« 'The Path to Mickey' | Main | Law Professor Prerogatives »

What did in Juan Cole at Yale?

Yale Alumni Magazine: From the Editor

From the Editor
September/October 2006
by Kathrin Day Lassila '81

Do those who live by the blog die by the blog?

In April, Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, was turned down for an appointment at Yale in contemporary Middle Eastern politics. This kind of event doesn't ordinarily stir up excitement in the wider world. But it became a hot topic in the blogosphere, because Cole himself is an eminent blogger. "Everyone who is anyone reads his blog," writes NYU professor Siva Vaidhyanathan in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Apparently, everyone who reads Cole's blog thought Yale rejected him because of it.

Politics are strictly disallowed as criteria for hiring at Yale. But academics are human.

Cole has an impressive c.v. He has written, edited, or translated 14 scholarly books, many of them for prestigious academic presses. But on his blog, Informed Comment, he is an unrelenting critic of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, and several conservative bloggers were outraged that Yale would consider him for tenure. The blog Little Green Footballs called Yale's interest "almost unbelievable." John Fund of WallStreetJournal.com called Cole "hotheaded" and "intolerant."

The faculty of two departments voted to hire Cole. But at Yale, senior tenure decisions must pass three levels of committees. Cole failed the second level: the Tenure Appointments Committee in the Humanities, composed of two deans and nine tenured faculty, voted him down. Now it was the liberal bloggers' turn for outrage. "Neoconservative zealots . . . screwed professor Juan Cole out of a job" (Majikthise). "This reaction reeks of fear" (Whiskey Bar).

There's no way of knowing if those who reviewed Cole were influenced by their political views. Politics are strictly disallowed as criteria for hiring at Yale. But academics are human. It would be surprising if nobody on those committees was influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by feelings about Cole's outspoken stands. It would be surprising if nobody at all wondered about the consequences of hiring a controversial public figure.

But bloggers on both left and right misread critical elements. First, Juan Cole is an outstanding scholar. It's hardly "unbelievable" for Yale to consider him; arguably, Yale would have been remiss if it hadn't. Second, contrary to the assertions of some liberal bloggers, Yale's tenure appointments committees aren't rubber stamps. The humanities committee rejects departmental recommendations rarely -- sometimes just once a year -- but regularly. Committee deliberations are confidential, but two factors likely weighed against Cole. One was the fact that Yale was seeking a scholar in contemporary politics, but the bulk of Cole's academic work to date has been on the nineteenth century. The other factor was the history faculty vote, which was close and controversial; a tenure appointments committee will always probe a close departmental vote. Charles Long, deputy provost for the university, says neither of these factors is dispositive for a leading scholar. But they probably came into play.

The Cole affair may help push academia to define how it feels about blogs. Cole's blog is opinionated but erudite; he translates Arabic and Persian sources and comments on theology. But academics haven't reached consensus on how to weigh blog posts in evaluating scholarship. (It's not clear how, or whether, Yale's committees assessed Cole's blog.) As more and more academics engage in blogging, universities will have to decide whether blogging matters.

Back when the Cole roundtable appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, my dean wrote me a nice note and asked what I think of "counting blogs as scholarship." Here is what I replied to her:

Dear Mary,

Thank you very much for that note.

My short-answer response is that blogs should not generally work into the T&P [tenure and promotion] mix.

There might be exceptions, but those would have to be for blogs that related exclusively to one's scholarly area. So I would consider Jay Rosen's blog, Pressthink, to be an example of a very rare blog that works to enhance and expand Jay's scholarly work.

Mine, on the other hand, has too many pictures of my dog and cheap shots at the president to qualify as scholarly in any way. I did not mention my blog in my file and preferred to keep it out of the mix. It is about as scholarly as a Manhattan cocktail party, but with fewer stuffed grape leaves.

As far as op-eds, interviews, and various other media appearances that relate to one's scholarly field (in my case, fortunately, media studies itself), I think they should contribute only in the realm of service. I do such work to raise my profile and thus NYU's profile. My scholarly subjects are necessarily public, fluid, and of interest to lay audiences (especially students). So it works for me. I would never claim that anything I wrote for The Nation or Salon counts as scholarship. I would hope no one else would, either.

There is a continuum among my blog posts, op-eds, magazine articles, teaching, journal articles, Amicus briefs, and books. I only put my ideas down in books once they have been "battle tested" in one or more of the other forums. So I try to pursue synergy among my various roles. And when it all comes down to deadline time, writing is writing. Not writing is not writing. And writing is better than not writing.

I fear that public work gets sometimes gets misinterpreted as a substitute for scholarship. Instead, the school should consider the extent to which work extends and -- yes -- markets real scholarship. Marketing matters more every day in this industry.

...

I do like to think that my appearance on The Daily Show sealed my tenure application. :)

Sincerely,

Siva

Comments

When it comes to hiring, promotion, and tenure, in general I'd agree that blogs shouldn't be a factor, even though some academics use them for extended book reviews and outtakes from scholarly books.

What I find more concerning is that there are still a lot of Deans and Chairs who don't take other kinds of electronic communication seriously, such as work done creating scholarly databases or for peer-reviewed electronic journals. Things haven't changed that much since the 2003 classic study by Hanson, Hawisher, Selfe, Villanueva, and Yancy in which fictional faculty cases were given to real university decision-makers who discounted any work done with technology or for online venues.

That's changing slowly in legal education. Some of the more prestigious law reviews have added online components (see e.g. the Yale Law Review Pocket Parts - http://thepocketpart.org/2006/09/06/volokh.html) and the Penn Law Review's PENNUmbra (http://www.pennumbra.com/ )

If these succeed, I expect other law reviews down the law school food chain will follow suit.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?