town-gown tensions, seems as likely as any not to hold an academic background against a candidate. Yet even she is dogged by the trappings of the contemporary academy. Seriously, if Lizzie Warren, daughter of an Oklahoma City janitor, can’t make the jump from the ivory tower, who can? Her troubles may be a sign that the academy’s moat has grown wider than it ever intended.

follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 49 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

49 comments

Perhaps. She does specialize in bankruptcy law, though. I'd hope to Betsy that her debate prep is solid so she can rattle off figures about how the Democratic Party platform and her campaign are focused on helping people in the middle class (taxes), people aspiring to be in the middle class (health care, higher education policies), and people trying not to fall out of the middle class (unemployment insurance, more stringent financial regulations). Crucially, like many female would-be legislators, she was motivated to get involved in politics based on advocacy for a cause: the CFPB, more or less. This is a cause that makes her a better candidate than the man of the bankers, Scott Brown.

- chaitless

May 30, 2012 at 12:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is my formal invitation to elite universities to make my transition to the public sphere more difficult by, say, tripling my salary! I'll take the risk of appearing to be not such a man of the people. Seriously, I'm not entirely convinced by the argument here. The difference between $500k and $600k is not all that much from the perspective of ordinary mortals. I think the election will swing much more on whether she can campaign well and connect with voters (Brown seems to have those skills, Coakley did not).

- JEFF FREY

May 30, 2012 at 1:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I suspect that to many in Massachusetts Ms. Warren seems as alien as a, well, an Indian; she isn't from Massachusetts, she teaches kids who aren't from Massachusetts, and she spent the past several years living outside of Massachusetts. What if, instead of returning to Harvard, Ms. Warren had taken a position closer to the community, such as at a community foundation, using her background in bankruptcy to assist working Americans in Massachusetts who are experiencing hard times. As it is, Ms. Warren comes across as an elite smarty pants; heck, even many in the Obama administration viewed her that way and weren't disappointed when she left. Facebook stock is more likely to reach $100 per share between now and November than Ms. Warren is to be elected to the Senate in November.

- rayward

May 30, 2012 at 8:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As it is, Ms. Warren comes across as an elite smarty pants" Putting aside the condescending "smarty pants" for "intellectual", Warren comes across as an elite intellectual precisely because she is .... a member of the elite of the intellectual elite, and very well off as a result. I don't see how that can work in her favor in a country where, outside of academia itself, anti-intellectual sentiment and posturing are rampant. An awful lot of people resent the notion that by being educated and spending their time being paid to be knowledgeable and to think, someone may be better at finding answers to questions or discovering solutions to problems, than they are themselves with their plain 'ol common sense.

- IowaBeauty

May 30, 2012 at 8:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We aren't talking about whether Ms. Warren deserves the best spot in the faculty parking lot, but whether ordinary people will vote for her. Being perceived as a smarty pants may help with the parking spot, but definitely not in attracting votes. My point is that she might have helped neutralize the smarty pants issue if she had spent the year and a half before the election doing something else in Massachusetts besides teaching at Harvard. [As to the more difficult question whether a lawyer, even one who teaches at Harvard, has special insight to solving our nation's problems, I often tell folks that I have no usefull skills, I'm a lawyer. On the other hand, I do like to remind my physician clients and friends that while my forebears were writing the constitution, theirs were treating their patients with leeches and draining all their patients' blood.]

- rayward

May 30, 2012 at 9:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a strong supporter of Elizabeth Warren, as well as a financial contributor to her campaign. That said, I am plenty worried about her prospects in the coming election. Though not a stodgy as Martha Coakley, nor prone to gaffes such as disparaging the practice of campaigning outside Fenway Park or referring to a former Red Sox star as a Yankee, her campaign style strikes me as heady, excessively earnest, and in dire need of some sense of humor. Can any of you recall anything even remotely amusing that she has said in a campaign speech or media interview? I'm concerned that in the debates, the charming, genial Scott Brown may be weak on substance but will nevertheless prevail by connecting to voters on an emotional level. Sort of like Bush did with Kerrey where EQ trumped IQ. I sent an email to her staff about this and eventually received a stock (i.e. non-) answer. If others have different perceptions, I'd love to hear about it. I'd dearly like to be wrong about this.

- JackR

May 30, 2012 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"My point is that she might have helped neutralize the smarty pants issue if she had spent the year and a half before the election doing something else in Massachusetts besides teaching at Harvard." My recollection is that until 10 months ago, and just two months before she announced her Senate candidacy, she thought she would be running the CFPB. I think you are wishing for a long-term strategy that was impossible given that her career has lately required abrupt tactical adjustments.

- Fishpeddler

May 30, 2012 at 9:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" I do like to remind my physician clients and friends that while my forebears were writing the constitution, theirs were treating their patients with leeches and draining all their patients' blood." Given that the constitution made aboriginal americans non-persons, and enshrined slavery while counting slaves as part of white voting power, I'm not sure leeches and blood-letting look all that bad .

- IowaBeauty

May 30, 2012 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sheesh, what's with the sudden outbreak of Elizabeth Warren bedwetting? Judging from the tone of the piece and the comments, you'd think that she was running 15 points behind Scott Brown and her campaign staff was resigning en masse. As it is, she's running pretty much even with a popular incumbent (while still technically involved in a party primary race) and still raising scads of money. And, according to available polling, the whole Cherokee flap didn't dent her ratings one bit -- perhaps because most uneducated voters don't give a fig and just chalk that stuff up to run-of-the-mill nuttiness in academia rather than some sort of moral flaw with Warren's character. Yet another example of how the political media should give a little more deference to what the public actually thinks, as shown by opinion polls, rather than what the political media thinks the public should think.

- wildboy

May 30, 2012 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wildboy nails it, I think.

- GSpinks

May 30, 2012 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I lean Democratic and support Obama, but I will be voting for Brown this fall. The reason why is that Brown has demonstrated (even if on smaller issues) that he will break with the GOP. Overall, although I disagree with his stances on the ACA and gay marriage, I do feel he has done a good job as Senator in his brief time in DC. Warren makes me nervous, not because of the whole Cherokee thing (which is absurd) or the academia thing (I am among the well-educated hordes of MA), but because I do not feel that she will do as good a job as Brown in the Senate as a representative of MA. My feelings lie in the percentage of campaign contributions she gets from wealthy donors outside of MA. While Brown has his share - and much from Wall Street, yes - he at least has demonstrated himself not to be a hack or - God forbid - a Tea Partier.

- rlgordonma

May 30, 2012 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Three or four years ago, my Godson was drafted to play for a youth football team that included all the best, most athletic kids in his age group. Even the field goal kicker was the best soccer player in his age group. As I watched the kids during their first practice I was amazed that all that talent could be drafted on the same team and commented to the head coach that nobody could beat this team. At the end of the season, after tying one game and losing the rest, I commented to the same coach that the problem with this team is that it peaked in the first hour of the first practice.

- rayward

May 30, 2012 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you "lean Democratic and support Obama," you can do your larger cause no more harm than handing control of the Senate over to the Republicans. This is not the year for parsing fine differences between the candidates. This is the year for voting a straight party-line ticket. The one chance this nation has for addressing its problems is if the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

- billhub

May 30, 2012 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm a bit puzzled as to how Warren can come across as "an elite smarty-pants" to someone and "excessively earnest" to someone else. They are not the same thing at all, as the former implies a kind of sharp superiority that has an edge of contempt, and the latter suggests a teacherly seriousness that assumes that everyone is virtuously interested in the same values. One term implies a poised detachment, the other a kind of myopic embracing of one's theme. For what it's worth, Warren comes across to me as a very intelligent and likeable young-grandmother-type, someone who can be professorial but also empathetic, and has a lot of that EQ that JackR describes.

- ironyroad

May 30, 2012 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But clearly, things are not going as well as hoped for..." Well, if the hope was for a 5-10 point lead, no. But being tied is pretty good. Especially considering that lying about your past is a pretty serious flaw (and I count myself as a Warren admirer otherwise).

- polcereal

May 30, 2012 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are many things I don't understand. Such as Bill Clinton, who is a charlaton, but also the most accomplished Democrat in at least a generation. One might assume that, after Clinton, Democrats would appreciate the power that someone like Clinton has with voters. But they don't. Then there are Republicans, which, not being one of them myself, seem alien. Take Senator Dole, a war (WWII) hero and long-serving Senator. Yet today's Republicans despise Dole. Why? Because he denied Reagan the Republican nomination in 1976 (by supporting Ford at the convention) and, by doing so, gave the election to Carter, who gave away the Panama Canal, which, according to today's Republicans, is why the country is in such a mess today. I actually admire Dole, in part because he hoodwinked Democrats into supporting the largest lower to middle income tax increase in history. Not because I favor the tax increase, but because of his skill in getting Democrats, Democrats, to support it. Even Clinton couldn't match it. There are many things I don't understand.

- rayward

May 30, 2012 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think I am with billhub this year. Electing another Republican to the Senate, even if you like him, for example Senator Brown, is asking for trouble. They've demonstrated absolutely no compunctions whatsoever in their quest for power, damaging the nation in the process.

- Sophia

May 30, 2012 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IowaBeauty is right, sadly. America has become pro-stupid. I don't get it. But one sees it in many aspects of our culture; there's an anti-professionalism, even anti-health thing going on, sometimes among people you would consider intelligent and well-educated. One surprising aspect of this is a pro-fat movement among many women I know, who should know better, and who are also delusional; they post pictures of Marilyn Monroe on FB as an excuse for their obesity (as if Marilyn had been fat!) So Warren being bright and well-educated? That should be a plus! but it isn't.

- Sophia

May 30, 2012 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll be voting for her in November and when I decide to vote for someone I stop caring what the opposition says. As for her profession, the academy is in deep trouble intellectually and it's possible that some people are taking out their justified disgust with academia on her. For those interested here is a review on an interesting book on academia. I love the snide title: "The university: still dead" "Andrew Delbanco’s insightful new book on the history and future of the American college exposes an institution that has no idea what it should be." by Angus Kennedy http://www.spiked-online.com/site/reviewofbooks_article/12484/

- arnon1

May 30, 2012 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great discussion, all. Will weigh in here on just one count: the notion that Warren's troubles are overstated. I disagree. Yes, she's tied in the polls despite Cherokee stuff. But really, she should be ahead. Well ahead. She's a liberal heroine running in one of the most liberal states in the country, with tons of funding, against a guy who, while affable enough, was a back-bench state senator three years ago. He won because he was running against a terrible candidate in a terrible moment for Democrats. The political mood is now better for Democrats, if not great, and Warren is a better candidate than Coakley. She should win this seat. That she has a real fight on her hands can surely be attributed partly to the academic trappings described above.

- Alec MacGillis

May 30, 2012 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Most Americans are afraid of pointy heads. Although intellectuals have their blind spots, like all humans, they do know things in their specialty areas that most don't. And this scares people. It might be a partial throwback to the witch doctor era, but with a twist. In days past witch doctors, while feared, were admired for their special knowledge. Nowadays they're hated. Jealousy has replaced respect. And even people with college degrees are afraid of intellectuals, who are thinkers. College should teach people to think, but it doesn't. Of course, thinkers can get off track, too, when they let their emotions rule. Thinking should be guided by the Golden Mean, but, of course, it rarely is.

- magboy47.

May 30, 2012 at 5:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Again, a small point but I'd suggest that Warren has EQ (or EI would be another way of describing it) and then some. I'm a bit puzzled -- and there may be something I'm overlooking here -- by people who find her distant or detached.

- ironyroad

May 30, 2012 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This statement of Delbanco's, quoted in the review "Literature, for example, has moved from dressing itself up in the scientific rigour of linguistics to the postmodern rejection of truth and the relativisation of all values through to the contemporary fad for passing off computer-run word pattern searches against digital texts as amounting to ‘readings’ of books." is utter bullcrap.

- ironyroad

May 30, 2012 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not from Massachusetts or even from the U.S., but that said I''m with Wildboy and Ironyroad. Interested in in this race as I am, I cannot imagine people of centre to left persuasion not preferring Warren to Brown. She's dynamite, a great success story, with tremendous expertise joined to her heart, which is absolutely in the right place. He's an affable mediocrity who has the virtue of some pragmatic flexibility. American politics will be denied a politician, if she's not voted in, who has, to my mind, Pat Moyhnihan like potential. The notion of her as a "smarty pants" is absurd, such is her earnestness and her passionate devotion to improving things for most Americans. Excessive earnestness, if that characterization is fair, is hardly a terrible trait. It amounts to a lack of a possible light touch in the service of an ameliorating social policy vision. I'd trust any open minded voters to see what's what about her.

- basman

May 30, 2012 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ironyroad - I appreciate your curiosity about where my concerns are coming from. Here's a line from e.e. cummings that might help: "Who pays attention to the syntax of things/ Will never wholly kiss you". Warren is great on syntax or substance. Nobody understands Wall Street's failings better. But her school teachery affect is not a connector; it's the opposite, a distancer. Compare her campaign style to that of Obama. Here's an example of Obama's use of irony and humor: Obama was commenting on Romney's description of the Ryan budget as "marvelous", observing that it was an unusual word and that he'd never before heard it used in conjunction with "budget". He proceeded to have fun with the anomalous concept of a "marvelous budget". The audience laughed and ate it up. By contrast, Warren's strictures do not come off as fun or ironic. They come off as deadly serious, like bad tasting cough syrup, probably good for us but not a cummings kiss. I truly hope I'm a minority of one on this.

- JackR

May 30, 2012 at 6:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad "This statement of Delbanco's, quoted in the review "Literature, for example, has moved from dressing itself up in the scientific rigour of linguistics to the postmodern rejection of truth and the relativisation of all values through to the contemporary fad for passing off computer-run word pattern searches against digital texts as amounting to ‘readings’ of books." is utter bullcrap." It may not be a precise formulation but's it's far from being "utter bullcrap." I know you are defending what you consider "your backyard" but Delbanco is also an insider in this game. He does know what he is talking about. I recently read an article by a Professor of Lit. who thinks that one can learn more about books by not reading them than by reading them. "Other ways to use a book" http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-06/ideas/31580787_1_earliest-readers-books-literary-critics Having said this I found his book on Melville under-whelming.

- arnon1

May 30, 2012 at 6:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem with the New New Republic isn't that it isn't covering foreign affairs, but that its domestic coverage deals mostly with the upcoming election and that from a very narrow point of view. It gets boring when article after article details how The Republicans are wrong. I agree they are wrong about economics, about most social issues, but how many times do you need to be told that?

- arnon1

May 30, 2012 at 6:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon, I think that if he had written thusly: "Literary scholarship has moved through a number of phases in recent decades: once attempting to dress itself up in the scientific rigor of linguistics, it passed through a postmodern rejection of truth (or possibly just a continuation of the modernist rejection) and the relativisation of all values to a new discovery of the ethical dimensions of the literary imagination. Although the old 1960s fantasy of passing off computer-run word pattern searches against digital texts as amounting to ‘readings’ of books never came true (except for a few eccentrics), most colleagues have found some way of coming to terms with the nature of the digital universe, even if it's only giving in and purchasing a Kindle." I would have no real issue with him. Being an insider is not a justification for glib stereotyping.

- ironyroad

May 30, 2012 at 6:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are critiquing him also from the point of view of the insider. I'll just concentrate on the his first claim as you posted it: "Literary scholarship has moved through a number of phases in recent decades: once attempting to dress itself up in the scientific rigor of linguistics,..." What do you find objectionable here? Is he lying? IN what way is he wrong?

- arnon1

May 30, 2012 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony seems to have lost his certainty that Delbanco's position is "utterbull."

- arnon1

May 31, 2012 at 12:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, I'm kinda busy at the moment, and I didn't want to just give a two-sentence response. To be going on with, I'll say this: I think there is a certain amount of slack to be cut for polemic. It isn't "lying" to simply take a trenchant position on something, but on the other hand there's a (fuzzy) line where interpretation shades into willful misrepresentation. I don't say that D. is "lying" in the normal sense of the word, however. As a provisional answer to your more specific question, arnon, I'd say that "dress itself up" is the polemical part -- fine, if D. thinks that, so be it. However, I think the idea of disguise and subterfuge is not fair or accurate as far as the history of literary study in the 20th century goes. To make it clear: there have been many interesting crossovers between linguistic research and literary thought going all the way back to the WW1 era (e.g. Saussure's structuralist [langue/paroles] models, the Russian formalists, Roman Jakobson and the Prague school). Not all of these were "successful" in the sense of taking over the mainstream academic approach and becoming the norm, but they made people think about the architecture of, say, short stories or poems in the same manner they forced people to think about language in a different way. Is this what Delbanco means? It seems not. Or perhaps yes. But either way, he seems more concerned to score a cheap and (in my opinion) inaccurate point.

- ironyroad

May 31, 2012 at 2:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some stray comments on the above: 1) Whatever the reason -- and I am sure there are many -- Warren is running a poor campaign. The most recent Suffolk University poll shows Obama leading Romney by 25 points and the same poll shows Brown leading Warren by one point. I agree that her job at HLS may be a factor -- in my experience, Harvard is seen as an alien, snobbish place by many in Mass. But from afar (Connecticut) I suspect there is another main factor: a failure to connect with the voters on an emotional/personal basis. Here in CT, in 2010, a bad year for Democrats, Richard Blumenthal beat Linda McMahon by 8 points in the Senate race, despite the fact that McMahon spent $50 million of her own money, Blumenthal is a certified member of the elite (Harvard, Yale Law, Supreme Law Court Clerk, personal wealth of over $70 million), and accusations (with some basis) of consciously misrepresenting his military service (he was in the reserves and had spoken about when "we" came back from Vietnam). What did Blumenthal have going for himself beyond running in an essentially blue state? Answer: for more than 20 years he had conducted a permanent campaign on behalf of himself showing up at all sorts of events all over the state, throughout the year even in non election years. I personally have shaken his hand several times -- along with tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of others. (Blumenthal once said that if he learned of a garage door opening he would be there.) In short, he connected and connects (still showing up) with people one on one and in small groups. And he looks at you straight in the eye and comes across as highly intelligent but certainly not a snob or stand offish. Warren will have to try to duplicate that in five months -- quite a task. 2) I certainly haven't read Delbanco's book, but his description of early US higher education as reported in the review is nonsense. Of the Ivy League schools, only Harvard, Yale and Princeton have roots as schools for Calvinist ministers. Penn was organized by Ben Franklin in reaction to the three -- to offer a more practical education. Cornell was established to give a wide, practical education, not rooted in religion. Brown was open to all faiths. Columbia's orientation was determined by Anglicans. And although Dartmouth had Calvinist roots, it was established mainly to provide an education for young Native Americans. Another early college, UVa, of course was not Calvinist. And from their early years, Penn, Columbia and Cornell (don't know about Brown or Dartmouth) also offered practical instruction (such as medicine and engineering). And by the 1870's -- 150 years ago -- engineering, medicine, and the natural sciences were widely taught. The notion that college was or should be exclusively about the study of the past (history, religion, literature, etc.) is bunk.

- PeteBeck

May 31, 2012 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A suprisingly balanced piece on the MA race from The Nation: http://truth-out.org/news/item/9130-elizabeth-warren-yes-she-can Graff's comment that if the voters come to like Warren in November they will like her more than they like Brown is interesting.

- ironyroad

May 31, 2012 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Total digression: I note that the side listing of most read/most commented on pieces no longer appears. My surmise is that that's due to the embarrassingly low, low numbers of comments typical these days here, typically not exceeding 20-25, mere drops in the vaster waters of comments attending other blogs

- basman

May 31, 2012 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman writes: " I cannot imagine people of centre to left persuasion not preferring Warren to Brown. She's dynamite, a great success story, with tremendous expertise joined to her heart, which is absolutely in the right place" But she lied about being a person of color. And as of today, she has admitted such. A few weeks ago, she said she had "no idea" why Harvard listed her as a woman of color. Today The Globe reveals she indeed told Harvard she was a woman of color in 1992 when she was hired. She has lied twice. The first time to gain some favor, the second time to avoid the repercussions. This is not a person we want in congress. It's already overflowing with crooks and liars. Frankly, she should lose her job at Harvard over this. You know, ethics and all. If anyone with a few family stories can claim minority status and take advantage of affirmative action preferences, then affirmative action will mean nothing. It will be a bunch of privileged white kids scouring the family tree looking for a single drop of non-white blood to claim on their college applications. Already AA is too focused on skin color and not life experience. Alas, we've arrived at the one-drop rule in reverse. Instead of everyone working to claim they are 100% white as they did 150 years ago, they instead try desperately to claim they are something else to vacuum up the enormous benefits available. NYT had a good article last year on just how far down the family tree folks were going to find something--anything--in the family history that would let a college applicant say they were non-white. "On College Forms, a Question of Race, or Races, Can Perplex"

- seattleeng

May 31, 2012 at 4:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

". . . to vacuum up the enormous benefits available." Is there any evidence whatsoever that Warren received any job or benefit on the basis of where she checked the boxes on racial identity as opposed to her own qualifications and ability? No? I didn't think so.

- ironyroad

May 31, 2012 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony writes "Is there any evidence whatsoever that Warren received any job or benefit on the basis of where she checked the boxes on racial identity as opposed to her own qualifications and ability?" She didn't need to bring it up to Harvard. She was already listed in a book as being Native American, and UPenn was touting a single native american law prof to the gov for all to see. That math is pretty simple. And certainly Harvard saw that info before they hired her. If they didn't, then they are incompetent at doing background checks. And given the pressure Harvard was up against wrt their minority faculty, you can bet they were SERIOUSLY FOCUSED on getting more people of color hired. Thus you can be certain that Harvard believed they were getting a NA hire with Ms. Warren even if Warren said nothing. You claim to have great skill at divining intent. What was Ms. Warren's intent her do you think? Was it really just to meet similar 1/32nd Indians for some tea?

- seattleeng

May 31, 2012 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As a provisional answer to your more specific question, arnon, I'd say that "dress itself up" is the polemical part -- fine, if D. thinks that, so be it. However, I think the idea of disguise and subterfuge is not fair or accurate as far as the history of literary study in the 20th century goes." What a meager answer to a serious question, Irony. You must feel very insecure if ant criticism of English literary studies bothers you that much. Linguistics from the mid 60's on wasn't just an attempt to make " people think about the architecture of, say, short stories or poems in the same manner they forced people to think about language in a different way." It was an attempt to revolutionize thinking about literature by introducing both structural linguistics (based on Saussure's binary linguistics, Roman Jakobson' idea about metaphor/metonomy, the structuralism of Levi Strauss and others.) These models were presented as being more scientific and less impressionistic than the arbitrary appeal to irony of the New Critics. Critics like Eugenio Donato, Richard Macksey launched the project bu holding a conference at Johns Hopkins in 1966. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/theory_and_event/v012/12.1.bishop01.html It has a complicated history but Delbanco's argument was right on. Did you read his book?

- arnon1

May 31, 2012 at 5:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I said it was a short answer, arnon, and I would point out that "meager" is also a good term to describe the content of Delbanco's glib comment. It was nonetheless a specific answer on my part to a specific question from you, so I'm unclear what your point is. You say "revolutionize thinking about literature" -- I say "thinking about the architecture of literary texts in a different way." Does anyone short of a tribe in the remote Amazon jungle disagree that it was opposed to the New Criticism? That was only one fragment of Delbanco's quote, however, and I disagree with the rest too (or at least those precise formulations). I'll see if I get get a more extended comment in later.

- ironyroad

May 31, 2012 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You still don't get it, Irony. Your carping criticism of Delbanco merely shows that you are afraid to deal with criticisms of English departments. "Does anyone short of a tribe in the remote Amazon jungle disagree that it was opposed to the New Criticism?" Yes, machinists in some tractor factory in the Mid-West. What a bizarre reply, Irony.

- arnon1

May 31, 2012 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've nothing against criticism, arnon, but as I noted above the key question is whether a critical interpretation of something has slid over the line into willful misrepresentation. The paragraph of D's quoted in your original link seems to me to have done so with abandon.

- ironyroad

May 31, 2012 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a footnote I'd add also point out that, having posted several comments already, that normally counts as "dealing" with it. Unless by "dealing" you really mean "agreeing" with it, which of course I'm not doing.

- ironyroad

May 31, 2012 at 7:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leah Price wrote a book on Melville!?

- ironyroad

May 31, 2012 at 7:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad "I've nothing against criticism, arnon, but as I noted above the key question is whether a critical interpretation of something has slid over the line into willful misrepresentation." Read the book, Irony.

- arnon1

May 31, 2012 at 7:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who is Leah Price?

- arnon1

May 31, 2012 at 7:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She's the subject of your "Other ways to use a book" link -- I was thrown initially by your saying "his." I mean, I was being facetious, of course, as she didn't write a book on Melville, but at first I was wondering if you mixed her name up with someone whose name is close. Finally, it dawned on me that it was Delbanco's book on Melville you meant, but -- if I may do some brief collegial editing consultation here -- a reference separated from its referent by so many other text elements may just cause confusion. Of course one should read Delbanco's book and everyone else's book, but life is a little short in that respect. I have to say that I don't recogize the profession I'm happy to be a member of in Delbanco's portrayal (in that quote at least). As it happens, I think The Puritan Ordeal is a pretty impressive piece of work.

- ironyroad

May 31, 2012 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Puritan Ordeal is a book that I intend to read.

- arnon1

May 31, 2012 at 9:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The tangled web gets even more tangled. How can Harvard possibly have her back after this? WashPo writes: --- "Elizabeth Warren’s acknowledgment Wednesday night that she had formally informed both Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania that she was a Native American seemingly contradicts a month of the Massachusetts Democrat’s assertions on the matter and represents a major misstep for the nationally touted candidate. At some point after I was hired by them, I ... provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,” Warren said in a statement to the Boston Globe. But, when the Boston Herald first reported on the fact that Warren was listed as a Native American in a faculty directory, she said that she had no previous knowledge of that fact and had not authorized Harvard to list her as a minority. Warren’s campaign has said she forgot some details of her past employment as a way to explain the discrepancy in her statements. And, it’s clear from the Globe story that Warren’s hand was forced by the fact that the newspaper had found proof that, in their words, “the university’s law school began reporting a Native American female professor in federal statistics for the 1992-93 school year, the first year Warren worked at Harvard, as a visiting professor.” While the Warren campaign will insist that is being consistent — that she has always said that she never told Harvard or Penn about her heritage before being hired or that it benefited her in any way — the optics of this back and forth are just terrible for her. ---

- seattleeng

May 31, 2012 at 10:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon, it's worth it, and the introduction is very interesting in the light of Delbanco's later positions. I should say also that I had your reaction to the Melville book, more or less. I tried to get into it but the "underwhelmed-sein" was my feeling too. That may have been influenced by the fact that I'm an admirer of Robert Milder's book on Melville that appeared around the same time, especially his stuff on the poetry.

- ironyroad

June 1, 2012 at 12:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close