Political theory and public law job market: 2010-11 Senior Theory Jobs Post #1

8/07/2010

2010-11 Senior Theory Jobs Post #1

For: Discussion of all senior political theory jobs advertised in 2010-11.

Restrictions: No formal restrictions, but I will delete uncivil posts and personal attacks.

Want to confirm or correct something you see here? Want me to post a job ad to the thread? Email me at poltheorist@gmail.com. Your anonymity is assured.

256 Comments:

Anonymous said...: I'm glad that here we don't talk about senior theorists this way:

http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=23269&page=14&replies=333#post-216947

http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=25264&page=2&replies=36#post-217008

Wooooooaa.....; 8:00 AM, August 08, 2010
Anonymous said...: You haven't been here long, have you?

There's a good reason why the Sage stuff eventually got forbidden here.; 9:55 AM, August 08, 2010
Anonymous said...: OK, by now we can say that the theory craziness on the other blog is worse than what we have here, even if that's only because this blog has always had moderators who would shut threads down and delete personal attacks.; 10:11 AM, August 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: People of the world, cast your vote below:

(i) Brown and Butler are going to Columbia
(ii) Brown and Butler are using Columbia to negotiate higher salaries at Berkeley
(iii) Brown and Butler will stay at Berkeley on their current salaries

(I got this idea from the other place); 10:14 PM, August 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^I'm not even sure they know right now.; 10:32 PM, August 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: It isn't (iii), and as ^^ suggests their official line is bound to be they haven't decided between (i) and (ii), but personally I'd bet on (ii); 6:18 PM, August 19, 2010
Anonymous said...: Boston College has finally settled on a replacement for Chris Bruell: Robert Bartlett of Emory.; 2:44 PM, August 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: So was the rumor about Butler and Brown moving to Columbia bogus or what? I would think they should have made a decision by now.; 9:41 AM, August 25, 2010
Anonymous said...: I assume 2 things.
1. >50% of the information posted in these fora is unreliable
2. if that rumor is/was true, it's for next year; 6:25 PM, August 25, 2010
Anonymous said...: where did bruell go then?; 9:13 AM, September 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^into retirement; 9:27 PM, September 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: APSA scuttle: Urbinati to Minnesota is a go. If true, good think Brown is going to Columbia; Johnston and Cohen, while generous scholars, can't maintain its top 6-ish ranking alone.; 12:06 PM, September 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Earth to 12:06, Brown going to Columbia Anthropology, not polsci.; 3:19 PM, September 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: ...unless she does not accept the offer, in which case the point is moot.; 8:52 PM, September 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Brown will never leave Berkeley, my gullible friends.

Anyone have any insights about Utah? I'd kill ten strong men for that job.; 9:17 PM, September 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: That's good to know, since they prefer that to a writing sample.; 7:09 AM, September 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Ok, that pair made me laugh out loud. First time ever, for this blog. Over on the Jr. thread, I'm always just horrified. (And find myself wondering if the reason why the people posting don't have jobs is that they weren't able to hide how mean they are.); 3:54 PM, September 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: This job was just posted end of last week:

The University of St. Gallen invites outstanding candidates to apply for the following position:

Assistant Professorship in the
Political Theory of Global Governance, starting April 1, 2011 or by mutual agreement

The appointed candidate will join a recently-created inter-disciplinary research programme
on "Global Democratic Governance" in the School of Economics and Political Science, comprising both established and younger scholars in political science, economics, and international law. Applicants should have a doctorate in political science, a strong research record in either or both normative and empirical research in
the political theory of global governance, and a willingness to collaborate on research with scholars from other fields. Exceptionally qualified candidates from other disciplines will also be considered. The position will initially be filled for three years with the possibility for a single three-year renewal. As the University of St. Gallen seeks to
increase the diversity of its faculty, applications from women are especially welcome.

The appointed candidate is expected to contribute top-ranking research output and initiatives in the fields of the research programme and to teach in English in the International Affairs programme. The ability to speak German is not a prerequisite.

For further information about the position, please contact Prof. Daniele Caramani (email: daniele.caramani@unisg.ch) and visit www.gdg.unisg.ch.

Candidates should submit electronically their application letter along with a CV and a
publication list, as well as a two-three page outline of the research plan for the coming years no later than October 31, 2010 to Dr. Hilde Engelen, Programme Manager,
"Global Democratic Governance" (email: hilde.engelen@unisg.ch).; 5:05 AM, October 04, 2010
Anonymous said...: didn't they have this search last year, too?

did it fail?; 1:40 PM, October 05, 2010
Anonymous said...: rumour: brown to the big apple is now a go.; 3:32 PM, November 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: why should we listen to a rumor from a canadian?; 5:28 PM, November 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^Nope. Not gonna happen.; 9:50 PM, November 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Well, it's now reported on the Chronicle of Higher Ed. site--at least Butler's move. Could still fizzle, but JB is going to be at Columbia in the spring.; 4:21 PM, November 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: i really dont understand why people are so adamant about butler and brown not moving to columbia. its pretty clear at this point that its happening...; 6:49 PM, November 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Butler is moving. Brown isn't.; 8:06 PM, November 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: This is such BS. I can't believe they printed that story. Brown has no plans to leave Berkeley.; 11:21 PM, November 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: The Chronicle says that Butler will be joining Columbia as a "visiting professor" in the spring of 2012 and 2013. So based on that article it doesn't sound like it's a permanent move.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/judith-butler-plans-to-move-from-berkeley-to-columbia-u/28217; 11:33 PM, November 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Dear Graduate Students,

I am thrilled to announce that Judith Butler will be joining our department as a regular faculty member. For each of the next two years she will be a full-time visitor in the spring terms. After that she will be here on a
permanent year-round basis.

In spring of this academic year Professor Butler will give a colloquium just for our department to which all faculty and grad students will be invited.
It will be our chance to welcome her to our community.

Best, Jean Howard; 11:36 PM, November 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Reliable sources at Columbia confirm that Wendy Brown will join the Anthropology department there within the next 2-3 years. Apparently Columbia's political theorists (Cohen & Urbinati) sabotaged an attempt to recruit her for Political Science.; 1:39 AM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Nice!; 10:07 AM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ My God, I'd heard reports this might happen, but I didn't actually believe it.

I wonder if they have any idea how utterly ridiculous and petty this makes them look. They're like the most implausible caricatures of insecurity in a David Lodge novel.; 11:43 AM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: "I wonder if they have any idea how utterly ridiculous and petty this makes them look."

Actually, it makes them look fantastic - have some standards about what is and is not political philosophy.; 12:26 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ tantamount to saying "hey, i'm petty too!"; 12:47 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: what is petty about believing that someone who had not had an original thought in her entire career and is an ideologue of huge proportions should not be teaching in my department? (columbia is not my department, but neither brown nor someone else spouting out similar nonsense would get a job in my department.); 1:01 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^Lose the hyperbole if you want to make a serious argument. Brown is one of the leading figures in a distinct area of political theory, with numerous peer reviewed publications. I'd like to know what counts as an original thought if Brown hasn't had one.

That said, I don't think anybody is entitled to a job in an Ivy League department. We also have no idea what Brown was asking for. No need to assume that anyone sabotaged anything or that this reflects poorly on a department.; 1:44 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: By all accounts I've heard, Cohen/Johnston/Urbinati are upright scholars who would not "sabotage" anyone. All three could go toe to toe with Brown anyway, no reason for them to be insecure.; 2:42 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: I can think of about 200 scholars with just as many, if not more, "peer reviewed" publications (cause we know how well that works) who would not get a job in the Columbia political science department - oh and unlike Brown they don't being politics to the classroom, read protests, trash the governor, etc. And I am also not sure what is distinct about her writings - seems like a whole lot of b.s. to me. Again, good for the department for having a spine.; 3:23 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: That's great news for the Columbia community !

Columbia hasn't had a first-rate theorist in political theory ever since Brian Barry retired. Maybe with Brown they'll be able to get back to where they once were!; 3:24 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: "unlike Brown they don't being [bring?] politics to the classroom, read protests, trash the governor, etc"

Umm... I teach in a political science department. I don't know about you...; 3:27 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ Wonder what Barry would say about that. Actually I don't wonder, but it would be fun to hear it...; 7:06 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Political science is not politics, and if you don't know better as a graduate student in political philosophy, or maybe even PhD already, well that tells us a lot. Politics is what our elected officials are supposed to do, not professors. I don't want colleagues who are so ideological that students can tell whether they are liberal or conservative, especially since we are teaching political subjects. Yet with Brown, there is not only no question where she is politically (to the left of pretty much everyone I've ever known), but she brings this ideology to class, and good luck being a student of hers if your ideas are more centrist, or dare I say, conservative.; 7:26 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: ah. the truth outs, bitter b- student.

very few are the political scientists whose politics are not out there for all to see. some are even aware of it.; 7:46 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: And in other news in the Columbia polisci department..:
http://www.salon.com/life/sexual_abuse/index.html?story=%2Fmwt%2Fbroadsheet%2F2010%2F12%2F10%2Fincest; 7:51 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ that is the juiciest news i have heard all week! thanks, 7.51, you made my day!; 9:08 PM, December 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: I don't think I'd use the expression "made my day" in conjunction with this sad sad story.; 9:08 AM, December 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: Well it's certainly gives us all something to talk about at the department holiday party. Especially with the Columbia phds.; 12:45 PM, December 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Gross. Why is the personal tragedy of not particularly famous people who happen to share our profession an interesting topic for small talk? What's wrong with you?; 1:11 PM, December 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: You don't think it is pertinent when a member the same department that doesn't think Wendy Brown meets their high standards is found to have been in a four year relationship with his daughter?; 1:49 PM, December 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Are you serious? One set of concerns is personal; the other is intellectual. They have nothing to do with another, and don't give me that 'personal is political' crap.; 2:36 PM, December 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: I'm still trying to figure the rendering of this story as a "personal tragedy" worthy of hushed respect rather than human folly, rightfully the target of appalled chatter.; 4:29 PM, December 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: "By all accounts I've heard, Cohen/Johnston/Urbinati are upright scholars who would not "sabotage" anyone. All three could go toe to toe with Brown anyway, no reason for them to be insecure."

Urbinati, agreed on both counts.

Johnston and Cohen, you must be kidding.

"Columbia hasn't had a first-rate theorist in political theory ever since Brian Barry retired."

Jon Elster, anyone?; 9:03 PM, December 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: It's bizzare that people think they can spin this to make Columbia PS look good. That's some serious faith in your own BS.

This is the equivalent of taking out a full page ad in the NYT announcing their dysfunctionality, even I (who thinks Brown is really really overrated) can see that.; 11:15 PM, December 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: Odd because the department could really have solidified itself as a top program in the history of European political thought and contemporary theory with Brown. I still have a hard time accepting that individual egos outweighed the draw of that collective cachet. Scholars recognize the need to have people they can talk to in their department about their work.; 12:05 AM, December 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: for brown fans out there: folks, you live in a dream world of sorts. not just overrated, she will be forgotten in 20 years, and no one will even bother to open her books.; 3:02 AM, December 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: Brown may be forgotten in 20 years. But you know who else will? Cohen, Urbinati, Johnston, me, you, and 99.9% of all theorists. So who's in a dream world here? The folks who think one of the most visible and successful political theorists working today is qualified to work at Columbia? Or the person who thinks anybody who fails to achieve immortality is a failure?; 7:27 AM, December 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: "Johnston and Cohen, you must be kidding."

Johnston and Cohen have vetoed enough first rate political theorists to staff a better political theory program than their own: Benhabib, Brown, McCormick, Villa, among others.; 8:26 AM, December 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: I agree that Columbia hasn't exactly covered itself with glory in its senior (non)hiring decisions. But look, Wendy Brown is probably close to 60, and she's probably very expensive. So why should the department tie up a huge amount of resources and suck up a huge amount of intellectual oxygen to give he a landing pad for the last 5-10 years of her career? Her most important work, such as it is, is almost certainly behind her, and Poli Sci students will probably be able to avail themselves of her as an advisor (do you really think she'll be helpful to Anthro students?). So even if you admire her as a scholar I don't think it's necessarily a bad decision for the Columbia PS dept. to take a pass.; 10:11 AM, December 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: any other senior moves in the cards for this year, other than the one beaten to death so far)?; 12:56 PM, December 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: Evidently that would be a "no."

Here's a question for everyone. Any rumours about big-time retirements? That is does anyone know of major theorists getting ready to move along to make way for the rest of us?; 8:44 PM, December 26, 2010
Anonymous said...: Has the Princeton Center for Human Values selected Laurance Rockefeller Visiting Fellows for 2011-12?; 11:05 AM, December 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: Hard to believe retirements would be 'news' given that we can all guess who's getting up there. But Flathman retired. Does that help your job prospects?; 2:19 PM, December 29, 2010
Anonymous said...: Has there ever been a year with less senior activity?; 11:04 AM, January 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: who got the utah job????????????; 4:30 PM, January 23, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^Utah was still doing interviews last week...; 12:30 PM, January 24, 2011
Anonymous said...: Utah is still doing interviews well into February, in fact.; 2:45 PM, January 24, 2011
Anonymous said...: I have reason to believe the following programs will be doing searches next year to replace senior faculty: Michigan State (Allan), NYU (Ollman), Columbia (Elster), and possibly Berkeley (Brown).; 3:49 PM, January 24, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ Wow. Sounds like you have some concrete inside information at a lot of places.; 3:11 PM, January 25, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^^ Do you think they'll all be conducting senior searches?; 8:29 AM, January 26, 2011
Anonymous said...: I need advice. I am in the fourth year in the tenure track (R1 University). I am going up for associate in 18 months. My publishing record is average, not fantastic. Due to internal conflicts in my department, I think it is going to be very difficult to get tenure here. When should I go back to the market? As an assistant, or as an associate?; 1:39 PM, January 28, 2011
Anonymous said...: Well, if you don't get tenure then going on the market as an associate won't be an option.

Seriously, if you think your tenure prospects are dim then you should go on the market as soon as possible and give yourself as many cracks at it as possible.

Having said that, don't be too quick to assume that internal conflicts will sink your tenure case. That's certainly possible, but it's also possible that the senior faculty will be grown-ups and not make collateral damage out of your career.; 3:04 PM, January 28, 2011
Anonymous said...: Kind of an odd question, 1:39. Presumably you can use the next 18 months to improve your publishing record?

I assume that you're asking whether it would be better to apply elsewhere now or once you're denied tenure but promoted to associate and given a one-year terminal contract (as many places do). I would assume you would be a weaker candidate once you've been denied tenure, but I suppose that if you're really the victim of departmental politcs you might be able to build a stronger file by then. But it will be difficult to signal to places that you were denied tenure for illegitimate reasons without sounding bitter and self-serving. So you're probably better off applying places next year.

And really, why not do that in any case? It doesn't sound like you're very happy in your current department; why not test the waters next year and see if you can't get something you like better?; 8:04 PM, January 28, 2011
Anonymous said...: Apply apply apply.

Moreover, many departments (though not all) value their own junior people noticeably more highly once the market has signaled an interest. Getting an outside offer could actually increase your tenure chances in your home department.

But if it's really that kind of conflictual department, better to get out ASAP anyways.; 9:01 AM, January 29, 2011
Anonymous said...: Agreed with all of the above. Apply for jobs now, and keep publishing all you can. An "average not fantastic" record should be sufficient to land you somewhere where you may be able to restart the tenure clock, if that seems necessary.

If you're denied tenure, many places will simply remove your application from the files for Assistant Professor jobs, because they assume you won't accept it. But with a "average" record, places hiring at the Associate level are very likely to pass. The standards for getting hired somewhere with tenure are higher than the standards for receiving tenure if you're already there.

I say this, unfortunately, from experience. There are just not very many jobs out there, and being too advanced for junior jobs and too junior for senior jobs is no fun at all.; 12:54 PM, January 29, 2011
Anonymous said...: Has anyone been following ANU's process? It looks like they've made some offers, according to the wiki. I'll be curious to know if they've gone senior or junior.; 4:24 PM, January 29, 2011
Anonymous said...: "The standards for getting hired somewhere with tenure are higher than the standards for receiving tenure if you're already there."

That varies to some degree. For example: some departments discount work you did in grad school or on a postdoc in deciding an internal tenure case. But for a hire-to-tenure, they look at the whole record-- trajectory matters, but there's no strict exclusion of the earlier stuff.

And then there's just the fact that an external hire-to-tenure hasn't had the chance to get on the wrong side of internal department fights.; 11:01 PM, January 30, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ i'm not so sure about that. while they look at the whole record, obviously, when hiring, for tenure purposes many departments, especially if they're resetting or setting back your clock, heavily discount the work that you did before arriving -- which isn't entirely irrational, imho.; 12:56 AM, January 31, 2011
Anonymous said...: What is "average not fantastic" for an R1? Presumably 1.39 could say exactly what he's got...but in general, what is fairly good for somebody relatively close to tenure?; 10:25 AM, January 31, 2011
Anonymous said...: This is not that hard to figure out, or at least get a sense of. Just look at recently tenured people in the kinds of departments you are interested in.; 9:35 AM, February 07, 2011
Anonymous said...: What I reagrd as standard: UP book; couple of articles, and evidence of progress on the next big project. Anything less could be difficult, and there is sometimes debate about what constitutes evidence of progress.; 11:34 AM, February 07, 2011
Anonymous said...: People often say something like that. What, really, does a 'big project' consist of? Would a few articles on related topics constitute a big project? Or, is the idea that, like a book, they all contribute to a single larger point or scholarly identity?; 1:13 PM, February 10, 2011
Anonymous said...: if the few articles seem like they might add up to a book, then yes. It could be one major article that seems like the backbone of a book, plus a few minor articles/book chapters/serious conference papers. Or it could be a unpublished yet complete manuscript. or it could be a second book contract on the basis of a prospectus. This is where it gets a little subjective.

But another way people talk about it is "twice around the bases," which means a second time of whatever got you hired in the first place.

In my case, after the book, it was a major journal hit, plus a respectable subfield journal hit, and a coherence between the book and the post-book articles that suggested trajectory toward another book and generally a future of more of the same kind of work.; 3:40 PM, February 10, 2011
Anonymous said...: Well, although it might not be common in political theory, it certainly is common in other subfields for people to be tenured without a book. So, there must be a way that a number of articles can count as a 'big project'.

Likewise, if twice around the bases was really the standard, looking around it seems to me that almost nobody would get tenure. Very few people really are at almost two books when they are tenured. Those who do make it that far are probably at one of the places (some of the Ivy's) that have longer tenure clocks.; 9:38 AM, February 11, 2011
Anonymous said...: Second major project can me a good start on a second book manuscript, with an article or two published from it, in addition to the first book...though there are plenty of places where you can get tenure with less - perhaps a book and 4-5 articles.

That said, I'm not sure I can think of anyone who was tenured without a book, or at least a book under contract/in production - which certainly doesn't mean there are no examples, and I'd be interested if there were. And when I say anyone, I have in mind R1 institutions and the high end SLACs, but again, I'm happy to hear otherwise.; 5:14 PM, February 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Jim Johnson (Rochester) is one notable exception; 7:51 PM, February 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Rochester: an articles department.; 8:36 AM, February 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: no: formal theory, an articles field; Rochester, a formal theory department. dmitri landa (nyu), also a formal theory type theorist, is another example.; 8:56 AM, February 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: abizadeh was tenured at McGill, but the quality, quantity, and placement of his articles was really good.; 7:31 PM, February 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^^ You must not be too familiar with Johnson's writing. He's written on Habermas, Aesthetics, photography, Dewey and Pragmatism, political science methods, anthropology, deliberative democracy, political culture, and conceptual analysis about rationality. He may have a couple of articles that qualify as 'formal theory' but that's not what the bulk of his work is about.; 7:55 PM, February 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: Sounds like somebody has a crush on Johnson. A pretty creepy crush, to tell the truth.; 8:00 AM, February 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ Maybe, but he's right; 3:42 PM, February 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: Any word from Utah?; 5:27 PM, February 16, 2011
Anonymous said...: while I don't think we should have a discussion like this in public, the truth is you can't understand tenure cases only by looking at the records of those who got it. the record of people denied tenure has to be part of the calculus; 10:43 AM, February 17, 2011
Anonymous said...: Seems to me that folks are trying to make the tenure question too easy. There are a diverse set of issues that go into tenure decisions, and in one person's case a book and a couple of articles is enough, while in another person's case three books may not be enough.

My advice to the question of when to apply would be asap. The reality is that:
A) there are a lot of people on the market who have not bee in a tt job but have been teaching for a long time
B) many schools don't hire with tenure (virtually every top 10-20 liberal arts college for example almost never does - few very big exceptions proving the rule)
C) it will take a while for the market to improve, even if the economy improves

So the sooner you start looking, the more likely you are to find something good.

At my school in all social aciences and humanities we would never hire someone who has been denied tenure anywhere except for Harvard, but thats just how we operate, certainly not the case with every school. (Harvard ia excluded because we assume that when a person takes a job there as an Assistant Prof, they have no expectation of tenure, and only very seldom does someone actually get it).; 1:37 PM, February 17, 2011
Anonymous said...: do you really distinguish between Harvard and Yale, where the same is traditionally true?; 3:32 PM, February 17, 2011
Anonymous said...: Or Princeton? Or Chicago?; 3:38 PM, February 17, 2011
Anonymous said...: Interesting to learn that there are departments that will not hire *anyone* who has been denied tenure in places other than Harvard. I'm mildly astonished, actually. After having been in a pretty good department for a number of years alongside people who had been denied tenure elsewhere (some at lower-ranked institutions), this comes as a shock. But, different institutions different practices, I suppose.; 4:09 PM, February 17, 2011
Anonymous said...: Let's assume that this is a fairly high-ranked dept., so that being denied tenure at a peer-or-worse institution would suggest a fortiori that they wouldn't merit tenure there either.; 4:34 PM, February 17, 2011
Anonymous said...: Please note that hiring of tenure denied candidates was a comment for the humanities and social sciences across the board, not just political science.

Getting tenure at Yale and Princeton, overall, is nowhere near as hard as it is at Harvard. That's just the reality, so no, the policy only applies to Harvard. Now granted, my friends at Harvard are claiming that the school is making a concerted effort to tenure more internally - certainly Eric's tenure case is a testament to that (as compared to what happened with Peter Berkowitz, Sharon Krause, and Russell Muirhead), but I'd want to see more than one exception to the rule before I decide that things have changed.; 8:13 PM, February 17, 2011
Anonymous said...: Nelson is an interesting gamble for Harvard, to be sure. Smart guy, and very young. Could pay off.

Time will tell.

(And that policy is asinine, for very obvious reasons); 8:38 PM, February 17, 2011
Anonymous said...: Eric is a wonderful guy and a great prospect for a long-term scholar, and he is as close as a successor that Harvey (my teacher) may be allowed to have - though I am still hopeful that there may be someone who is not just a fellow traveler conservative (like Eric), but rather a Straussian to replace Mansfield (of course, Pangle was meant to be that successor but he said no).

Harvard is making a consorted effort to not ostracize conservatives, since many conservative alumni (for good reason) are refusing to give money until the issue of lack of ideological diversity in the various departments (and problem of ROTC) are addressed. I do not think Eric would have been tenured without this pressure in the background (though of course he deserved tenure, much like Sharon and Peter Berkowitz and Russell deserved tenure).; 10:32 PM, February 17, 2011
Anonymous said...: "And that policy is asinine, for very obvious reasons"

Why?

Say if Brown rejected someone for tenure, why would we. a school with lower admissions rates and in our view generally a better student body and a better faculty would want that person on our faculty? Here's someone who has been in teaching for six to seven years, did not meet the tenure bar at a good university - would seem like we are competing for scraps. Plus, you end up with someone who is much more older than if you hire an ABD, is set in his or her ways (which did not work out too well), and can be molded as a scholar less by our culture and our traditions and our foci in the classroom. Will we refuse to hire someone who is in their four year at Brown and can sense that they won't get tenure and thus decides to transfer? Certainly not, though chances are it won't happen just cause we prefer to hire ABDs or someone with 1-2 years of VAP experience. But leaving after four years of tenure track is very different from waiting for tenure decision and then being forced to leave.

Now granted, there are exceptions to the rule and some exceptional candidate may be denied tenure for political or other reasons, and in that case I can see a strong reason for why he or she should be hired. But short of that, its one thing to have a tenure reject from Harvard, where getting tenure is the exception to the rule, but short of that, I am not sure I want someone as part of the faculty whom schools of our caliber rejected.

Is this elitist? Yes. Does this place Harvard in a special category of schools? Yes. But thats just life.; 10:39 PM, February 17, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^I take it you are at a school that in your view is better than Brown? Otherwise, I'm not entirely sure I understand the point of your post.; 3:16 AM, February 18, 2011
Anonymous said...: Yale has only very recently become a place where it's easier to get tenure than at Harvard, in principle or in practice. And Harvard's moving things around too; it's not clear that even now Yale is actually easier.

Harvard:
Is Eric Nelson a conservative in any strong way? The work doesn't radiate a particular politics.; 8:46 AM, February 18, 2011
Anonymous said...: Is Nelson the first theorist to get tenure since Sandel?; 1:32 PM, February 18, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ Yes, that is correct. They have certainly hired with tenure.; 2:06 PM, February 18, 2011
Anonymous said...: "Is Eric Nelson a conservative in any strong way?"

Yes.; 2:53 PM, February 18, 2011
Anonymous said...: I don't know if this is true or not about Nelson, but why would it matter if it doesn't show up in his work in any way (I've only read his work and have seen no sign of his politics at all)? That would make it very different kind of case from a Mansfield or Robbie George (or Peter Berkowitz).; 4:49 PM, February 18, 2011
Anonymous said...: I am sorry but thats an idiotic statement.

Prof Mansfield's conservatism does not show up anywhere in his scholarship on political philosophy - that is, his writings on executive power, Machiavelli, Burke, Tocqueville, etc. (all the work that makes him a great scholar and teacher). It certainly is present in his popular culture writings, but that's separate and I would not be shocked if Eric starts to write a lot more in popular press now that he has tenure.

Peter is not a conservative - he is not a left winger like 90 percent of academia either, and he's become more conservative now, but he is not a conservative so lets mot name capl. Further, he was denied tenure not because he is conservative, but rather for the very same reasons why Tom Pangle was denied tenure at Yale.

There is no question, there are Straussian or Straussian-fellow traveler conservatives who do bring their conservatism to their writing and their classroom: George, West, Arkes as examples. But please lets not lump others into this for no reason. And certainly whatever you say about conservatives is far more the case with the left in academia.; 6:37 PM, February 18, 2011
Anonymous said...: god, every thread here is infected.; 10:35 PM, February 18, 2011
Anonymous said...: “Prof Mansfield's conservatism does not show up anywhere in his scholarship on political philosophy”

So you don’t think that Mansfield’s “Manliness” counts as “scholarship on political philosophy”? I’m pretty sure he would disagree. Regardless, Mansfield has written many essays in more popular/political forums which make clear connections between political philosophy and his politics. And I’m not say that that’s a bad thing.

“Peter is not a conservative”

If you’re writing boilerplate polemics for run-of-the-mill Republican propaganda outfits like The Weekly Standard or Wall Street Journal editorial page, you can call yourself whatever you want, but you’ve thrown your – highly political and polemical – lot in with conservatives for all practical purposes. And a number of Berkowitz’s pieces for those kinds of outlets are uncritical paens to the greatness of conservatism. So if you’re writing pro-conservatives pieces in conservative outlets, people may fairly conclude that you’re a conservative.

Stop being so sensitive.; 11:01 PM, February 18, 2011
Anonymous said...: Nelson is VERY conservative along libertarian lines: against state intervention in almost any economic context.

Good for Harvard in tenuring him! With Yale tenuring a Straussian like Garsten, it shows that quality and not ideology matters most at the best places once again.; 11:43 PM, February 18, 2011
Anonymous said...: Garsten is, obviously and for the 438th time, not a Straussian, as anyone who has read his work can attest. They're trying to save their dying cult by claiming non-members as members, and it's very sad.; 11:48 AM, February 19, 2011
Anonymous said...: @11:48: actually, as almost any review of Garsten's "Saving Persuasion" has already attested to, his work does show obvious Straussian influences, and this fact is hardly surprising given that it is based on a dissertation supervised by a leading Straussian (although I would add that it is nonetheless considerably more ecumenical and capacious than most Straussian work).

Here are some of the reviews book which attest to what you claim that one who had read his work would claim (and none of which are written by "members" of the "cult", and some of whom are actually critical of the cult"):

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/philosophy_and_rhetoric/v041/41.1aune.html

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007-02-18.html

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=715532&fulltextType=BR&fileId=S1537592707070181

You are desperately grasping at straws to deny the obvious and widely-acknowledged. Your insecurity, unhappiness and vindictiveness are very sad and quite futile.; 1:42 PM, February 19, 2011
Anonymous said...: SHUT UP.; 3:53 PM, February 19, 2011
Anonymous said...: please, please, please -- nobody cares about Strauss. Give it up.; 4:09 PM, February 19, 2011
Anonymous said...: how could you possibly conclude from this message board that nobody cares about Strauss? True, I don't care about the exchanges that typically go on here, but it seems obvious that that is all anyone here really cares about.; 4:41 PM, February 19, 2011
Anonymous said...: TB got KO'd; 4:52 PM, February 19, 2011
Anonymous said...: There's one consistent voice on this site that has gone to ridiculous lengths to deny that Garsten is in anyway Straussian. As the multiple reasonable voices here and elsewhere have pointed out to this person, this is a hard claim to defend, especially so dogmatically.

It must be a non-Straussian or quasi-Straussian student of Gartsen's at Yale who is worried about the taint of Straussianism affecting their prospects of getting a job. Or one of his former students in an Asst. Prof. position worried for the same reason about getting tenure.

Nothing else would explain the emphatic and entrenched nature of their position.; 7:17 AM, February 20, 2011
Anonymous said...: "There's one consistent voice on this site that has gone to ridiculous lengths to deny that Garsten is in anyway Straussian. As the multiple reasonable voices here and elsewhere have pointed out to this person, this is a hard claim to defend, especially so dogmatically."

Though that case has been made, I don't think we can say it is a single voice...and I don't think it should be inferred that the voice, or voices, must be from Yale.

Of course, I may be wrong...and anyway, surely there is something more interesting to talk about.; 8:30 AM, February 20, 2011
Anonymous said...: Actually, various people have made the case that Gersen is a Straussian, and one person (maybe two) has tried to make a case that he is not. But since Gersen, who is a friend of mine, self-identifies himself as a Straussian, produces Straussian grad students alongside Stephen Smith, has other Straussians send him students (which we would not do if we did not think he was a Straussian), has contributed to Sharon Krause's book in honor of Professor Mansfield (a book whose contributors are all Straussians), the case here is pretty settled. Just because someone who is not a Straussian has some dogmatic, albeit completely inaccurate, definition of what is Straussianism, and thinks that Gersen's writing does not fit that definition does not mean that the has been made about Gersen not being a Straussian. This person also argued that at least one other person whom every Straussian I know identifies as a Straussian is not a Straussian, again because this person's writings don't fit his dogmatic definition, but then had to shut up once an article by Bill Galstone self-identifying himself as a Straussian was pointed out to him. So 7:17 is absolutely correct. 80% of my writing is not related to political theory at all, and the rest is only related tangentially, and I don't teach in a political science department, though a lot of my students do have BAs in political science. So this person's dogmatic definition would surely exclude me from being a Straussian. And while I certainly I was more circumspect about my Straussian leanings until tenure, to argue that I am not a Straussian would be insane.

Of course it's total nonsense that no one cares about Strauss. He is one of the most important thinkers in the 20th century, and has shaped political science more than anyone save Weber and Heidegger, and political theory as a subfield would for all intends and purposes not exist had he not made a case against these two and the type of formalistic, math-based political science that was coming to dominate the profession inn the 50s and 60s. The issue ia that some people really hate Straussians, largely I tying for one of three reasons, and are super loud about that.; 9:54 AM, February 20, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ Gersen? Galstone? Honestly.

Setting aside the genealogy issues, about which i know nothing and care very little, the idea that Strauss single-handedly overcame behaviorism and saved political theory is risible.; 11:16 AM, February 20, 2011
Anonymous said...: One question I'm interested in: can you be a Straussian without studying under one? Conversely, does studying under one make you one (generally speaking, bracketing the Garsten question)?; 11:43 AM, February 20, 2011
Jeffrey said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12:13 PM, February 20, 2011
Anonymous said...: "Gersen, who is a friend of mine,"

AWESOME!!

Seriously, 9:54 has to be some kind of brilliant piece of performance art. Surely no one could plop down in earnest such a self-important, long-winded little harangue so full of typos, basic inaccuracies, and bizarro claims (Heidegger was a major force in shaping political science?). I think Teh Strauss Warz have reached their zenith, and no one should ever comment on any of this again.

Also, what 11:16 said.; 12:14 PM, February 20, 2011
Anonymous said...: Agreed, 9:54 is brilliant as parody. The alternative is too horrifying to contemplate.; 12:53 PM, February 20, 2011
Anonymous said...: My bet: 9:54 is TB trying to take the heat off. Excellent parodic skills, TB! Now direct those creative juices toward your dissertation and stop making crazy claims in anonymous forums.; 1:01 PM, February 20, 2011
Anonymous said...: Who the hell is TB?; 3:56 PM, February 20, 2011
Anonymous said...: Of course you can be a Straussian without studying with one - see, for example, Eve Adler; Harvey Mansfield (though he did spend a year around Strauss in California after he finished his Ph.D.); Pierre Manent; Pierre Hassner; and there are quite a few more.

And if someone seriously thinks that Heidegger was not important in shaping political science, probably time for you to get your head out of the sand (cause its hard to be more clueless). He us at the core of virtually everything political science today does.; 9:53 PM, February 20, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ Um, could you please come and talk to my colleagues at my Big 10 political-science department about Heidegger's influence on their work, because they are under the mistaken impression that these strange people named Arrow, Black, and Olson were the big influences, and they have never heard of Heidegger--except perhaps from the Monty Python song.

But really, so long as we are talking influence: Aristotle's really the original political scientist, right? If he had only had access to STATA....; 11:32 PM, February 20, 2011
Anonymous said...: You mean the Big Aristotle?; 7:15 AM, February 21, 2011
Anonymous said...: I'm sorry, but what does this Heidegger discussion have to do with whether Garsten is a Straussian?? Stay focused people!

[Word verification: "disesses" as in "it disesses us, our precioussssss."]; 8:45 AM, February 21, 2011
Anonymous said...: Don't you mean Gersen and Galstone? Or is Heidegger a red heron?; 9:03 AM, February 21, 2011
Anonymous said...: don't take the brown acid; 9:54 AM, February 21, 2011
Anonymous said...: I don't want to stop our enlightened conversation over Gerson, Galstone & Streuss, but I woudn't mind if we came back to the previous discussion for a sec.

If they are to believe what people say here, all tt assistant profs at Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Chicago and Stanford should begin looking for a job at starbucks (quick!!!).. is that true? What has happened to all those people who didn't get tenure at those places? It seems that Jennifer Pitts, John McCormick, Jacob Levy, and Russ Muirhead didn't do that badly, did they? What happened to others?; 4:03 PM, February 21, 2011
Anonymous said...: If they are to believe what people say here, all tt assistant profs at Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Chicago and Stanford should begin looking for a job at starbucks (quick!!!).. is that true?

Perhaps I skipped over this claim in my Strauss-wars skimming, but I certainly don't recall anyone making a claim that looked anything like that. Those denied tenure at top schools generally land on their feet, as far as I can tell. I can think of one example who ended up at a non-ranked regional school (but, with tenure), and that's the worst I've seen. The most recent tenure denial from Stanford landed at Trinity-Dublin.; 5:57 PM, February 21, 2011
Anonymous said...: Hey 11:32 PM, February 20, 2011

Most of your "colleagues" probably don't think that Weber had anything to do with their work either, yet their historicist, nihilistic, and clueless (ie valueless) work is influenced by nothing more than Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Weber. And the same is true of all the folks you mention.; 2:00 AM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: Nihilism sucks.
Historicism does too.
I blame Machiavelli.; 4:05 AM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ Um, could you please come and talk to my colleagues at my Big 10 political-science department about Heidegger's influence on their work,

I realize that you think this is a joke, but would there be anything remotely strange about this request? "Heidegger's influence on PS" is precisely the sort of invited lecture I wish my department would have more of. (Much better, for instance, than that last talk that could/should have been titled "My Latest Chart"); 7:21 AM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: there did seem to be someone defending his/her institution's policy of never hiring anyone who had been denied tenure anywhere but Harvard, because such people obviously aren't any good.

In addition to the embarrassments to the profession already listed, that would send Bernard Yack, Patrick Deneen, Dana Villa, Jacqueline Stevens, and Thomas Pangle to the barista counter.; 8:49 AM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: Add Bonnie Honig to the list as well.

I'm beginning to think top schools do a better job of hiring juniors than they think they do.; 9:25 AM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: Ah, but Harvard, on the previous poster's theory, is special and unique-- one is allowed to acknowledge merit and possible employability in those denied tenure there.

(The Harvard list would also include Steven Macedo.); 9:58 AM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: One is allowed to make the same acknowledgment with Columbia's denials: Benhabib, Wendy Brown, McCormick, Villa, Stilz, etc.; 12:18 PM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: I don't think any of those people were denied tenure at Columbia.; 12:27 PM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: 8:49: no one said those other people were not "any good". What I did say was that non-Harvard tenure denials are not good enough for my institution. Go find someone in the humanities or social sciences say at Dartmouth, or Stanford, or Pomona or Williams who was denied tenure somewhere other than Harvard. You'll be hard pressed, even if there is one or two exceptional cases across all the departments. Thats not the case with Harvard tenure denials. The fact that someone was on the faculty at Harvard and was denied tenure is simply not a black mark. That does not apply to any ore school, even among the elite schools in the US. And finally, note that I am speaking about all departments, not just PS.; 12:52 PM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: Well, the people already listed are on the faculty at Chicago, Georgetown, Northwestern, Notre Dame, and Texas, among others.

One possible distinction hasn't been mentioned yet: some universities won't make a hire-to-tenure of someone who's been denied tenure where they are. They insist on hiring the person untenured for at least a year or two. I think that's a mistake as a hard and fast rule, but I can see the reason for it. But that's different from refusing to hire tenure-denied people *at all,* viewing them as such damaged goods that they're not worth looking at.

The latter rule lets other people-- other university's tenure committees-- do your thinking for you. And if they make a mistake (as I'm sure we all think at least some of the named cases were mistakes), you deny yourself the ability to take advantage of it by making a good hire. Instead you compound the mistake, magnify it.; 1:32 PM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: 8:49: as far as I know, while all of those people were indeed denied tenure at some point, none of them were denied at Harvard -- and as 12:27 points out, none of the people named by 12:18 were denied by Columbia. So I'm not clear what either of you is saying.; 1:35 PM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: 8:49 here. My point is that "never hire someone who's been denied tenure (unless it was at Harvard)" is a stupid rule. I don't care what institution 12:52 works at; the idea that not even one of the people named so far is "good enough" for the institution just can't be true. The institution is poorly judging its own interest with that rule. And if the rule were generalized broadly it would be very bad for the profession. Some tenure-denials are washouts. But many, even from non-Harvard institutions, go on to be leading scholars, and a smart institution judges for itself whether a tenure denial elsewhere is a black mark or a new hiring opportunity.; 1:56 PM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: "their [i.e., quantoids'] historicist, nihilistic, and clueless (ie valueless) work is influenced by nothing more than Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Weber. And the same is true of all the folks you mention."

OK, dipshit, I'm not a serious fan of the quantoids, but do enlighten me (and them [chuckle]) about how Arrow, Black, and Olson were "influenced by nothing more than Nietzshce, Heidegger, and Weber."

As an incentive: a decent answer to this question will lead me not only to reveal my identity but also to do a (literal) dog-and-pony show in the atrium of the main conference hotel in Seattle.

(N.B.: Specific references to the theories and works of Arrow, Black, and Olson would be helpful.); 10:08 PM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ Decent answers have been provided to these questions for a long time by many people. I could say, "wither you are completely unaware of what is going around you, or simply refuse to acknowledge reality" but I have long tried to get people here to get off name calling/

Rational choice "theory" and the whole concept of using math top understand politics only exists in political science because of Weber and his introduction of the fact-value distinction to social science (see Storing, Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14418060). (I have no problem, by the way, with RCT being used in economics - just leave the study of the polis alone.)

Meanwhile, the fact-value distinction that created the possibility for math-based study to dominate such significant parts of political science was only possible thanks to the nihilism of Nietzsche and Heidegger (see Nasser Behnegar, Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the scientific study of politics, especially chapter 3; http://books.google.com/books?id=EdSka9OI8KEC&lpg=PP1&ots=tKuXg0ixt1&dq=Weber%20Nietzsche%20Strauss&pg=PR9#v=onepage&q=Weber%20Nietzsche%20Strauss&f=false).

None of this is that new or even controversial - Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Weber are the culmination of the collapse of western political philosophy into nihilism and relativism, in which political science could no longer function as a prescriptive mother discipline for organizing human life. Instead, it became the nonsense that so many of your colleagues practice. And had things gone the way most political scientists wanted in the 1950s and 1960s, there would be no political philosophy at all - it would be relegated to the philosophy departments where we would by no means by studying the political of Plato.; 10:32 PM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: Um, wasn't the fact/value distinction introduced by Hume, like 150 years before Weber?

As for the use of math to understand politics, have you ever read the Republic? (not that I understand that math!); 10:56 PM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: I have not posted to this discussion before, and to that extent at least am a neutral.

Surely there is no denying that Weber is a source of contemporary social science including attempts to find statistical continuities that parallel (and so in a sense fully prove) the meaningful ties among social phenomena.

I'd be interested to hear the argument against that view of Weber. And if I don't hear it, I'd hope to look forward to a revealed identity and a dance at Seattle.; 11:16 PM, February 22, 2011
Anonymous said...: 11:16
Of course there is no argument about Weber. However, there are some people here who will argue that 2+2=5 in order to argue that certain people have no clue - its ironic that they come out the fools as a result.; 1:21 AM, February 23, 2011
Anonymous said...: Je. Sus.

Weber used and defended, and did not invent, a fact- value distinction. The fact-value distinction is neither necessary nor sufficient for quantitative studies of politics, which on any case did not begin in the 20th century. There is no neat separation between the use of empirical measurements about politics and it's use about economics-- which was after all still political economy when the numbers started. The polis has been gone for 2000 years, and the state is different. Measuring and counting are always tools of statecraft to the limits of the available social technology, and are not the symptom of a philosophical disease.

Are you a Strauss troll, or a Vogelin troll?; 8:13 AM, February 23, 2011
Anonymous said...: This Strauss/Weber discussion is boring.

Let's go back to discussing the biggest tenure denial mistakes of YHP! Very informative.....; 1:49 PM, February 23, 2011
Anonymous said...: 10:08 PM here again: Um, right. I don't see any specific references to the theories of Arrow, Black, and Olson anywhere, which confirms my suspicions that, unlike me, these particular critics of formal modeling in political science have no idea what they're talking about and have never read these scholars. (And no, references to secondary literature and broad talk about Weber don't qualify as linking their theories to Arrow, Black, and Olson.)

I'll be maintaining my anonymity, thank you, though I will be doing a dog-and-pony show at APSA. That's what you do at a circus, after all.; 3:34 PM, February 23, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ Actualy, you've had absolutely nothing to say in reply issues raised, because there is no answer - the idea that any of this formal b.s. would be possible without Weber et. al., is silly, nonsensical, and ignores reality. Who the f--- cares about some secondary, completely unimportant scholars (Arrow, Black, and Olson) when everything they did traces back to others, and it's these other thinkers that are the true problem with political science and it's ability to function as an informative element for decision-making in the body politic. Oh and by the way, given that I spent five years at an investment bank before getting a Ph.D., outmodeling a lot of these jokers is not the issue.; 4:01 PM, February 23, 2011
Anonymous said...: "the idea that any of this formal b.s. would be possible without Weber et. al., is silly, nonsensical, and ignores reality."

Hey, look! The Condorcet entry in my encyclopedia just disappeared; he retroactively no longer exists as a result of the troll's assertion that his existence ignores reality!; 4:06 PM, February 23, 2011
Anonymous said...: I'll be maintaining my anonymity, thank you, though I will be doing a dog-and-pony show at APSA.

Wait--are you saying you've already received notification of acceptance from APSA? If so, was it from Foundations?; 6:09 PM, February 23, 2011
Anonymous said...: "Oh and by the way, given that I spent five years at an investment bank before getting a Ph.D., outmodeling a lot of these jokers is not the issue."

Yes, I'm sure Nobel Laureate Ken Arrow's modeling skills pale beside your own. But hey, he's secondary and unimportant, after all.

Think and read before you type.; 8:40 PM, February 23, 2011
Anonymous said...: You idiot, we were talking not about Ken Arrow but about minions who claim that he is the defining scholar for political science.

SO I think maybe you should learn how to read before you type?; 10:57 PM, February 23, 2011
Anonymous said...: Leave the pony-and-science thing for the general discussion, please.
Don't you think that, in general, it makes much better sense to get rid of a junior (even if they have published some) than to keep him/her?
If you don't tenure you may lose a serious scholar, but instead you get a new eager kid who will be servile and break his back for the department for at least another seven years. If you do tenure you don't get anything for it and then you are stuck with this so-so colleague for the next 35 years. Just sayin'.; 12:50 AM, February 24, 2011
George said...: "If you do tenure you don't get anything for it and then you are stuck with this so-so colleague for the next 35 years. Just sayin'."

Over on the jobs discussion, another senior colleague wrote a note saying how disgusting the discussions here were, and how sad he was for the profession.

This quote makes me feel the same way.

WTF???!!!!

Yes, because you are in teaching for no reason at all other than that you got a Ph.D., and now need a job. Listen, two senior most colleagues in my department have been teaching here for 51 and 44 years, respectively. They still put in 60-70 hours a week, teaching a full load, advising students, publishing, doing college and departmental service. It is a joy for me and all other colleagues to be following in their footsteps, and it's the love of teaching that makes them and us do what we do. You really need to be ashamed, and maybe let someone who actually wants an academic career have your job.; 2:15 AM, February 24, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^^^ Oh, I can read. Here's what you said:

"Who the f--- cares about some secondary, completely unimportant scholars (Arrow, Black, and Olson) when everything they did traces back to others...."

That's why I made the comment about Arrow. Just to reiterate: THINK AND READ BEFORE YOU TYPE.; 1:29 PM, February 24, 2011
Anonymous said...: So, Arrow, Olsen, etc., are 'minor' scholars, whereas Strauss, presumably, is a 'major' one. What utter BS. Though i'm no great fan of their kind of work, give me the former over the latter any day of the week. At least they were honest intellectuals and made original contributions to the field. Strauss is almost wholly derivative - a boring mid-century German conservative. By far the most interesting thing about him is the sociological (and partly psychological) question about why his fanboys so radically mistake his significance.; 10:36 AM, February 27, 2011
Anonymous said...: agreed.; 4:24 PM, February 27, 2011
Anonymous said...: Strauss, a "midcentury german conservative"?

by his own admission, Strauss was an early 20th century "fascist":

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/07/letter_16.html; 9:04 AM, February 28, 2011
Anonymous said...: What does any of this banter have to do with senior theory posts?; 4:27 PM, March 05, 2011
Anonymous said...: I think it started with this:

[ At my school in all social aciences and humanities we would never hire someone who has been denied tenure anywhere except for Harvard, but thats just how we operate, certainly not the case with every school. (Harvard ia excluded because we assume that when a person takes a job there as an Assistant Prof, they have no expectation of tenure, and only very seldom does someone actually get it).
1:37 PM, February 17, 2011]

Which got us on to Eric Nelson, which got us on to Mansfield, then Garsten, then...; 11:32 AM, March 07, 2011
Anonymous said...: Back to the Senior Theory Jobs: I'm thinking of hitting the market next year. Need help.

I don't think I've ever seen advertisements for Senior jobs... is this a word-of-mouth, personal connection process? Or does it move like the assistant prof. market?

What has been more common in the past? Do hiring schools want somebody in their fifties who is already well established and recognized? Or are they thinking of an up-and-coming younger scholar?

To those with experience: how hard is it to move once you've got tenure? What are the issues that are open for bargaining? How do you begin?; 12:22 PM, March 07, 2011
Anonymous said...: Seriously? You've got tenure, and you're coming here for advice about how to look for a job?; 11:49 PM, March 07, 2011
Anonymous said...: What's so ludicrous about asking for advice here? I am in a tenure track job. I've only been in the market once, and I don't know how the senior market works.
If I get tenure, and then I want to move, I will ask for all the help that I can get...anonymous fora included!

Then again, I suspect nobody with tenure ever reads this blog...; 10:01 AM, March 08, 2011
Anonymous said...: ding ding.

but hey, if you want advice from an abd, here is some:

1) many of those senior jobs *are* posted in the usual place. not sure why you're not seeing them. those that you're not seeing ... well, they probably are looking for someone else.

2) if you're tenure-track, and not tenure as the initial note implied, then you should be looking to move *pre*tenure. which is to say, apply for the asst. prof. positions that appeal to you. many of those searches wind up hiring people who are already professors.

but bottom line, i think you should just forfeit your job and give it to me on the basis of this exchange alone.

word verif: stifil; 1:09 PM, March 08, 2011
Anonymous said...: There is little doubt about this. If you want to move to another place that is hiring, apply. If you are a reasonable candidate, they will consider you--unless they already have someone and the search is a formality. It's always good to know someone there, but it's not necessary. Unless you apply, they may not know you are interested. You have very little to lose and possibly a new job to gain.; 6:16 PM, March 08, 2011
Anonymous said...: 1:09 PM, March 08, 2011

Actually, no senior jobs are not posted in the usual places. Yes, if a Department is in dire need to hire someone, and does not have a strong idea of whom it wants to hire, OR if the department is required to run an open search even if it knows whom it wants to hire, it will post a job.

But as the person who asked the question notes, most senior jobs are done through word of mouth. This is especially true at institutions like mine which actually are not that financially strapped, no matter what we say, and we can always create a position if it so happens that someone big wants to be considered and is open to looking at us (granted, someone big really means someone big for us, but that is a separately issue). There was a long discussion here a while back about Brown Butler Columbia etc. In my personal view, I don't even bother to read CVs that come from Brown students because its a complete waste, so that gives you an idea of how I felt about Columbia PS rejecting her for a position there. However, do you think that either of these positions was advertised - absolutely not. It was a total back channel situation. And thats how it happens with most senior jobs.

To go back to the original question, what schools want really depends on where they are.

Harvard, for example, is looking for a Mansfield replacement, and has been in the works on this for almost a decade. Why? In part because many alumni are demanding it and some are refusing fairly significant checks until they are sure that he will be replaced. In part because some in the college think its important to have someone who represents that point of view in what they regard to be the greatest political science department in the country. Etc., etc. They did find someone a few years back - Tom Pangle. Now the trouble is that very Straussians who still have 10-15 years of teaching in them have as thick of a publication record as Mansfield and Pangle, and those that are out there, probably don't want to leave their jobs - e.g., Cathy Zuckert probably doesn't want to have to move again, plus there is an issue of her husband. My point is, at Harvard, its not an open position, but if a good candidate comes by, someone in their late 40s to early 50s, I am sure they will consider them. Personally, I think that if Mansfield lasts another five year,s and if Sharon Krause publishes a couple of more books, she will be a shoe in to go back to Harvard. So thats just one example.; 8:18 PM, March 11, 2011
Anonymous said...: We work in a very corrupt profession!; 10:49 PM, March 11, 2011
Anonymous said...: How in the world would Sharon Krause be an ideological replacement for Mansfield?; 7:50 AM, March 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: She studied under him and co-edited a festschrift about him. As numerous discussions on multiple threads have established, for Straussian's it's more about affiliation than the substance of one's work.

Nonetheless, I think the author of this lengthy post is crazy if s/he thinks Harvard Government is eager to hire a Straussian to replace Harvey Mansfield. The existence of a Straussian contingent at Harvard will most probably end with him.; 9:06 AM, March 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ But the poster said it was about *alumni* pressure, not pressure from the Claremont Review, to hire a replacement for Mansfield. How is the Straussian lineage argument, even if it works for Straussians, going to appease conservative alumni if they hire a left-liberal?; 9:14 AM, March 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ more to the point, how much money would someone have to promise Harvard to convince them to make an hire on ideological/lineage grounds? They're the richest friggin' university in the world!; 10:19 AM, March 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ Right. You would probably have to come up with the $ for an endowment. On the other hand, threatening to pull $ if so and so gets hired is a more effective trick (see Cole, Juan Yale incident).; 10:33 AM, March 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Right, I don't think Harvard is going to get bullied over donations, particularly with the 30-odd billion dollar endowment they're sitting on. And even if some conservatives decide not to support the school w/o a Straussian hire, there will always be plenty of willing donors to replace them, I'm sure.; 10:41 AM, March 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: 8:18 is out of his mind. Harvard is not hard up for money. They could have plausibly "replaced" Mansfield with Pangle because that would have been a commensurate "trade"; the Zuckerts would be at least within the same ballpark. Beyond that, they would do themselves far more harm hiring a b-grade whatever (Straussian or any other "type") than they would by losing some "fairly significant" check writer. And since younger Straussians are overwhelmingly of the b-grade (and c-grade) variety (with one or two exceptions, e.g., Bryan Garsten), there is no good reason for Harvard to want to "replace" Mansfield. Or, if they did, it would probably be easier to find a commensurate conservative than Straussian.; 4:20 PM, March 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Enter Eric Nelson stage right; 5:43 PM, March 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Maybe Harvard will go after Garsten in a few years.; 8:27 PM, March 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: The author of the lengthy post at no point said that the Harvard government department is "eager" to replace Mansfield. The author - me - said that the university's administration wants to find the replacement for Mansfield, because they have a huge problem with donors on the right (many of whom have great admiration for Mansfield, and in many cases, were his former students).

And whomever wrote that Harvard would not be "bullied" by donors - you really need to learn about how universities work. If you think this has not had an impact on how Harvard chose to behave after Summers' resignation, you live on Mars: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/7/14/265-m-withheld-from-harvard-three/.

There is probably upward of $500M that could be en route to Harvard but is not because conservatives, who love the university, are upset. And Harvard is doing all it can do address their concerns - do you really think that Drew Foust really wanted to allow ROTC on campus? Or do you think that its being done in order to show "ideological diversity" to those of us on the right who do love our college but have trouble giving money to its left-wing administrators.; 11:04 PM, March 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: Someone asked: How is the Straussian lineage argument, even if it works for Straussians, going to appease conservative alumni if they hire a left-liberal?

I am a conservative alum of Harvard with several degrees from there. The goal for those of us who want to make sure that Mansfield is replaced is not to have another conservative Harvey Mansfield hired. Rather, it is to make sure that for future students who are conservative, there is at least one faculty member in the Government Department who ideologically against them. And any one number of Mansfield students would fit that bill very well.

People on this board make huge assumptions about how others think and operate, maybe because that is how they think and operate. But that takes you in some really wrong directions.; 11:27 PM, March 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: As I said before, we work in a very corrupt profession.; 11:49 PM, March 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: OK, I call bullshit.

You're asking me to believe that 500 MILLION dollars to Harvard hangs on who Harvey Mansfield's replacement is? And that Sharon Krause, of all people, could swing that kind of money the right way?

I work at a good R1, though not at Harvard's level, and our faculty would go apeshit if it got out that rich alums were trying to influence faculty hiring decisions, whatever the administration's position was. I have a hard time believing that Harvard works any differently.

The Crimson article mentions donations being withheld for a neuroscience center and study abroad programs, not faculty hiring, and this was over the resignation of the PRESIDENT of the university, not a senior political theorist. I think that 11:04/11:27 has an exaggerated sense of how large our line of work looms in the eyes of the titans of industry.

And even if political theory hires (!) were being used as pawns in some kind of ideological proxy war, then wouldn't there be liberal alums threatening to take their money off the table too?; 1:06 AM, March 14, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ No, if you read what the person wrote carefully, actually it is not just about Mansfield's replacement. Its about a whole set of things, including Mansfield replacement. If you are incapable of reading straight, that's your proble,; 1:39 AM, March 14, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ Fair enough, but the Crimson article that you cited doesn't show what you claimed it showed either. It's about big donors being concerned about continuity of projects that they'd given to under new leadership and taking a "wait and see" attitude.; 8:33 AM, March 14, 2011
Anonymous said...: "I am a conservative alum of Harvard with several degrees from there. The goal for those of us who want to make sure that Mansfield is replaced is not to have another conservative Harvey Mansfield hired. Rather, it is to make sure that for future students who are conservative, there is at least one faculty member in the Government Department who [is not] ideologically against them. And any one number of Mansfield students would fit that bill very well."

Do conservative students get a rough time from Sandel, Tuck, Nelson?; 9:39 AM, March 14, 2011
Anonymous said...: The theorists in Harvard Government feel as if their asses are completely covered on this:

They offered a position to a prominent conservative and Straussian, Thomas Pangle. He turned them down.

They proposed recruiting a non-conservative Straussian, Steven Smith, but Mansfield vetoed it, because Smith was not suffiently conservative.

They then tenured a conservative, non-Straussian from within, Eric Nelson.

Given all this, neither Mansfield nor his donor cronies have anything to complain about.; 2:33 PM, March 14, 2011
Anonymous said...: So Steven Smith is not conservative enough but Sharon Krause would placate the donors?

P.S. How do you know the considered Smith?; 11:01 AM, March 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: Two things. First, the Crimson story is about the question of administrative succession, not faculty hiring, and as 1:06 AM yesterday suggests, there's a big difference between these dynamics, because departments tend to be extremely protective of their hiring autonomy. I find it implausible that the administration would successfully pressure the faculty to hire a conservative or conservative-friendly candidate in the abstract: that's exactly the kind of thing that faculties regard as obnoxious restrictions of their freedom. I find it much more plausible, however, that if someone in Gov or in the administration identified a plausible conservative or conservative-friendly candidate, the administration could make it much more likely that Gov would approve that person through some horse-trading (make the line free to the Department, throw other resources at them, etc.).

Second, I think it's probably right that the ideological stance of the candidate matters less than his or her genealogy, not because there's some fixation on Straussians, but because the networks you belong to affect the kind of intellectual community you're likely to bring to the institution. Krause isn't conservative on most definitions, but she talks to conservatives (as well as people well to her left). So, yes, I think she could plausibly be sold to the donors, if that were really relevant, as someone who'd be likely to help maintain a presence for conservative political theory of various kinds on the campus.; 11:43 AM, March 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: They proposed recruiting a non-conservative Straussian, "Steven Smith, but Mansfield vetoed it, because Smith was not suffiently conservative."

Actually this is simply mis-information. Smith would never leave Yale, period, and everyone who knows him well knows this. And Mansfield did not "veto" Smith.

What is true is this:
- there are significant disagreements about readings of certain books between Smith and Mansfield
- if Smith was not "sufficiently conservative" than so was Tom Pangle - he is certainly nowhere near as conservative as Mansfield, and I say this having sat through plenty of classes with both.

And I think the discussion started not with the Government department, but with the college as a whole.; 3:35 PM, March 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: 11:43 AM - fully agree with your second point about Krause, that seems like a very accurate reading.

I do not agree with the first point. You assume that faculty ultimately decide faculty hiring - and that is something they indeed do when it comes to untenured faculty, or even important but not super prominent senior faculty. But my alma mater is dealing with a much larger issue of how an institution which produces a significant number of conservative leaders in this country fails to respect those on campus who hold a different point of view. This reality, in turn, makes many of us who are on the right side of the political spectrum not want to give it money, and withhold support in other ways. Things like having an administration that respects our point of view, members of the faculty that respect our point of view, ROTC, honorary degree recipients from both sides of the aisle, etc., helps address many of these concerns. What is now happening at Harvard College is simply a repeat of what happened at the Law School under Kagan. Did Kagan really hire that many conservatives? Not really - I think a total of three (Goldsmith and two more). And she hired a few prominent liberals too (Noah Feldman among them). But her actions made many of us on the right feel more welcome, which is what Faust is trying to do now (see ROTC decision).; 3:42 PM, March 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: I don't really understand what point you're trying to make about ROTC. That was about a Harvard non-discrimination policy. The lifting of DADT brought the military into compliance with that policy. Allowing ROTC to return wasn't some clever strategy to appease conservatives or whatever, it was the routine, common-sense application of a normal and sensible anti-discrimination policy held by the University.; 6:12 PM, March 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ If you honestly think that ROTC is about anti-discrimination policy, you must be smoking something stronger than what they provide for medical reasons in California.

ROTC was banned on campus because of Vietnam, and continued to be banned because most faculty members dislike the American military. The question of gays in the military was simply another excuse for why ROTC needed to be kept out. (See the ongoing controversy at Columbia if you need further evidence of the fact that for most liberal faculty members this was merely an excuse.)

Meanwhile, for Harvard alums on the right, restoring ROCT to campus was one of the main rallying points. If you want much evidence, go to Weekly Standard's archives and see the number of stories written about this, by Bill Kristol personally and others - if there is voice of Harvard conservative alumni, its the Standard.

The fact that first Summers and then Drew Faust attend Harvard ROTC seniors special graduation activities says a great deal. Drew Faust did not become the first Ivy President to sign an agreement with the DoD to restore ROTC to campus because she has some special love for the US military. She did it to send a message, and I'd argue, the message is being heard.; 8:13 PM, March 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: And if what we're really concerned about is maintaining high standards of intellectual and moral integrity, we really need to paying more attention to Bitch Kristol. Right.; 8:15 PM, March 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ That comment is the reason why its impossible to have a serious discussion with anyone on this board. Bill Kristol is a leading intellectual in this country, whether you agree with his ideas or not, not to mention that he has more impact on public policy than any other more than any other non-elected/appointed person in America, and has had for decades. So feel free to ignore him, but last I checked, twice now his thinking has been critical to securing the Republicans a congressional majority.; 8:48 PM, March 15, 2011

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Political theory and public law job market

8/07/2010

2010-11 Senior Theory Jobs Post #1

256 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts