← Previous Post: | Next Post:

 

“Seven history professors declined to comment and 29 professors did not return requests for comment.”

In exchange for fifty seven thousand dollars in annual tuition, George Washington University students receive the following:

  1. An anti-white racist who is also a much-dispraised teacher and someone who tells lies in her scholarly work. This professor pretends to be black in order to get financial and other benefits designed for actual minorities.
  2. Not even one professor from her field at GW who will tell you why Jessica Krug’s colleagues tenured her.
  3. A department desperately seeking someone to teach her hastily-vacated courses.

And again UD asks: Where is Andrew Zimmerman? A high-profile professor/activist in Krug’s department, and someone who sat on panels with Krug and cited her work (and was cited in turn by Krug), Zimmerman is currently the loudest and most powerful dissident voice at GW. Why is he silent? Doesn’t he think students have a right to know the process whereby his department not only hired Krug and, despite reams of alarming reports, kept her in the classroom, but also – incredibly – tenured her?

Margaret Soltan, September 8, 2020 9:27AM
Posted in: hoax

Trackback URL for this post:
https://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=64641

7 Responses to ““Seven history professors declined to comment and 29 professors did not return requests for comment.””

  1. charlie Says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NeS4ueaU6w

    If this schtick was good enough for Steve Martin, it was good enough for La Bombalera…

  2. theprofessor Says:

    Geez, that department is larger than two of our colleges here and almost as large as a third. Big departments like this have the latitude to engage in this kind of hire, basically academic danegeld to the trendy mob of the year. I suspect that most of them aren’t commenting because they understood why someone like her was hired, and they don’t waste their time reading her stuff: check the woke box and let her rant so that we can get back to our 600-page manuscript on inflation in the Ottoman Empire between 1690-1700.

    In another kind of hire, we all probably had experience at least in grad school with the hyper-brilliant and big-publishing prof whose lack of socialization, personal hygiene, or even sanity made exposing him to undergraduates risky. Give this type an office, frequent sabbaticals, and a steady diet of small graduate seminars. The big departments have the ability to hire and more or less hide them from most of the students.

  3. Dennis Says:

    The silence doesn’t surprise me at all. No doubt faculty in the department have been “advised” not to comment. Moreover, tenure decisions are supposed to be confidential, so faculty know better than to comment on those decisions.

    Most importantly, there’s nothing really they can say. They clearly screwed up, probably because no sane faculty member would seriously investigate, let alone oppose, a vocal, radical, “woman of color.” Doing so would be career suicide. Even the sensible members of the faculty likely just crossed their fingers and hoped that tenuring her wouldn’t blow up. They guessed wrong, but it’s too late now to justify why they voted the way they did.

  4. Margaret Soltan Says:

    Dennis: Oh, I’m sure they’ve been told to keep quiet. Not only a tenure proceeding was involved, but litigation is probably brewing. Delicate negotiations are going on. But lemme tell you. If being a serious radical means anything, it means ignoring all of that and speaking the truth. You can be anonymous if you’d like… or speak through another person not directly connected. There are so many ways you can avoid being a coward. So the rads in the dept who are no doubt directly responsible for pushing through this appalling decision (I mean dept rads plus rads in the administration who reviewed the decision) should stick to their guns, if they actually have any guns. They can defend the decision as perfectly sound before they knew of the deceit. And they can give reasons for that. If they’re way rad (some are) they can defend the decision AFTER they knew, because race like gender is performative and self-selected. Just because essentialist reactionary people of color decide to get huffy about someone they see as elbowing in on their territory doesn’t mean we should jettison our own anti-essentialism.

    Precisely because those who knew better screwed up, they too should speak up. They can say in their defense that she wrote a book that was a finalist for a couple of awards, and she was well on her way to becoming a biggish name in her field and (I’m sure) she boasted orgasmic letters of support from luminaries in that field. So… a case could be made. But they should go on to say that they knew her teaching was horrendous, and that she was a wretched colleague because of her belligerent punishing demeanor, and that if they hadn’t allowed themselves to be cowed into submission they would have voted no.

    I mean, voting was probably secret! If it wasn’t, that would also be very important for us to know.

  5. Dennis Says:

    I’d love to see that sort of honesty from the ones who knew better but I’m not going to hold my breath. Admitting the error even after the fact would still be viewed by the radicals as a betrayal, with all the career consequences that would entail.

    As for the radicals themselves, if they really were “serious radicals” they might be willing to speak the truth, but isn’t it far more likely that they are merely poseurs? Poseurs by definition won’t speak the truth.

  6. theprofessor Says:

    If GWU were my place, and she dug in, it would be tough to de-tenure and fire her unless her colleagues could show that she plagiarized, used fake citations, fabricated sources, did not have the degrees she claimed to have, etc. I think that our professional affairs committee would be reluctant to pull the trigger for a fake professional persona. I suppose the nuclear option would be to see whether she checked “Black” on the employment application and census materials. We have a clause in our employment agreement that says any false information can be grounds for termination, although I don’t think race is what they had in mind.

    Given that Krug praised the machete killing of that poor teenage wannabe-policeman in The Bronx a couple of years ago and that no one in her department gave a shit, it seems a stretch to draw the line here.

  7. Margaret Soltan Says:

    tp: I’m working on a post about this problem. Writing it right now. UD

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE

Archives

Categories