Just to clarify, my post below is not about the K School but about the IOP -- and specifically about the role it plays in the lives (intellectual and civic) of students in the College.

SE
 

Ah, okay.
 

Richard,

This is a very good piece.

I'd quibble with one word in this piece, and wonder what your thoughts might be. You say,

"[The K School] is so liberal it borders on irrelevance when a Republican administration is in the White House."

But the discussion of this point that you go on to provide has nothing to do with liberalism. It describes hostility to THIS Republican administration at Harvard, but it doesn't show anything about the school's ideological bent. (As you point out, the lack of influential Republicans in the place could be a simple artifact of the fact that they have government roles at the moment; in a Democratic administration they might be freed up to come to the K School, and indeed they do come when they're out of office... .)

It does, however, in support of this part of the lead, discuss quite aptly the fact that the school has an interest in solving policy problems of all kinds -- and that the current ('conservative') Administration has, because it lacks that interest in solutions, created many many such problems. In this way you support your claim that irrelevance is an issue for the school because it's 'liberal.'

Is an interest in solutions -- even in foreign-policy matters, and even if those solutions involve deregulation, or private accounts, or partnerships with business -- 'liberal'? Or is 'liberal' just code for "(currently) irrelevant"?

What concerns me is not the effect that this usage of the word has on the word 'liberal,' but the effect it has on the public image of the desire to solve problems. If trying to solve problems is considered a partisan, 'left-wing' stance, then any effort to impose empiricism on national policy discussions can be easily dismissed as partisan, 'hostile to Republicans,' or simply -- as you do here -- 'irrelevant.' The result is a validation of the legitimacy of the Grover Norquist view that self-destruction is a proper mission statement for government, and that reasonable people can disagree about whether Norquist is right to advocate for inefficacy.

Another way of asking the question I have for you here is simply to ask you to explain your claim that "liberalism and therefore current irrelevance" are problems at the K School that stem from "Americans’ reluctance to believe that public service requires a graduate degree from Harvard—the question, in other words, of whether leadership is something that can be taught." Do you mean to say that in electing this Administration the voters expressed their preference for government that DOESN'T WORK, and therefore that the 'liberal' view that government should try to function better rather than worse dooms the K School to perpetual US irrelevance?

Does the belief that leadership can't be taught (call it perhaps the 'have a beer with' theory of elections) cause the K School to be regarded as intrinsically 'liberal' if it believes that education for government officials is worthwhile?

Sorry that was a little convoluted as a question. I think there's something profound here, and I can't tell if it's a disturbing reality or a disturbing journalistic framework.

Two other matters:
I think you're a little too impudent toward the very real government bureaucracies and careers in civil service that are out there, established, and regulated in ways that protect them to at least SOME extent from being occupied by hacks. There may not be 'exams,' like there are for the foreign service, but in the 20th century I think there WAS a good deal of professionalization; just one more thing the Bush Administration has worked mightily to undo, to get us back to the McKinley utopia.

Also, I think Al Franken used Shorenstein Center stationery, and I think (but could be wrong) that the Center isn't the K School exactly.

Cheers -- interesting piece.

Standing Eagle
 

Hey Standing Eagle:

I'm curious: what's you day job that gives you so much time to lavish attention on your submissions to this blog? If you're an FAS faculty member, are you getting any scholarly work done these days? You've got an enormously high opinion of yourself---which others here clearly share---and that suggests to me you must be Harvard faculty. I don't mean to knock you---really---but I just don't quite get it.
 

My writing on this blog is hasty speed-typing. Scholarly work in my field happens in bursts.

The long post below about the IOP had time found for it only ten days after it was promised to that recent alum.

I hope you can appreciate that the high opinion this blog-persona has of himself is not identical with my own self-image. However, there are issues that come up here that I find important, in ways that take some words to explain; so I take the time to type those words.

Would that the US didn't require so much of my mental energy these days (i.e., since maybe late '03). I could be well into a new book project....

SE
 

With all due respect my friend, you could be well into a new book project if you transferred to that endeavor some of the time and energy you are devoting to this blog. However, that's your choice, of course but one worth considering when others weigh your criticisms of the light weights around you.
 

Rich,
How about a thread on Dershowitz getting Finkelstein denied tenure? You could start here:

http://www.counterpunch.com/williams07022007.html
 

And then go on to here:

http://ia300229.us.archive.org/1/items/dn-finkelstein-benami/dn-finkelstein-benami_64kb.mp3

You'll need a spare hour or two but, it's worth it, a serious opportunity to examine the seriousness of Finkelstein vs the caricature that Dershowitz leant on in order to destroy the career of an unempowered (i.e. untenured) person who exposed his sloppy and ideologically extreme partisanship. Dershowitz = McCarthy, I say. Argue aginst this position if you wish.
 

hoping for monday morning zen soon . . .