This article cites “prominent presidential historians” as predicting Biden would be the next FDR and for evidence, linked to an NPR interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Meanwhile, my sense is every practicing historian who is not a professional commentator has said the opposite.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1484514317454163973

Scholarly historians always laugh at the notion of a “presidential historian.” Precisely for the reason that someone who focuses overwhelmingly on the presidency—especially from a biographical perspective—tends to have a very limited stable of analogies & interpretive frameworks.

Second, historians, especially those who study American politics, have always understood that whatever they thought of Biden’s own agency, his presidency would be constrained by razor thin majorities in Congress & a reactionary Supreme Court. And you didn’t need a PhD to see that

Read 7 tweets

Peter A. Shulman 📚

@pashulman

Jan 10

https://twitter.com/melissakorn/status/1480567309915901966

I'd like to read the whole suit but this is weird and I'm skeptical about it.

Regardless, it's preposterous that even if the plaintiffs got their way this would change a penny of rack rate tuition.

https://twitter.com/melissakorn/status/1480567309915901966

Like, reserving a small number of spots for the children of potential large donors may offend your sense of fairness but those future donations aren't affecting tuition rates.

https://twitter.com/DukeChronicle/status/1480584653559898114

This quote is shocking, as it was designed to be. Be skeptical.

https://twitter.com/DukeChronicle/status/1480584653559898114

Read 5 tweets

Peter A. Shulman 📚

@pashulman

Jan 5

https://twitter.com/rainnwilson/status/1478519565541851142

I think this is a really interesting question and things have clearly changed, but I'm not sure the premise is entirely correct.

https://twitter.com/rainnwilson/status/1478519565541851142

For example, were all Americans excited about going to the Moon? No. This poll is from 1967, two years before Apollo 11. Going to the moon is "not worth it" by 20 points.

Nearly a year after the first moon landing (and half a year after the second), the results are nearly the same.

Read 13 tweets

Peter A. Shulman 📚

@pashulman

Jan 5

https://twitter.com/profemilyoster/status/1478701050630651908

As someone who’s contributed to my university’s policy on returning, this article misstates, misframes, and misinforms about what we are doing and why. No one thinks this is 3/20 & our brief window of remote instruction is precisely to insure the rest of the semester’s in-person.

https://twitter.com/profemilyoster/status/1478701050630651908

Everyone on campus—students, staff, and faculty—overwhelmingly prefer in-person instruction (though we, like others, will probably experiment with more hybrid courses in the future if they work). Prof. Oster is right that the health risks now to most students are very low.

It’s true that not everyone on a campus is 18-24 years old & in otherwise perfect health. Yes, there are staff, faculty, & students who remain at greater risk, either unable to get vaccinated or for whom vaccination is insufficient protection. These will remain risks to manage.

Read 13 tweets

Share this page!

Peter A. Shulman 📚

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @pashulman

Peter A. Shulman 📚

Peter A. Shulman 📚

Peter A. Shulman 📚

Peter A. Shulman 📚

Peter A. Shulman 📚

Peter A. Shulman 📚

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Like this author's thread?