Thread. I wonder how every Harvard faculty member who signed that letter of support can reconcile that with this. The 38 faculty (Gates, Bhaba, Beckett, Farmer, Kennedy, Greenblatt, the Jasanoffs, EVERY ONE OF THEM) who signed that letter should never be allowed to forget it.
Holy Christ, Harvard took the plaintiff's therapy records WITHOUT HER CONSENT and gave them TO HER PREDATOR. If you supported that, you should never work with students again.
Watch these endowed-chair cowards try and walk it back
Like, if you genuinely signed a letter like that and didn't know about things, then you're too stupid to be trusted with anything sharper than string, much less an endowed professorship at Harvard
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
TFW you read an otherwise good review essay about higher education but then run into this trope (from someone who ought to know better, frankly). thenation.com/article/societ…
If I see one more purportedly elite academic both-sides this thing...not being permitted to make rape jokes to female students is not similar to state suppression of curricular material. "People are being illiberal on both sides" is a fucking cop-out and you should be ashamed.
This is the highfalutin academics' equivalent of "but what about anti-white racism?" or "why don't you ever talk about black on black crime?" You're giving oxygen to absurdities, and flattening out power asymmetries to the point of malicious dishonesty.
Thanks @brennacgray for this thoughtful and important addition to the conversation. Critique is at the heart of what we do. I've certainly been disappointed to see attacks on folks' teaching abilities and ethos in response to their legitimate questions. That can't be it, y'all.
I just want folks to think about the good work that's going to be destroyed in service of short-term Twitter points. Please don't tell people who are legit concerned about a clearly questionable entity to "learn how to teach" when they point out those concerns.
I'm rooting for Sean to succeed. But I have serious concerns about CH, some of them drawn from personal experience. Both of these things are true, and I can hold them both together. If we extend Sean the benefit of the doubt, then the CH criticism has to get that benefit, too.
Senior VP for State and Local Partnerships at the @CollegeBoard, while leading efforts to destroy education on the state level. I don't think that's mission-driven work, y'all.
I find it interesting that the historians who have denounced 1619 have used the one line about protecting slavery being the chief motive of many revolutionaries to characterize the whole thing, which is...much more than that. It's almost like they didn't do all the reading. 1/4
And Rakove's argument is basically "I disagree with NH-J and Woody Holton because reasons," and while there's a historiographical debate to be had here, the fact it's animating such a vehement denunciation of the entire 1619 Project-covering *all* of US history-is telling. 2/4
The 1619 Project refuses to center whites in the story it tells of whatever expansion of freedoms occurred in the US. "The good ones" take a back seat, and scholars who address slavery via a "not all whites" approach can't abide that. The story of freedom is not a white one. 3/4