This is not to say that Yale is not willing to exploit Professor Klausen for all she is worth. I had an email from her yesterday noting that Yale has accelerated the publication schedule for her book. It was due out in November, but they are rushing it into print even now in order to capitalize on the controversy that their egregious behavior has precipitated. Professor Klausen described this turn of events as “interesting.” Interesting, indeed. A friend who is knowledgeable about the situation at Yale was more graphic. When I wrote to tell him about this latest wrinkle, he replied in disgust that Yale was “capitalizing on the publicity in a truly opportunistic and unprincipled manner.”
“Opportunistic,” yes; “unprincipled,” you betcha; and let’s not forget “pathetic.” Just take a look at the damage control Yale has engaged in. The weblog of the Yale Alumni magazine, which now a wholly-owned poodle-like subsidiary of the Yale administration, recently published a piece arguing that the outcry about the censorship of Professor Klausen’s book was — wait for it — “conservative.” The idea, of course, is that if a criticism is “conservative,” it is therefore illegitimate. Now, I am only too happy to identify myself as a conservative. And perhaps Diana West and Martin Kramer also belong on that side of the political spectrum. But Yale’s effort to discredit criticism of its behavior as a “conservative outcry” just won’t wash. True, many of the early stories criticizing Yale were by conservatives. But we have since been joined by many liberal commentators. Cary Nelson, for example, head of the American Association of University Professors, thundered in an open letter that “We deplore this decision and its potential consequences.” An editorial in The Washington Post argued that “Yale University Press is allowing violent extremists to set the terms of free speech. . . . [I]t should be ashamed.” Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate, described Yale’s capitulation as “the latest and perhaps the worst episode in the steady surrender to religious extremism — particularly Muslim religious extremism — that is spreading across our culture.” Alan Dershowitz, writing in Tina Brown’s Daily Beast, criticized “Yale’s decision to capitulate to what are sure to be increasing demands for censorship out of fear of unlawful and immoral violence.” Meanwhile the National Coalition Against Censorship, is preparing an open letter arguing that Yale’s behavior “compromises the principle and practice of academic freedom, undermines the independence of the Press, damages the University’s credibility, and diminishes its reputation for scholarship.”
I hope now finally to have done with this discreditable affair. If I have gone on about it frequently and at length, it is because what is happening at Yale is symptomatic of a much larger problem — a much larger failure of nerve — in our culture at large. What is at stake is not just academic freedom but freedom writ large. John Donatich and Richard Levin are sorry collaborationists in a movement that is inimical to everything the institutions they lead represent. I suppose that, from one point of view, they should be pitied. But from the point of view of those who cherish political freedom and the free exchange of ideas, they should be replaced.
Please Roger, you needn’t apologize for writing again about this deplorable affair.
This incident is just the type of the iceberg. Generally speaking, our colleges and universities are rotting from within. Students know very well where to stand on such pseudo-issues as “diversity,” but can’t spell the word.
Who couldn’t see this coming? Wasn’t the execrable Richard Broadhead, who presides over another previously great university, Duke, the stand-up guy who has yet to understand what happened to him and to Duke in the lacrosse hockey team debacle, the former Dean of Students or something at Yale?
The Ivy League universities offer first-rate hard science courses. You can take for granted that a medical doctor or a mathematician who received a credential from any of these academic institutions is among the very best in the entire world. Unfortunately, this is usually not the case regarding the softer sciences. These graduates are often nothing more than second-rate intellectual whores. They are not worthy of respect. It is very fair to treat all liberal arts graduates from any school of “higher learning” within the United States as an idiot until proven otherwise. At this moment, the emphasis has been placed on marginalizing the MSM. The next target must be the Ivy League institutions. They have done enormous damage. This recent incident that occurred at Yale is only the tip of the iceberg.
Why does not the author of the book shop it to someone more courageous – Yale cannot insist on the contract after its behavior ??!!
Why not try tracinski at theintellectualactivist
whose article at the time of the cartoons is here
http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1069
Roger, Harris is right. I’ve read every piece you’ve written on this topic,and have learned from each one.
Men and women of courage must speak up, while we still can. Our freedom is at stake.
With egg all over face: I meant to write “tip of the iceberg.”
I once submitted a manuscript to YUP for publication. They declined and it was published elsewhere, still selling pretty well five years later. What was remarkable, aside from the six months it took for me to get a decision from them, was the amazing ignorance of the readers who submitted reports. The book was medical history and they showed a very poor understanding of general history, let alone medical. For example, the reader had no idea why Napoleon invaded Egypt and, when I posed the theory in the manuscript that it had to do with designs on British India, the reader (mercifully anonymous) huffed that the Suez Canal had not yet been dug! Such was the brilliance of YUP readers. It’s a wonder the manuscript was published at all.
I can understand how tending this story might have begun to feel like an unwelcome chore, but I don’t think it’s possible to revisit it too often. Inattention is a transgressor’s best friend! On top of the dangerous political precedent here, Yale’s hypocrisy is exceeded only by the betrayal of its own author.
Given the Saudi connection, and the deus ex machina administrative intervention, I never believed the overwrought “blood on my hands” claim for a second. Yale’s apparent rush to profit from the very controversy they used to excuse their blatant censorship, makes their priorities glaringly clear.
The arbitrary, unwarranted burden Yale has placed upon Professor Clausen, personally, however, is as perfidious as its disservice to scholars generally, to the public, and to its own putative standards:
• A presumed thousand word ex post facto detour for every missing picture, no matter how well written, is a paltry, tedious substitute for the images her readers will be forced to imagine, in what will surely be inaccurate ways. When the visual impact of graphic representations is the very subject of discussion, Yale’s constraints are an indefensible perversion of the author’s work.
• Describing imagery is not just dauntingly complex, especially if your expertise lies elsewhere, it is a stylistic impediment to the clarity and crispness of your text.
• How can reviewers and Professor Clausen’s academic peers possibly assess the quality of her analysis? They can hardly be expected to ferret out the images under examination themselves. A book which might otherwise have advanced her reputation, will garner attention for the circumstances surrounding its publication instead.
• And what of the quandary now facing anyone who is aware of the controversy which Yale suddenly sees as a marketing bonanza? I know I’m torn between a compelling desire to support Professor Clausen by buying her book and my revulsion at rewarding Yale for its egregious assault on scholastic honesty and an unencumbered press.
In an ideal world, this controversy would enable Professor Clausen to take advantage of another likely publisher ready to do her book justice. In this world, alas, it would be entirely unfair to expect her to undertake an expensive, nerve wracking, career wasting contractual dispute with a financial octopus like Yale. It is an institution which will drag untold others down a slippery slope of its own outrageous devising.
what is difficult to understand is how/why Yale would have proceeded with a book that was obviously fraught with danger to the PC world.
The absurd thing is that, instead of biting the bullet and canceling the book with the same reasons as those given later, they should continue with the book, and then remove all the point of the book. Surely the worst of both worlds?
This has been a good series; the point can’t be made often enough.
Pardon the nitpick, but I’m sure you meant “vying for millions,” not “vying millions.”
The amount of credibility that Yale, Harvard and other infected centres of indoctrination should be downgraded, like financial securities that were rated as premium deserve to be categorized as junk.
# 10: You’re absolutely right. Now fixed.
Yes, the criticism of Yale’s deep and shameful bow to Islamic thugs is indeed Conservative. That’s of course because liberals are too cowardly and foolish to ever find fault with the folks who hope to behead them. To find out that Yale acted out of greed rather than just stupidity and cowardice is indeed a disturbing trend for so-called “Academia.” Disgusting and I don’t think you’ve written overmuch about this disgraceful episode. I only wish others would start warning free people about the slavery Islam intends for us all. Thanks, Lee, Houston
In one of his pieces, Roger may have mentioned the almost-certain erosion of credibility in Yale UP that will result from this episode (whatever the motives may have been). But it bears repeating that risking Yale UP’s reputation in this way was foolish.
I just want to echo #1. I too have run into this buzz saw at Marywood University.
Final words? I hope not Roger.
#8. As your points show, the depth of this insidious rot knows no bounds. Every side of the coin is played except that of integrity. I do believe this book must unfortunately not warrant a purchase by anyone who still upholds such a virtue and will not allow Yale to profit by it. If it looks like, feels like, and smells like a sewer, it probably is.
“But it bears repeating that risking Yale UP’s reputation in this way was foolish.”
Let’s get real. How many well-educated liberal arts students actually graduate from Yale? This is the same academic institution that once employed the late Paul de Man. The Ivy leagues are mostly a con job. Wealthy parents spend enormous amounts of money to essentially bribe the schools to provide their sons and daughters with a phony soft science degree. This is a major reason why these intellectual second raters are inclined toward the big government policies of the Democrats and “moderate” Republicans. Does anyone actually think they could make it in a genuinely free market economy? Try to imagine Caroline “you know, you know” Kennedy having to earn their way in life. Nope, these spoiled brats have to game the system in their favor.
Harvard’s Harvey Mansfield candidly admits that even he gives his student unearned grades. Other professors at this academic whorehouse will concede that it is the norm. The children of the affluent Yuppies are going to be taken care of! This could also be a reason why they are usually so pro-Obama. They know on a gut level, if not even consciously, that their degrees are fraudulent. It makes them feel guilty—as it should. Supporting Obama allows them to feel better about their ill educated selves.
There are control freaks on the left and control freaks on the right. Yale cannot decide which category they fall into, but they like control.
Thank you for arguing for freedom and opposing censorship.