Shots in the Dark

A spotted eagle ray, Cozumel

Pope Benedict XVI has revoked the excommunications of four schismatic bishops, including Holocaust denier Richard Williamson, seen in the video below. It’s hard to watch, but it’s important, because you can’t really understand the ghastly nature of the pope’s action until you hear this man speak of the “quote-unquote Holocaust.”

Incidentally, the “Leuchter Report” that Williamson refers to in his disturbing monologue was produced by Fred Leuchter, an American designer of machines to implement capital punishment sentences, the subject of a brilliant film by Errol Morris, Mr. Death.

The film utterly debunks the Leuchter Report, and makes one conclude that anyone who still believes in that document does so because, on some level, he wants to.

Here’s the trailer for that fascinating film:

I went to see Rick Levin, the president of Yale, speak at the Yale Club of New York last night.

Thanks to my handy iPhone, I took some detailed notes. Following are bullet points from Levin’s talk.

* He was greeted with a standing ovation that felt genuinely warm; there’s a lot of appreciation for Levin in the Yale community.

* He spoke about Barack Obama as a testament to the success of American higher education and its financial aid policies.

* He said that “education for the 21st century requires an international experience,” and said that 1200 Yale students study abroad annually.

* He said that Yale plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by ten percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

* He added that while Yale plans to slow development of its new science campus in West Haven, “we are moving ahead.”

* He said that Yale “has done more than any other educational institution in the world to support the arts—there is no other university in America with world-class schools in art, architecture, music and drama.”

* Applications for the next freshman class are up another 15 or 16 percent, with 26000 applications for 1300 spaces.

* He said that Yale’s endowment is down from about $23 billion to about $17 billion, but is “relieved to say that things are no worse than when I wrote the letter” to alumni detailing the state of the endowment, which was a month or so ago.

“If the endowment doesn’t get any worse, we’ll see endowment spending go down about five percent over the next year and then be flat.” But, Levin explained, “it would be imprudent to take [too] much out of the budget to solve the shortfall in a single year.”

* In terms of faculty, “we’re going to continue to hire but we won’t hire quite so many people.”

* So Yale should be able to manage its way through the financial crisis, but there’s an important context: “We were ramping up.” The university had planned to spend $4 billion over the next years on new colleges, the School of Organization and Management, a new medical school building, etc.

At the moment, “our spending is limited mainly by [the state of the] credit markets. …We don’t want to lose our AAA rating just when the credit markets are freezing up.”

Still, over the next couple of years Yale will spend $400-$500 million on new construction.

Levin then took questions:

* On Yale’s support for graduate study: Yale does “a lot…[but] it’s still not the happiest place in the world, we could do a lot more for [grad students].”

Levin added that “I would lke to see graduate education drastically reformed,” making the time to get a Ph.D. “much shorter” and instituting a review process after the first year to weed out “the people who really aren’t going to cut it.”

* On whether Yale needs not two new residential colleges, but four: “I think we do. …We have done work to identify sites where we could build more colleges.” But doing so would impose huge financial challenges. “I fear it will be the next president who does that.”

* On his vision for the new science campus in West Haven: First, it was “the deal of the century.” Plans include five potential institutes: cancer, cell biology, systems biology, microbial biology and genomics generally.

Levin added that he is also considering developing an area for the arts and for museum collections that are now “scattered in various warehouses.” He spoke—are you listening, Marjorie Garber?—of developing “a huge creative playspace for artists and drama students.”

* On the percentage of foreign students at Yale and whether he’s satisfied with the number, currently about ten percent: “Pretty much, yes. …Virtually every American Yale college student becomes a good friend of a foreign student.” Moreover, “I don’t think foreign students would be that interested in coming to Yale if only six percent of Yale students were American. They want to come to Yale because it’s an American school.”

(I can think of one Harvard professor who would appreciate that language.)

Levin later added that Yale “is the only Ivy League school to require students to take a foreign language”—you can test out of one foreign language coming into Yale, he said, but then you have to take another.

* On violent crime in New Haven: First, “it’s way below the level of incidents in the mid-90s,” but there has been “a slight uptick” recently in incidents such as muggings. A big problem: There are so many unfilled slots in the New Haven Police Department, due to budget cuts, that the “New Haven police are allowing Yale cops to patrol neighborhoods. I think our police force is actually beter and more effective than the city’s police force.”

Levin is an interesting man. He’s not the most charismatic or forceful speaker, but he’s likeable and charming in an understated way, and he conveys sincerity; he seems secure enough in his job, in the status of Yale, and in himself to be honest. He’s also unpretentious in a Yale fashion: At the end of his talk, he just stood and shook hands with a few people, and then, without any flacks or advisors, he donned a trenchcoat and hustled down the steps of the Yale Club looking like he had to catch a train at Grand Central. Maybe Drew Faust is different, but you certainly couldn’t imagine Larry Summers without a mandatory and omnipresent entourage.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that Levin should be considered one of Yale’s greatest presidents.

The Grateful Dead are going on tour this spring, and I’m torn about whether to see them. Seeing bands who are past their prime can have its rewards, but it can also leave a taint on some fond memories. (A lot of fond memories, in this case.)

Your advice, please?

But first, take a look at these videos the band released of the four surviving members talking about their musical process, particularly the one titled “time in the groove,” in which they talk about musical improvisation. (Sorry, I can’t embed.)

I like the bit where they’re working out “Help on the Way/Slipknot,” and the small bit of St. Stephen that they play does sound kind of nice…

That’s what the Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut thinks.

Like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Palin before her, Kennedy illustrated what some say is an enduring double standard in the handling of ambitious female office-seekers. Even as more women step forward as contenders for premier political jobs, observers say, few seem able to get there.

[Blogger: Note that tired old phrase, “observers say”—which really means, “people I called to try to find some quotes to support my thesis.”]

…“There’s something different about when women run,” said Bob Shrum, a Democratic consultant and a close ally of Kennedy. Echoing the complaints of many other family friends, Shrum noted that much of the criticism of Kennedy centered on her demeanor — her soft voice and use of the phrase “you know” — similar to the types of complaints that were so prevalent during the campaigns of Clinton and Palin.

Actually, that’s not quite true (and why anyone listens to Bob Shrum about anything, I’ll never understand). The “you know’s” were criticized, yes. They should have been, and if Caroline Kennedy were a man, they would also have been. But I never read anything about her “soft voice.” And I’m not sure what similar complaints were made about Hillary Clinton, but were the complaints about Sarah Palin and her inability to speak so off the mark?

DeeDee Myers, who once complained (probably justifiably) of sexism in her treatment at the Clinton White House, makes an argument that drives me nuts: That being a “mom” is a legitimate qualification for holding public office.

Myers said that “questions about her résumé absolutely have to do with her gender.”

“I don’t see it as thin, I see it as unconventional,” Myers said of Kennedy’s résumé…. “I don’t see why running a hedge fund is better preparation for doing the people’s business than writing books or working in the school system and raising a family.”

Let’s set aside the “running a hedge fund red herring” (I can’t off the top of my head think of any hedge fund managers in the Senate, anyway).

As I’ve written before, it’s a stretch to give Kennedy credit for “writing books.” Other than co-authoring two collections of essays, no, she hasn’t written any books.

Her work in the school system, I’m told by people who really do work in the school system, has been negligible—”one day a week,” someone said to me, and not for very long at that.

And while raising a family is a wonderful thing to do, its relevance to being senator is lost on me. I grant that it accords one some familiarity with some significant issues. But then, all life experiences help create the character of a politician. Being single accords one some familiarity with significant issues.

But other than that, how exactly motherhood prepares you for life in the Senate, I don’t know—and frankly, it’s a) sexist (men never say “I should be a senator because I’m a swell dad”) and b) lowering the bar to seriously argue that being a mother qualifies you to be a senator.

The “double standard” is advancing this as a serious argument when no man (I hope) would ever say, “Elect me because I have kids.”

Caroline Kennedy bombed in her campaign to be appointed senator because a) she was clearly unprepared, b) she was backed by a secretive group of powerbrokers who alienated the public, c) she dissed the press because she isn’t comfortable with the machinery of democracy, d) she could never state a credible rationale for her bid, e) she was unimpressive in her public appearances, and f) she never seemed very sure about really wanting the job.

All pretty good reasons why she shouldn’t have been senator, and none of which have the slightest thing to do with sexism.

Caroline Kennedy is getting lambasted in the blogosphere.

Could Caroline Kennedy have given us any clearer indication of her lack of qualifications for the Senate than her disastrous exit from the race?

…Elsewhere, Teddy Kennedy’s camp is said to be super pissed that Caroline tried to use her uncle’s health as an excuse, because “It makes him look like he is at death’s door,” and could undermine his authority in the Senate.

That’s pretty interesting, and I’ll admit it hadn’t even occurred to me because, well, the way Caroline quit sort of made me assume that Teddy was at death’s door.

In fact, those close to Kennedy, 76, say that while the Senator is suffering occasional seizures, like the one that sent him to a hospital on Tuesday during the celebratory Capitol lunch for the newly inaugurated President, he is generally doing well.

Meanwhile, it now appears that the Teddy story was a flat-out lie, and that the real issue had to do with a housekeeper.

Problems involving taxes and a household employee surfaced during the vetting of Caroline Kennedy and derailed her candidacy for the Senate, a person close to Gov. David A. Paterson said on Thursday, in an account at odds with Ms. Kennedy’s own description of her reasons for withdrawing.

…Ms. Kennedy’s own political advisers appeared at times to be unable to reach her on Wednesday night.

I’ll admit to some satisfaction: Pretty much everything I wrote in this piece—the first article, I think, to come out against Caroline Kennedy as a senator—has proved correct.

Kennedy has ventured into the public arena as little as possible, and when she has, she has endeavored to dictate the terms. Perhaps now, with her brother dead and her Uncle Ted extremely ill—and her children of college age—Kennedy is changing her mind. But can she change her patterns of behavior?

I wrote in that piece that Caroline was a Democrat but not a democrat. So, if the story is true, it strikes me as oddly fitting that her candidacy would be derailed because of problems involving a servant. (Such a telling word, servant.)

And what encourages me about all this is that the democratic process worked: A group of powerful people came together to try to create a senator, not because that person was the best candidate for the job but because railroading a political appointment would elevate their political and social and economic standing.

(I know some of the people involved, and dedication to the public interest is not their prime motivator.)

Maybe another time this behind-the-scenes power play would have worked, but not in the age of Obama—it just didn’t sit well—and people rejected the elitism of the process and of the candidate.

In other words, democracy triumphed over class and wealth. This is a good sign.

An interesting debate is shaping up on the future of the humanities, framed by two commenters whose thoughts I want to highlight.

Here’s Nemo:

The academic study of the humanities may die, but it remains to be seen whether or not that will be a great loss to society. I rather doubt it, because the academic study of the humanities is almost entirely divorced from the way that people actually experience art. One of the many problems is that academics in the humanities do not take emotion enough into account. Applying the tools of academic study to works of art requires people to emotionally disengage from the art, and people will not continue to “consume” art if they can’t also engage with it emotionally. Many people are first introduced to art and literature–especially great art and literature–in the classroom, but because they are taught intellectually, they completely miss out on most of the impact of the work they study. That leaves little hope that they will ever return to it. The best teachers don’t do this; they’re capable of teaching both intellectually and emotionally. That type of teaching needs to be universal.

And here’s classicist Richard Thomas:

I think that’s right about the emotions and the humanities, though I would rather think in terms of aesthetics and the detrimental abandonment of aesthetics, subjectivity, formalism and the like. And some of us are getting back to some of that.

I’m here in Wabash College, the Athens of Indiana as its called, having just given their annual Classics lecture. (T.S. Eliot’s “‘What is a Classic?’ Revisited?”) and the Humanities seem quite strong, because they are committed to a true, and rationally constructed liberal arts curriculum. Yesterday at 9 a.m,. the whole sophomore year (i.e. 250 students) in 18 different faculty-led classes, had discussion/lecture for an hour on readings from Hume. Apparently they do all talk about their readings outside class. Sure it’s a private college, though not wealthy I think. The enemy is systemic pre-professionalism, and curricular ignorance bred of overspecialization and misunderstanding of what general education, and particularly what the Humanities, should be doing.

One question: What is a “true” liberal arts curriculum?

“I advise patients that these detox programs amount to a large quantity of excrement, both literally and figuratively.”

—Dr. Peter Pressman, in today’s NYT story on the popularity of probably bogus “detoxification” regimes.

Caroline Kennedy’s withdrawal from the Senate race seems intended to prove the argument that she wouldn’t have been a good senator.

The statement, released just after midnight, came after hours of confusion — and angry recriminations — over whether Kennedy intended to seek the appointment. Some New York media had begun reporting her withdrawal earlier in the evening, but Kennedy family confidants angrily dismissed the reports as smears aimed at undermining her chances.

In a sign of the confusion over Kennedy’s intentions, the Associated Press first reported she was withdrawing, based on unnamed sources, then later issued a correction saying Kennedy was determined to run, according to persons close to her. The AP reversed itself again when the statement from [Kennedy spokesman Stefan] Friedman emerged.

But no one really believes she’s dropping out because of Teddy’s health—not even her friends.

On Wednesday evening, some of Caroline Kennedy’s friends had expressed disbelief that she would drop out of the race because of her uncle’s health.

Maura Moynihan, a roommate of Caroline Kennedy’s at Harvard and a daughter of the late New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, said she doubted Caroline Kennedy would withdraw from contention for the seat.

“Without question, Caroline is totally concerned about the health of Senator Kennedy — we all love Senator Kennedy and we’re all concerned,” said Moynihan. “But Caroline is a very strong and gifted woman, and I’m sure her uncle Ted would want nothing more than to see her in his brother’s seat in the United States Senate.”

Which sounds right, of course. But apparently Moynihan didn’t get the memo. (I do, however, love the use of that phrase, “his brother’s seat.” I never knew that Senate seats were familial property!)

One day after the inauguration, after a speech of such candor and inspiration, Caroline Kennedy delivers a statement of such spin and disingenuity that even her friends undermine it, and then she refuses to give interviews.

Yes, she supports Obama. But isn’t this kind of behavior a sign that she really isn’t on board with the new politics of honesty and transparency?

Sell it. Dick Parsons was just named chairman. The move shows that Citigroup isn’t serious about shaking itself up.