Links
Archives
Saturday, June 30, 2007
{NOTE: This SOS post has already appeared at UD's branch campus, Inside Higher Education. She reproduces it here in order to add it to her SOS-labeled posts, now all gathered in one place. Just click on SOS at the bottom of this post to get to UD's Scathing Online Schoolmarm collection.} Scathing Online Schoolmarm A vain man struggles with the threat to his self-importance that student evaluations represent. His writing, in the New York Times Magazine, is a good example of something UD's written about on her main campus, in relation to another New York Times writer, Jane Brody: If you're not a very good writer, your writing may reveal unpleasant elements of your character. These elements, which you of course do not wish to reveal, but which your inability to control your writing will out, may fatally distract your reader from the content of your argument. The writer, David Holmberg, a man of the left, has strong political views. A piece he wrote for The Nation elicited a furious letter from someone he interviewed about the Emmett Till case: Holmberg provided misinformation to your readers by not accurately quoting me and, in several instances, by misquoting me regarding my supposed subjects--from conversations that were strictly off the record. One individual erroneously mentioned by name in the troubling piece later contacted me by phone. "This article has ruined my family!" he said. I never identified any individual when speaking to Holmberg, neither confirming nor denying his speculative assumptions. I certainly did not quote any source by name at any time. Holmberg's actions have cast The Nation in a dreadful light. Holmberg's response makes pretty clear that he considers what he pompously calls his responsibility to "history itself" to be a higher moral imperative than niceties like source protection: ... I'm sympathetic with his concerns, but I don't consider it journalistically responsible to indefinitely withhold possibly important information about a historically significant case. And as a practical matter, it's not possible in a competitive journalistic environment.... As for compromising or jeopardizing his sources, that's a risk journalists take every day when they decide to publish a story. It can't be used as a permanent excuse for sitting on information that's vital to the public, and in this case to the possible administration of justice and to history itself. Here's the New York Times piece: We know, aphoristically, about sticks and stones breaking our bones and words being comparatively harmless. But those of us who work with words professionally may be especially susceptible to etymological wounds. [Already a bit strange. Etymology refers to the study of the history of words. UD's been wounded by words, sure, but never by the study of the history of words.] I have been a working journalist and a part-time professor, both of which harbor a verbal vulnerability factor — or should I call it a linguistic punishment index? My heart goes out to the department chair. Here's a paranoid furious man doing personal searches on students who've offended him, practically tearing up evaluation sheets, getting pretty wretched course evaluations again and again... What the hell can she say? She's gotta think fast. Why do his students dislike him? The reasons are as obvious to her as they are to us, but... uh... no, it's suburban bias against the big city! Plus they're clones of their right-wing parents! Calm down, man! Labels: SOS |