I'm not sure about that. I'm older than RFK, Jr., and I remember when I was in 8th grade and homerooms 106 and 107, where, perhaps not coincidentally, the kids bussed in from the south side that year all ended up, were known as the "retard rooms." This was not meant politely.
Something very weird is going on. The comments have things like this:
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
It may be "entirely possible," but it seems unlikely. And if they do actually wonder about it, they're not likely to be receptive to anything that approximates an accurate explanation.
It took you a week to come up with that? There may not be a judge, but there is, more or less, a jury, and I'm content with its verdict on who's playing games instead of providing answers and who isn't.
It's not "my" article, but it does lay out what actually happened and what the given reasons were. I thought that basic information might be useful. Hence the link.
Not that I disagree with that, but when you didn't link to anything I got suspicious. I refer people to the link for an explanation of why she was cancelled and whether it was out of fear of student violence.
Neither of us owns the table. Neither of us can put it on whatever table you want to put it on. It’s just us folks talking.
Looking back, I can see why you, in particular, might have trouble understanding that answer. Ill-formed questions invite such answers. But it is an answer.
The first was incomprehensible. The second was a direct answer, but it was your second try. And if all the flummery you surrounded it with is now off the table, we can all go home. But that's up to you.
"Would you have it otherwise?" is an open-ended question. You had multiple choices. You could have said "Yes" or "No" and stopped there. You didn't do that; you expanded on your answer in a way suggesting that you have some ideas on the subject. You could have told us what they are or asked if we wanted to hear them. You did neither. You emitted some bafflegab about a mythical table. If you want to tell us what you think, you can do that. If you don't, you don't have to. It's your choice.
Neither of us owns the table. Neither of us can put it on whatever table you want to put it on. It's just us folks talking.
If you don't want to tell us what you think about something, the usual method is not to talk about it. It's certainly the most efficient and least annoying.
I understand that you want to talk about something else and it's your right to try to drum up a response. Maybe someone will oblige you. I plan to stick to my point and engage anyone who wants to talk about that
There are normal, well-understood ways of dealing with actual threats and forcible obstruction. None of them involve putting a department into academic receivership without a genuine academic reason.
The word that does the real work is "academically." I don't share what you describe, and I haven't bothered to check, as the political views of members of the Department. Because that's none of my f*****g business or the f*****g business of the federal government. I assume they have deplorable politics. Academic life is full of people who have deplorable politics, of all stripes. To take your own example, Columbia used to have eminent historians who held almost exactly the views you described. But their scholarship was first-rate and their status was never threatened. Probably because the government didn't have a problem with that particular set of views back then. Things got a little dicier when the weird political views of certain scholars pissed the government off. I'm sure I don't have to recite the history of the late 40's through mid 60's.
Whatever the political views of some of the Department members, I have seen nothing from anyone competent to speak -- definitely not including anyone in the Trump administration, Chris Rufo, Barrie Weiss, or, to be blunt, you -- even suggesting that the Department needs an academic overhaul.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s Residence Attacked, Suspect Arrested”
Two things can be true at once. Even crazies need a permission structure.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/7/2025”
I'm not sure about that. I'm older than RFK, Jr., and I remember when I was in 8th grade and homerooms 106 and 107, where, perhaps not coincidentally, the kids bussed in from the south side that year all ended up, were known as the "retard rooms." This was not meant politely.
On “Why Trump is Losing the Trade War”
Test.
On “From Freddie de Boer: Abundance, Up To A Point”
Something very weird is going on. The comments have things like this:
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
I doubt it's just me.
On “What To Expect When You’re Expecting a Trade War”
It may be "entirely possible," but it seems unlikely. And if they do actually wonder about it, they're not likely to be receptive to anything that approximates an accurate explanation.
"
It would almost be funny if the Trump administration collapsed because he stood on one of the few principles he seems to have.
On “Martin Niemöller, and Who First They Came For”
It took you a week to come up with that? There may not be a judge, but there is, more or less, a jury, and I'm content with its verdict on who's playing games instead of providing answers and who isn't.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/31/25”
There was no tariff plan you would have been okay with. Hell, I doubt there is much of anything President Trump could do that you would agree with.
I don't think that's quite the own you seem to think it is.
"
It's not "my" article, but it does lay out what actually happened and what the given reasons were. I thought that basic information might be useful. Hence the link.
"
Possibly the best Canadian humor since SCTV.
"
Not that I disagree with that, but when you didn't link to anything I got suspicious. I refer people to the link for an explanation of why she was cancelled and whether it was out of fear of student violence.
"
That cannot possible be ‘news’ in any sense.
How old-fashioned a view.
"
Wow, putting tariffs in illegal drugs coming into the country. Think of the revenue.
"
Actually, it was going to mention some stuff that the government wouldn't have liked:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/31/doctor-nyu-usaid-gaza-presentation-canceled
On “Martin Niemöller, and Who First They Came For”
I don't have "requirements" or the authority or desire to set them. I just muddle through as best I can with what I'm given to work with.
"
Neither of us owns the table. Neither of us can put it on whatever table you want to put it on. It’s just us folks talking.
Looking back, I can see why you, in particular, might have trouble understanding that answer. Ill-formed questions invite such answers. But it is an answer.
"
The first was incomprehensible. The second was a direct answer, but it was your second try. And if all the flummery you surrounded it with is now off the table, we can all go home. But that's up to you.
"
You did ask, and I answered. Twice. Your turn.
"
"Would you have it otherwise?" is an open-ended question. You had multiple choices. You could have said "Yes" or "No" and stopped there. You didn't do that; you expanded on your answer in a way suggesting that you have some ideas on the subject. You could have told us what they are or asked if we wanted to hear them. You did neither. You emitted some bafflegab about a mythical table. If you want to tell us what you think, you can do that. If you don't, you don't have to. It's your choice.
"
Neither of us owns the table. Neither of us can put it on whatever table you want to put it on. It's just us folks talking.
If you don't want to tell us what you think about something, the usual method is not to talk about it. It's certainly the most efficient and least annoying.
"
Objection, non-responsive.
"
Would you have it otherwise?
"
I understand that you want to talk about something else and it's your right to try to drum up a response. Maybe someone will oblige you. I plan to stick to my point and engage anyone who wants to talk about that
"
There are normal, well-understood ways of dealing with actual threats and forcible obstruction. None of them involve putting a department into academic receivership without a genuine academic reason.
"
The word that does the real work is "academically." I don't share what you describe, and I haven't bothered to check, as the political views of members of the Department. Because that's none of my f*****g business or the f*****g business of the federal government. I assume they have deplorable politics. Academic life is full of people who have deplorable politics, of all stripes. To take your own example, Columbia used to have eminent historians who held almost exactly the views you described. But their scholarship was first-rate and their status was never threatened. Probably because the government didn't have a problem with that particular set of views back then. Things got a little dicier when the weird political views of certain scholars pissed the government off. I'm sure I don't have to recite the history of the late 40's through mid 60's.
Whatever the political views of some of the Department members, I have seen nothing from anyone competent to speak -- definitely not including anyone in the Trump administration, Chris Rufo, Barrie Weiss, or, to be blunt, you -- even suggesting that the Department needs an academic overhaul.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.