Hoorah for the Tigers!

General David Petraeus was an undergraduate at West Point, but he received his Ph.D. from Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School, where I teach. I never knew him when he was a grad student here, but since then I have gotten to know him just a bit through my friend Dick Ullman, his doctoral mentor. Jim Leach, the current Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, was a Princeton undergrad, majoring in politics. We became friends during the years that Jim taught at WWS after leaving Congress, where he represented Iowa for 30 years.

What Petraeus and Leach have in common, besides a profound commitment to public service, is that last Saturday they were both presented with Princeton's highest alumni awards. The general was given the James Madison Medal for his "outstanding record of public service" and the former congressman was given the Woodrow Wilson Award for his career "embodying the call to duty in Wilson's famous speech, "Princeton in the Nation's Service." Both Petraeus and Leach spoke to the alumni Saturday morning before a large crowd. I was there both to honor them and because the general had asked me to take notes on his lecture so that I could report on it to Dick Ullman, who is currently hospitalized. I always do what four star generals ask me to do -- though Dave Petraeus is the first to whom I have ever spoken!

I am not going to try to summarize their remarks, which will soon be posted on the University Web site, but let me give you some idea of what they had to say. Petraeus spoke about the nature of "strategic leadership. He stressed the need for "sound and ethical" decisions based upon "a continuous cycle of inquiry," and throughout his remarks I got the impression that the use of constant and structured feedback was central to his conception of leadership. He argued that there were three consequential stages of leadership -- getting the big ideas right, communicating these ideas successfully to other leaders, and overseeing the implementation of the ideas by means of empowering subordinates to implement the ideas at the appropriate level. His examples were primarily from the conception and implementation of the "surge" policy under his leadership in Iraq. His presentation was low key, forceful, and eloquent. A number of people later commented that they were surprised that a man so clearly an intellectual occupied such a significant leadership role in the military. I was deeply impressed by his thoughtfulness and articulateness.

It did not surprise me that Jim Leach was similarly impressive, since I have gotten to know him pretty well as a colleague. He is exceptional these days in that he is a liberal internationalist Republican (from Iowa). Well, he was a Republican, but he was also the founder of Republicans for Obama, and I have no idea what his party affiliation is these days. But he is every inch an Iowan -- what you see is what you get (true of Petraeus too, I suspect).

As many readers will know, Jim has launched a "Civility Tour" as Chairman of NEH, and his lecture on Saturday was entitled "Civility in a Fractured Society," which tells you pretty much what he had to say. He defined civility as "responsible engagement," a phrase I like a lot, and said that this was the principal challenge to this country's leaders. He worried that our political leaders have gone wrong when they are "history-blind" (hoorah to that), and endorsed Walt Whitman's conception of America as an "athletic democracy." He is for strong democracy, but also for a polity in which we engage one another with respect. He adopted Grantland Rice's sports metaphor for politics: "It matters not who won or lost, but how you played the game." His primary example, unlike Petraeus' use of the surge, was negative -- the disaster, as he sees it, of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case on corporate political advertising, which he believes is contributing to the breakdown of public belief in the integrity of government. He sees the Roberts opinion as parallel to the Court's 1857 disaster in Dred Scott v Sandford. Jim's talk struck me as the tough-love version of civic engagement, perhaps not surprising from a man who resigned his position in the State Department on a matter of principle right at the beginning of his diplomatic career.

I am not a Princeton grad, and sometimes I find the place a bit too tigerish, but I was proud to be an honorary tiger last Saturday. What struck me most profoundly was the self-evident impact that a fine liberal education has had on two admirable Americans. This was one of those occasions where an awards ceremony actually felt important and meaningful. It was nice to feel good about a public event at a time when I don't feel good about much that happens in public.

E-mail

Comments

1. charliemarlow - February 24, 2010 at 11:38 am

Good grief.

2. goxewu - February 24, 2010 at 11:43 am

Does Prof. Katz ever read the comments on his posts? Not that long ago charliemarlow and mercy_otis_warren rather mercilessly noted that Prof. Katz's posts are essentially brags about how he's needed by, familiar with, or impressed with prestigious people. He never provides an original idea--or even much of an idea, period--and he never takes a side, unless it's some vague, gaseous bromide in support of the humanities.

This post is no exception: a fawning, uncritical (especially of Gen. Petraeus's deceptive "surge" in that disastrous war in Iraq) account of being at yet another dinner/banquet/lunch/colloquium with a bunch of high-rollers who impress him no end, and with whom he giddily gets to be on a nickname basis (the General is now "Dave" Petraeus to Prof. Katz, and Mr. Leach has apparently always been "Jim" to him).

It wouldn't be so bad--any superannuated academic (and I'm only a few years younger than Prof. Katz) should be allowed to shuffle around and see old friends on the intellectual rubber-chicken circuit, and to be proud to be a Princetonian, Oxonian, Yalie, whatever--if Prof. Katz were, say, a comic-relief freelance like Andy Rooney. But the man, it says on "Brainstorm," DIRECTS THE CENTER FOR ARTS AND CULTURAL POLICY STUDIES AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY'S WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL!! Shouldn't there be something of substance in his posts?

I (dare I say "we"?) get it already: Stan Katz is at Princeton and he knows lots of important people. Enough.

3. dank48 - February 25, 2010 at 08:42 am

Impo, CharlieMarlow and Goxewu really ought to set down their respective bottles of vitriol and simply read what Stan Katz wrote about Messrs Petraeus and Leach, as well as the article above about literacy programs in prison. If ignorant, incarcerated felons can learn to read, then perhaps a couple of personally spiteful boors (or a couple of reasonable, intelligent people who do a damn good impression of personally spiteful boors) could learn something by reading, who knows?

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps we should give up on the idea of civility altogether, and just choose weapons and settle matters once and for all.

4. goxewu - February 25, 2010 at 09:51 am

Please, no lectures on "vitriol" in a comment that then calls charlie marlow and me "a couple of personally spiteful boors," albeit with a pro forma giveback (maybe we're just doing a "damned good impression of personally spiteful boors"). charliemarlow, by the way, should be exempt; all he's guilty of is brilliantly concise, deadpan, withering sarcasm. I'm the one who goes after in the inanity of Prof. Katz's posts head-on.

Complaints about manners and civility (which, I gather, includes calling other commenters "a couple of personally spiteful boors") cannot, however, obscure the dreadful quality of Prof. Katz's posts. Although he seems to be a very nice guy, Prof. Katz's posts:

* Are often, if not mostly, concerned with telling readers how he mingles socially with various bigshots.

* Are more or less devoid of any ideas comparable in being trenchant or relevant with those of ANY OTHER blogger on "Brainstorm."

* Have no real arguable opinion in them, with the exception of defending the humanities in a very generalized way.

* Are often wince-inducing blurbs for the bigshots whom Prof. Katz meets. ("Dave" Petraeus was embarrassing.)

* Are relentlessly referential to the fact that Prof. Katz belongs to the Princeton community. (There's nothing wrong with Princeton, and this observation is not born of anti-Ivy animus. In fact, the constant references to his school of employment would read as even more egregious if they concerned, say, Wichita State, and that awful headline had read, "Hoorah for the Shockers!")

As I said in #2, above, these debilities would be one thing if Prof. Katz were a comic-relief freelancer along the lines of Andy Rooney. But Prof. Katz is the DIRECTOR of what I take, from its name and website information, to be a rather important (to me; I'm professionally in the "culture" end of things) and prestigious Center at a first-rate university. His posts do not speak well for that Center.

All that said, I'm starting to realize that saying all that is somewhat futile, given the apparent sentiment out there that, in the name of "civility," Prof. Katz's rather insipid posts should be treated with kid gloves. charliemarlow's approach is probably best, although I'm beginning to suspect that many readers actually think that charliemarlow was genuinely interested, a while back, in what Prof. Katz had to eat on the airplane.

5. dank48 - February 25, 2010 at 10:14 am

Whose classroom would you rather be in?

6. livefreeordie2 - February 25, 2010 at 10:19 am

I kinda agree with most of what Gox has said in two posts that elaborated on the perfectly phrased first post. That aside. . .

I got a bit of a chuckle when Katz prattled on about Jim Leach. Leach is one of those who have proven the old saw that in an election, when Republicans try to run as a pretend Democrat, the real Democrat will win every time. The best part was how on this "Civility Tour," Leach compares a decision of the Roberts court to perhaps the worst, most infamous decision in the court's history. A comparison that suggests those who supported this decision are so horrible, they would support slavery. Quite civil, that. . .

7. jesselemisch - February 25, 2010 at 10:50 am

Petreus? WTF! Stan, come back to reality.

Jesse Lemisch

8. beaugard - February 25, 2010 at 11:17 am

goxewu,

So, what about the blogs of Michael Ruse and Gina Barreca? Both of them are not that different from Mr. Katz in my opinion. Reading about Diane Auer-Jones houseboat, and Michael Ruse' 25th wedding anniversary? Very nice, but...
Laurie Fendrich could write about how dismal, or absolutely abominable come to think of it, the New York art and museum world is. Curatorial atrocities are committed daily at MOMA or the Whitney, for example, (I have seen them). Or she(or any of the other bloggers) could be critical or just talk about the complete and utter destruction of the humanities wrought by post-modernism, cultural studies and deconstruction.

Everyone is far too polite on these blogs. And "femininist theory"? What the heck is that?
So, goxewu, I agree with you about Prof. Katz, but the problem with his blog is shared by many of the other bloggers on Brainstorm. Far too much politeness, cozyness, etc. Perhaps it's a problem with "blogs" in general.

Very Sincerely,
Beaugard

P.S. It is quite striking, as you say, to contemplate Mr. Katz's prose while keeping in mind his position as director of whatever the heck it is he directs at Princeton.
P.P.S. But then, Einstein said something very amusing about Princeton once. Something like it was, "filled with spindle-shanked gods". But then it did give him and others a home and refuge, so for that alone I say too, Hooray Tigers!

9. beaugard - February 25, 2010 at 01:00 pm

Apropos of nothing, is anyone here a fan of Ned Rorem? I just downloaded a CD called, "Songs of Ned Rorem", which I highly recommended, especially if you like art songs(a term Mr. Rorem disparages).

Sincerely,
Beaugard

10. goxewu - February 25, 2010 at 05:48 pm

#5 seems rhetorically meant to ask readers whether they'd rather be in Prof. Katz's classroom or mine. But it's coming right after my comment #4 makes it also seem like the question might be meant for me. If so, my answer is:

I'd rather be charliemarlow's classroom.

Re #8:

I've commented critically about Prof. Barreca's posts, especially vehemently about those godawful "what professors don't know [that students notice] student essays that she posted like a proud soccer mom. And after praising Prof. Ruse for being a really good writer (which he continues to be), I did snark him for his Tiger Woods post and, retroactively, for his "my wonderful marriage" post being the flip side to Woods's confession.

That said, Prof. Barreca's general thrust--"casuals" about everyday life in academe--and Prof. Ruse's--artfully rambling musings on things philosophical/scientific--are a lot easier to take than Prof. Katz's, which seems to be to let the proles have a peek at what life is like for a sought-after dinner guest when he hobnobs with other academic swells on the Cambridge-to-D.C. colloquium trail.

While I welcome any opportunity to knock something that any unimprisoned Bush appointee might write (that's hyperbole, folks), Diane Auer Jones's posts about her houseboat were very good reads. Credit where due.

11. beaugard - February 26, 2010 at 07:26 am

Re #10:

We'll have to disagree.
I don't find what Prof. Barreca writes that interesting, ditto Prof. Ruse. And the houseboat posts was, as I said, nice, but maybe it should be on a personal blog, not here. It is called "Brainstorm" after all, not "I'm going to write about bits of my personal life". For me, it's all of a piece, with Prof. Katz being the most extreme example.
As I said, it has something to do with the blog form itself, maybe a lot to do with it.

12. goxewu - February 26, 2010 at 11:50 am

Re #11:

"Brainstorm," as opposed to the CHE itself, is supposed to be informal and wide-ranging. (I conclude this not because I'm privy to CHE editorial policy, but from following the site for a couple of years.) The premise is that readers will be interested in most things (if not everything) that a variety of academics (a director of an Ivy League policy center, an ed consultant, an art professor, and English professor, and ed professor, et al.) have to say on a variety of topics, ranging from pure shoptalk, to big issues in higher ed, to personal reflections.

Generally, it works. The posts and comments on "Brainstorm" are far more intelligent, literate, informed and trenchant that those on 99.9 percent of the blogs out there, including other sites sponsored by legit publications. While I disagree, dyspeptic crank that I am, with more than half of what I read on "Brainstorm," I find very little that I think dips below some quality standard or is totally irrelevant to higher education. A former Bush education appointee's experiences living on a houseboat are not totally irrelevant to higher education. They serve, for one thing, to remind you that a Bush appointee in education actually might not be just another selfish country-club, tea-partying, bellicose prig (that's hyperbole, folks).

The trouble for me with so many of Prof. Katz's posts is not irrelevance. He cleaves more closely, in fact, to issues in higher education than does any other "Brainstorm" blogger save Kevin Carey. The problem is quality. The posts are...well, let me forego the customary list of unsalutory adjectives and simply ask: Have you ever had to sit through a relative telling you about the after-dinner talk he gave at the Rotary Club, and how glad he was to be there in the company of men who actually own big department stores and auto dealerships?

13. beaugard - February 26, 2010 at 12:05 pm

Re #12

"Brainstorm, as opposed to the CHE itself, is supposed to be informal and wide-ranging. (I conclude this not because I'm privy to CHE editorial policy, but from following the site for a couple of years.)"

Well shut me up and call me Mary.

14. goxewu - February 26, 2010 at 12:41 pm

Can't resist:

Mary. (Would "MARY" make it permanent? In that case: MARY.)

15. beaugard - February 26, 2010 at 03:05 pm

By the way, #14, if what you say about Brainstorm is true, then you are a humorless, spiteful boor. :)

16. goxewu - February 26, 2010 at 03:14 pm

Re 15:

Kids, can you spell n-o-n s-e-q-u-i-t-u-r?

17. charliemarlow - February 26, 2010 at 05:15 pm

The end of #11 makes the point precisely and with humor.
Some years ago, Fortune magazine ran an article encouraging business people to join college boards of trustees. The aricle said a major benefit was that you could meet and have dicussions with people of intellectual substance...maybe someone, somewhere is dropping *our* names.
It is to laugh.

18. goxewu - February 27, 2010 at 11:18 am

RE #17:

My feelings are hurt. Please say it's really #12.

19. charliemarlow - March 01, 2010 at 12:08 pm

Oops...#12 it is.