Being a Yale Law prof does not necessarily indicate intelligence

[brentspeak]

I offer to you the example of Stephen L. Carter, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale University.

Now, I could on for days detailing so many other idiots in academia who really shouldn't be opening their mouths in public lest they reveal themselves to be the frauds they really are, but Carter decided to go out of his way this week to announce himself.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-15/dear-class-of-2014-thanks-for-not-disinviting-me

Dear Class of 2014: Thanks for Not Disinviting Me
May 15, 2014

By Stephen L. Carter

In my day, the college campus was a place that celebrated the diversity of ideas. Pure argument was our guide. Staking out an unpopular position was admired -- and the admiration, in turn, provided excellent training in the virtues of tolerance on the one hand and, on the other, integrity.

Besides, you will face more important problems. Once you depart the campus, the world will make unjust demands on you. You will have to work for a living. You will have to put up with people whose views you despise. Fortunately, as long as you don’t waste precious time reflecting in a serious way on the issues of the day -- or, worse, contemplating the possibility that you might be mistaken on a question or two -- you should have plenty of hours for Twitter and Google Hangout and the nonstop party that every truly just society was meant to be.

snip

Indeed, a lack of reflection can be of enormous assistance to an act of protest. Consider the contretemps at Smith College over the invitation extended to Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Money Fund, who has decided not to attend. Were one to think seriously about the implications of the anti-IMF argument -- and, please, ladies and gentlemen, do nothing of the kind! -- one would also presumably have to bar from the stage Lagarde’s fellow conspirators, particularly leaders of the IMF’s biggest financial supporter, the United States of America. (The Tea Party, happily, opposes the IMF. Perhaps one of its leaders might be invited next year.)

Then there are your fellows at Rutgers University, who rose up to force the estimable Condoleezza Rice, former secretary of state and national security adviser, to withdraw. The protest was worded with unusual care, citing the war in Iraq and the “torture” practiced by the Central Intelligence Agency. Cleverly omitted was the drone war. This elision allows the protesters to wish away the massive drone war that President Barack Obama's administration has conducted now for more than five years, with significant loss of innocent life. As for the Iraq war, well, among its early and enthusiastic supporters was -- to take a name at random -- then-Senator Hillary Clinton. But don’t worry. Consistency in protest requires careful and reflective thought, and that is exactly what we should be avoiding here.

Got that, class of 2014? Though you are more financially indebted upon graduation than any other graduating class which has preceded you, Carter doesn't think you understand and grasp the need to get a job.

But more to the point of his piece, Carter doesn't seem to think that college students or anyone else reading his article understands the difference between the taking of a position and the commission of an act. He apparently thinks that a real-life action such as lying a nation into a catastrophic and purposeless war is the same thing as taking "an unpopular position" or that that leading a global wave of banker-directed austerity measures is the same thing as merely "holding a view".

Carter's transparent disingenuous conflation is summed up well by one of the article's commentators:

olekinderhook

The objection people had was that these proposed speakers were responsible for something that actually happened, as opposed to merely proponents of particular ideas. The protestors thought their actions were reprehensible and that they shouldn't be honored for them.

Also the idea that anyone presents any kind of substantive idea or engages in an informed debate during a commencement address is farcical. Complaining that this is stifling the marketplace of ideas is ludicrous and probably done in bad faith for the sake of shaming "those goddamn teens."

For an earlier example of Carter's simplistic style of argument and Powers-that-Be a$$-kissing, here's something he penned a few years ago about Occupy Wall Street. According to Carter, because not all of Wall St. and the entire financial industry as a whole is located in Zuccotti Park, the protesters really had no idea what they protesting about. Oh, and this, a Wall Street bailout apologia which even Hank Paulson and Timothy Geithner would privately chuckle about:

Stephen L. Carter: Few of the world’s ills are caused by nasty cabals full of rich people. Conspiracies of the wealthy are fun to imagine—in my novels I invent them often—but if markets were so easily manipulated, the rich would be a whole lot richer. The investment banks nearly died in the financial crisis; to survive, they were forced to become bank holding companies, subject to far greater regulation. Sure, among the titans of “Wall Street,” a few bet right and made fortunes, but most bet wrong and were taken to the cleaners. Many of the big banks continue laying off workers and cutting bonuses. Perhaps the protesters find this prospect delightful, but thousands of downstream jobs then suffer the same fate.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. Nor is being a Yale graduate.

[underpants]

2. Writing about Condi and Rutgers appears to be the template column for this week

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/18/my-commencement-speech-to-rutgers-geniuses-go-forth-and-fail.html

by P. J. O’RourkeMay 18, 2014 6:45 am EDT
Greetings, Class of 2014. So Condoleezza Rice was too offensive for you. Just wait until Monday morning. Did you learn how to spell KFC?

I hear Condoleezza Rice stood you up. You may think it was because about 50 students—.09 percent of your student body—held a “sit-in” at the university president’s office to protest the selection of Secretary Rice as commencement speaker. You may think it was because a few of your faculty—stale flakes from the crust of the turkey pot pie that was the New Left—threatened a “teach-in” to protest the selection of Secretary Rice.

Condoleezza Rice was named National Security Adviser in December 2000, less than a year before some horrific events that you may know of. She became Secretary of State in 2005 during an intensely difficult period in American history (which your teach-in was not going to teach you much about). And she saw the job through to the end of the fraught and divisive George W. Bush presidency, making moral and ethical decisions of such a complex and contradictory nature that they would have baffled Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (of whom I suppose, perhaps naively, you have heard) put together.

Some of your professors don’t believe that Secretary Rice would be worth listening to. Some believe you need to be taught to disapprove of her morals and ethics. I am quoting your state’s Star-Ledger newspaper: “‘Attending the teach-in will be a strong signal that we will not sit quietly while a small group of irresponsible people [although I’d thought we’d established who they were during the sit-in] dishonor our beloved university,’ said history professor Rudolph Bell.”

Rudolph “Jingle” Bell. It is to be hoped poor Rudolph doesn’t have a very shiny nose.