Inside Higher Ed

I have just discovered (a phallocentric term, I know) an interesting aspect of Inside Higher Ed: Real academics read it and comment on it. This is a new means dethroning the academics who write the papers we read, and a humorous one at that. For example-

I once read an article by Joan W. Scott, "Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis". She begins the article with what I believe is a Derridean point:

"Those who would codify the meanings of words fight a losing battle, for words, like the ideas and things they are meant to signify, have a history. Neither Oxford dons nor the Academie Francaise have been entirely able to stem the tide, to capture and fix meanings free of the play of human invention and imagination".

This would seem to imply that the statements of the academic union, the AAUP, are also vulnerable to the free play and whatever else she was talking about. Apparently, that is not so. Commenting on the coverage of the recently cancelled conference about the academic boycott of Israel, she argues:

"The point of the conference was to hear out our critics, NEVER to change the document we have published as a final statement of our viewpoint. Jaschik says “the AAUP started drafting a statement” on academic boycotts last year when in fact we wrote a statement that was approved at every level of the association, posted on our website and stands as a statement of principle of the association. In response to that statement we got many interesting questions and comments and we hoped to discuss those at Bellagio—discuss them as academics discuss difficult issues—civilly, with respect for one another’s positions even if they are not ours. AAUP stands for open discussion and that was what we hoped to have until the lobbyists began their campaign of defamation and intimidation. That Cary Nelson, an AAUP vice president and candidate for presidency has jumped on their bandwagon is, to say the least, distressing. He speaks without knowledge of the situation, has failed to talk to those of us directly involved in the conference, and he repeats innuendoes circulated by the lobbyists and the NY Sun that have no basis in fact. His comments—based not on careful inquiry, but on polemic, violate AAUP procedure and harm the reputation of AAUP. It is quite astonishing to watch a conference designed to air different viewpoints be turned into a an anti-Israeli plot. Those of us dedicated to the protection of academic freedom can only mourn its loss on this occasion."

I've always wondered how applicable Derridean ideas are to real-world situations. It appears that they simply aren't. If I understand the above words correctly, and Scott is not merely "playing", it seems that she is quite pissed off that things aren't going her way politically. This proves a certain point that Hippie Killer (2006) lead up to, but never quite made. Academic nihilism just isn't as succesful as that of stoner potheads.
The comments after hers just get even more inflammatory and fun. This, for instance, from Seth Armus, Associate Professor at St. Joseph’s College:

"Once upon a time, Joan W Scott wrote a nice piece of social history, so it is depressing to see her descend into paranoia over this issue. Her desire to 'out' anyone who dissents from her position as a 'lobbyist for Israeli government (or a fellow traveler)' is slanderous nonsense. Having thus adopted such Stalinist techniques, her defense of academic freedom seems nothing short of creepy."

Or this, by Hilary Rose, referring to someone who criticized Scott's post:

"Readers should be aware that Dr Pike is often exceedingly careless over his facts. An example of this is his claim that there was no one from the AUT. He seems to have overlooked that I was an invitee to the AUUP meeting and am also a member of the AUT. I think I originally joined in 1964.

Secondly readers should also be alerted to Dr Pike’s not infrequent adoption of double standards. It is high time he explored the beam in his own eye and stopped worrying about the mote in the eye of the AAUP.

Thus recently under the misleading title of 'Professor', Dr Pike took part in a conference on academic boycotts at Bar Ilan University"

Dr. Pike responds:

"Prof Rose is fond of this mote and beam couple. The last mote, as I recall, was Mona Baker’s sacking of two members of the editorial board of an academic journal, simply, openly, because they had an institutional affilliation to an Israeli university. Some mote.

Professor Rose is a member of the AUT (my mistake), and a full professor, much senior to me, much more eminent than me, so she can, of course, pull rank and put me in my place. She can also indulge in ad hominem attacks that do not touch at all, in fact, obviously evade the substantive points and factual errors that I raise.

Whether she can get away with them is readers of insidehighered to decide."

I wonder whether my professors engage in this sort of trolling. Who knew that an academic site provided better flame wars than teen-age chat rooms or video game forums...