|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Jun 29, 2007 23:37:45 GMT -5
I just stumbled upon this today, but it appears that Georgetown has hired Michael Eric Dyson away from Penn and made him a University Professor. www.michaelericdyson.com/ (I'm assuming this is news; I don't recall any sort of university announcement.) I think this is a fascinating hire and I'd love to know what others' views are. My initial reaction was to cringe as I'm not thrilled with someone best known for his scholarship of hip-hop being appointed to a university professorship--we all remember how well that worked out for Cornel West at Harvard. But I honestly don't know enough about his academic writings to criticize. Has anyone here ever studied his work? His post is evidently in the theology department. One positive I can see coming out of this is that Georgetown has been making an effort in the last few years to hire public intellectuals. Although I have no idea whether or not this is concerted (probably not), the Law Center hired Rosa Brooks and Public Policy hired E.J. Dionne--both first-rate intellectuals as well as columnists. Along with professors like Deborah Tannen, David Cole, John Esposito, and Michael Kazin, Georgetown is developing quite a collection of scholars whose ideas are absorbed by those outside of the ivory tower. Hopefully, we can add some conversatives to this mix. I think Dean Gallucci has done a good job of hiring both Republicans and Democrats at distinguished practioners in SFS, althought that may simply reflect the change in administrations. In any event, I thought this was interesting.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Jun 30, 2007 9:43:50 GMT -5
I had Rosa Brooks for Con Law at UVA. She may be a well know intellectual, but she's not a very good teacher. At least for first-year students. She will probably be a better fit at GU -- she wears her heart and politics on her sleeve and it rubbed a lot of the more conservative UVA crowd the wrong way. I didn't realize GULC hired her.
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on Jun 30, 2007 20:16:45 GMT -5
I haven't seen any official announcement from Gtown about this (and I just looked it up on the website and couldn't find anything there). I had heard that Dyson was coming from people in the theology department, but they weren't certain which department he would be located in.
He's being housed in the theology department? Interesting. He is an ordained Baptist minister, and so does have training in theology, but that doesn't seem to the present focus of his scholarship and writings.
I wonder if he will have an official role in the new Berkley Center. I know that they are supposed to be hiring several senior scholars.
I remember when BC hired Alan Wolfe for their Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life (early 90s?), there was a good bit of discussion at the time about the trend toward hiring big names as a way of increasing a school's profile. Some of the concerns people raised: 1) such big guns don't have any deep relationship with or loyalty toward the hiring institution (they're just following the bucks); 2) the focus on big names (including public intellectuals) detracts from, ignores, or cheapens what a lot of (most?) serious scholarship is about: careful, sometimes tedious research into obscure matters that are, while important, not matters of widespread interest; 3) interject another market force into the educational enterprise at a place it doesn't belong (e.g., hiring scholars according to whether they will bring fame to the school rather than whether they are doing valuable and quality scholarship).
I'm not sure what to make of those concerns. I think the first concerns me the most, but it seems likely that the vast majority of a school's faculty will be of the mostly-stable, institutionally-invested variety, not the widely-cited, nationally-known type.
Moreover, because of the ethos and nature of Gtown (SFS, situated in DC, multiple programs related to ethics, etc.), it seems particularly fitting that it have those people who are "practioners" and who, in significant ways, participate in the national conversation on issues confront us as a society.
I know of one other big hire (for the Berkley Center) that I'm hoping will be announced soon. I don't know if it's finalized yet (key scholar in sociology of religion). The guy is not in the "widely known" category that Dyson is, but he would be a major hire and would further strengthen the university's scholarship in the fields of theology and religious studies.
|
|
reformation
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,442
Member is Online
|
Post by reformation on Jul 1, 2007 21:28:26 GMT -5
I asked a friend of mine who is a renowned cultural studies prof and dean at preeminent liberal arts college -but inhabits the real world too, i.e., was a very successful Ibanker before becoming a full time prof, what he thought of Dyson coming to Gtwn. I thought that his reply was insightful and worth posting below:
Dyson is a smart guy and very productive, not in a super deep, old-style academic way (as Gates continued to be), but as seriously engaged with popular culture and American race issues. On that front, he is better than Cornel West by some margin.
the question, though, is what is Georgetown going to do with him -- how will he contribute, in what program(s), for what purposes. People have a, say, Maya Angelou more or less for the marquee value (Wake Forest), or now Wole Soyinka at Emory, even though they do not necessarily contribute to the core mission of the school. Dyson is not in that league. At Penn, he would have been, among other things, active in a nexus of research scholars in and in the vicinity of his field (popular culture, cultural studies, communications studies, race studies, American ethnic studies), and active in the formation of PhD students in many fields, but I don't believe Georgetown has that sort of fat set of frameworks that Penn has.
So I'm not sure what Georgetown wants with him and intends for him to do there. And I'm also not sure what would motivate Dyson, with all due respect to Georgetown, to move from Penn (with its distinguished PhD programs in many fields of his connection, incl Annenberg School) to Georgetown.
So, Dyson himself, fine -- but there are many more questions that would need to be asked/answered to find if it's a win/win for Gtown and Dyson.
|
|
watsonry
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 314
|
Post by watsonry on Jul 2, 2007 9:55:20 GMT -5
I am currently in academia as well (PhD student in a top humanities program) and I think your friend is entirely spot on in regard to his comments on Dyson and the move to Georgetown. The intellectual/academic climate at Penn in his fields of interest basically blows Georgetown out of the water--they are stronger in all aspects of communication, religious and cultural studies.
The problem with Georgetown is that they seem to think a big name=a big time academic. The two are not mutually exclusive, but in Georgetown's case, they seem to go for washed up foreign policy people and wonkish policy guys that lack any real credentials in the academy. Yeah, we have Tenet and Albright, but they are not publishing academic articles and books or influencing academic debate. Sure, they have great experience, and are a welcome addition to the faculty, but if those are your "stars" you are in trouble. I am sure both command hefty salaries, money that could be better spent keeping people like John Ikenberry.
And yes, I realize we have people like Tannen, Esposito etc. but for a school of our perceived stature, academic superstars are few and far between. At the school where I received my MA (University of Chicago), you can literally run down the list of departments and rattle off 3-5 bonafide big time academics that teach in each one. Not so at Georgetown.
So I guess, in sum, the Dyson hire is a good one--he is a name and a productive scholar. If he can help foster the intellectual climate of a Penn or Chicago and lay the groundwork for other productive, well known people to come to our faculty, it will go a long way in bolstering our reputation in academic circles.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jul 2, 2007 11:37:53 GMT -5
I will respectfully submit that the Jesuit philosophy of education does not necessarily lend itself to the type of "Academic" scholarship that seems to be prized only by PhD nerds (no offense to watsonry, who is a friend). The Jesuits have long been the order that confronts the world, making its home in universities in the biggest cities and dealing with issues of social justice. The fact that GU's biggest names on the faculty are distinguished practitioners in their fields seems much more in line with that ethos, and Ikenberry can have his ivory tower in suburban New Jersey. Admittedly, that is never going to be the way to advance in the rankings of academic reputation in US News and World Report, but sometimes you need to come to terms with who you are.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,860
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 2, 2007 12:16:10 GMT -5
The Jesuits have long been the order that confronts the world, making its home in universities in the biggest cities and dealing with issues of social justice. The social justice issue as currently defined has really only been in place since the Arrupe years and it will be interesting to see where it is positioned after 2008, when Benedict XVI will approve the new Superior General for the order.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jul 2, 2007 12:38:45 GMT -5
The Jesuits have long been the order that confronts the world, making its home in universities in the biggest cities and dealing with issues of social justice. The social justice issue as currently defined has really only been in place since the Arrupe years and it will be interesting to see where it is positioned after 2008, when Benedict XVI will approve the new Superior General for the order. Fair enough, but the larger point is that soldiers of Christ are not some cloistered order, given over to quiet academic pursuits- they are there to make a difference in the world.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 2, 2007 13:34:38 GMT -5
The Jesuits have long been the order that confronts the world, making its home in universities in the biggest cities and dealing with issues of social justice. The social justice issue as currently defined has really only been in place since the Arrupe years and it will be interesting to see where it is positioned after 2008, when Benedict XVI will approve the new Superior General for the order. Maybe the Pontiff will ensure the new Superior General is dedicated to the truth as shown in scripture and church tradition and as articulated in the catechism; and to fostering Catholicism, along with pursuing social justice. In short, to a return to the role as the Society of JESUS and the tradition of "defenders of the faith", the title given the Jesuits by one of his predecessors. Of course, a return to being the Society of Jesus will strike some on this board as being out of touch.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Jul 2, 2007 14:37:08 GMT -5
This is all very interesting stuff.
I think what reformation's friend expressed is sort of what hit me intuitively when I read about the hire. That is, where does Dyson fit in? Although GU does not have communications or cultural studies programs, clearly, Dyson has thought about this, as has the Provost, or else I can't imagine that he would have been hired, or accepted the offer. I just wonder what that will be. Does the Berkley Center make sense? That doesn't seem quite right, although that would explain the funds needed. Is there something else afoot? Would his work fit into the type of theology PhD GU started offering?
Also, watsony, does Penn really have better religious studies program than GU? I count 6 core faculty member in Penn's program, after Dyson's departure. That's around 1/4 the size of GU's theology dept. Is there something I'm missing? (And there very well may be.)
Also, with regard to Ikenberry, I'm fairly certain that SFS is committed to hiring someone of his stature to replace him. (I recall at the time Dean Gallucci stating how important it was for SFS to bring in more theorists to balance out all of the practioners.) I don't think funds had much to do with Ikenberry's departure either. He occupied a fully endowed professorship and was in charge of a very well endowed center. The Krogh Professionship remains vacant, I think, so I assume the search in ongoing.
As with all of this, at the end of the day, the question of money looms large and the importance of the new campaign is obvious.
|
|
FormerHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by FormerHoya on Jul 2, 2007 19:15:51 GMT -5
It's been about six months, time for my favorite (only) Jesuit joke:
Q: What's the difference between a Jesuit and a Protestant?
A: The Protestant knows he's not Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Jul 3, 2007 15:19:02 GMT -5
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on Jul 3, 2007 21:37:01 GMT -5
The intellectual/academic climate at Penn in his fields of interest basically blows Georgetown out of the water--they are stronger in all aspects of communication, religious and cultural studies. That’s a pretty sweeping claim. My sense is that Penn’s not particularly noted for its contributions to scholarship in religion (though that may be more a matter of my training biases and professional interests – i.e., Yale PhD, Religious Studies/Ethics – than anything else). I imagine that Penn would be stronger than Georgetown in cultural studies approaches to religion and would also, like most schools, have characteristic strengths in select historical time periods and/or regional areas of study -- including the religious practices associated with them, but offhand I can’t think of too many other areas. And Gtown has its share of serious, well-published scholars in religion. (E.g., Peter Phan: not exactly a household name, but one of the leading scholars in Asian Catholic theology.) That said, few would doubt that Harvard and Chicago are playing in a different league from Georgetown. The social justice issue as currently defined has really only been in place since the Arrupe years and it will be interesting to see where it is positioned after 2008, when Benedict XVI will approve the new Superior General for the order. Maybe the Pontiff will ensure the new Superior General is dedicated ...to a return to the role as the Society of JESUS and the tradition of "defenders of the faith", the title given the Jesuits by one of his predecessors. Re. Jesuits, one general comment: as many here know, what defines Jesuit life, now and four hundred years ago, is the Spiritual Exercises (of St. Ignatius) –not the labels that people might associate with the Jesuits (educators, social justice advocates, theological liberals, “moral laxists” [Pascal in the 17th century!], the pope’s marines, missionaries, etc.). If fifty years from now, Jesuits were known only for running soup kitchens in the inner cities or if the only thing they did was to run one retreat center in some isolated countryside, it would still be the same Jesuit order as it was remaining faithful to the Exercises. The concluding meditations of the Exercises, the “Contemplatio,” provide the foundation for the Jesuit motto, “Finding God in all things,” and, with it, the “both/and” of Jesuit spirituality (divine/secular, Christ/the world – witness the Gtown adaption of the federal shield: the globe in one talon; the cross in the other). The Ignatian “both/and” is, my opinion, that which gives Jesuit life its particular Christian fruitfulness and also its Achilles heel. When pursued faithfully, it leads to a deep, religious affirmation of the world – though misinterpreted sometimes as a worldliness, but when not, it can foster something closer to a spiritless secularism. It's a fine line to walk. Of course, it’s also Jesuit “worldliness” (whether real or appearance) that makes Jesuits the butt of a lot of jokes. It's been about six months, time for my favorite (only) Jesuit joke: Q: What's the difference between a Jesuit and a Protestant? A: The Protestant knows he's not Catholic. The treasurers of three religious communities, the Franciscans, the Dominicans, and the Jesuits, met together. The treasurers compared notes on how each of them decided which portion of their income should be given back to God, and which part they’d keep for themselves. The Franciscan treasurer said that they drew a line down the middle of the room. They’d then throw their money in the air. Whatever fell to the right of the line was God’s; all the money on the left went back to the Franciscans. The Dominican said that they drew a circle in the middle of the room and then threw their money in the air. Whatever landed inside the circle belonged to God; everything else went to the Dominicans. The Jesuit said that they threw all their money up in the air, and would then pray, “Whatever you want, God, take it.” Everything that fell to the ground went back to the Jesuits. Jesuit missionaries came to America to do good and ended up doing well. A man wanted to get a Lexus for his wife’s birthday. He went to a Franciscan priest and asked if he’d say a rosary to help him get a Lexus. The Franciscan responded, “What’s a Lexus?” The man then went to a Domincan, and asked him the same thing. The Dominican responded, “What’s a Lexus?” The man then went to a Jesuit, and made the same request to him. The Jesuit responded, “What’s a rosary?” A man writes God a letter, asking which of the many orders of religious he loves the most. He receives a note back from God: “That’s not an easy question. There’s so much to love about the religious orders. I love the Benedictines for their beautiful chants and prayers. I love the Dominicans for their excellent preaching. I love the Franciscans for their dedication to the poor. I love the Jesuits for all their learning. No, I love them all equally. I just can’t choose between them. Sincerely, God, S.J.” Happy 4th
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Jul 4, 2007 8:51:44 GMT -5
The Washington Post reports on Dyson today. It sounds like O'Donnell and he have some plans: "At Georgetown, O'Donnell said, Dyson will write, work with students and teach. "We expect him also to be a rainmaker for us in helping us develop programs" and attracting people to the school, O'Donnell said. He added that it was premature to say what the new programs might be." www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/03/AR2007070302090.html
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Jul 4, 2007 17:14:16 GMT -5
I was fairly impressed by the discussion of expanding Georgetown's connections to the rest of the District. That will be fun to throw in Plotkin's face next week .
|
|
|
Post by jacksonhill on Jul 5, 2007 11:11:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jacksonhill on Jul 5, 2007 11:12:26 GMT -5
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Jul 5, 2007 11:47:23 GMT -5
The Washington Post reports on Dyson today. It sounds like O'Donnell and he have some plans: "At Georgetown, O'Donnell said, Dyson will write, work with students and teach. "We expect him also to be a rainmaker for us in helping us develop programs" and attracting people to the school, O'Donnell said. He added that it was premature to say what the new programs might be." www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/03/AR2007070302090.htmlThere has been some talk of Georgetown possibly starting an undergraduate journalism program in the next few years, with the school of continuing studies' masters program being a way to sort of phase it in. I know just from reading these Dyson stories that while he isn't a journalist, he is a media commentator and someone that could certainly work with that program, if it is in the works, as well.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 5, 2007 11:58:37 GMT -5
All you non-conservatives ( I know you don't like labels and some don't like being tabbed as a liberal): what would be your reaction if the hire, instead of Dyson, had been William Bennett or James Dobson? And why?
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Jul 5, 2007 12:55:55 GMT -5
Well, both are lapsed academics and haven't done anything scholarly in decades, I believe. So, clearly, you are not talking about them being hired as ordinary faculty. As far as "pracitioners" or visiting professors, I wouldn't have a problem, in theory. My best guess though is that Dobson is utterly incapable of teaching a college level course. He is to his core an advocate, not a scholar. (And it doesn't help that his views are considered kooky by most academics anyway.) The descriptions of the classes taught by both Feith and Tenet show that they are able to divorce themselves from their personal views on a subject and take a scholarly approach in class. If they were not able to, they would be equally inappopriate hires. I imagine Bennett could probably do this and I wouldn't have a problem with him being hired in a non-tenured position. Perhaps a more interesting case would be Richard Behe, who teaches at my mom's employer, Lehigh University. He has published work that has scholarly merit but also publishes tracts on intelligent desion that are not only not peer-reviewed but are riddled with innaccuracies. My best guess is that there is not a reputable chemistry department in the U.S. that would take him at this point, but he presents a closer call to me. It would be easier if he simply presented ID as his religious beliefs and didn't cling to the notion that science is involved.
|
|