The Militarization of the Ivy League?

Colonel- loyalty takes on new meanings in the world of SOF. Sorry you might be seeing that (or that might just be a personal attack on you coming from jealousy...)

I agree with you that the celebrity generals are abusing their positions- just as other celebrity academics. My other beef with the most recent celebrity generals is that they seem to use their success in Iraq as their bona fides- and yet the two most celebrated- Petreaus and McChrystal- were arguably losers in Afghanistan. Listening to McChrystal's standard guest lectures he gives at conventions seems to me to be one filled with "cool" anecdotes from JSOC along with standard "institution flattening" advice. While I struggled to i.d. one instance of his that could be connected to Afghanistan- mainly what I heard was Iraq and JSOC. I wonder why he wasn't able to do the same with ISAF in Afghanistan? More importantly, why isn't he being taken more to task for the lack of success in Afghanistan?

In my opinion both he and Petreaus have managed to sell the public on a perception that they won in Iraq and that they were unable to win in Afghanistan because of the politicians. I doubt we'll learn the real lessons we should learn from Afghanistan ever- if Vietnam is to be a guide.

The previous comments about the advent of celebrity "gets" in the Ivy League is interesting; it is certainly more worthy of exploration than the idea that a not-for-attribution elective at a private college poses a threat to freedom, academic, intellectual, or otherwise.

Why is General McChrystal at Yale? Most would argue it's not because of his academic background, but specifically because of his involvement with recent (and still current) events, and public figures who are still in positions of leadership in the current administration. I've taken courses which consisted largely of public figures speaking in a not-for-attribution status as well. The argument for this environment is that in exchange for the not-for-attribution, you get frank talk from the speaker. General McChrystal is at Yale because of who he is, not because of his academic background.

I'm guessing that the Yale students who elect to take the course (and from all accounts it is a popular elective) are aware of the stipulations involved. If they find the aforementioned unacceptable, they can simply take another elective. I'm also willing to bet that if they want to reference something covered in one of General McChrystal's lectures in a paper, ultimately they can as well. How different is that than any leadership lecture series classes that military personnel attend during their intermediate level education and/or senior service college tours? I find it hard to believe that the United States Military Academy or other similar institutions never bring in guest speakers with similar ground rules. If they do not, I would argue that their students are missing out.

And as an aside, I would imagine that many American undergrads would find the environment at the United States Military Academy decidedly less free than whatever university they are currently attending.

But it is very much an issue of academic freedom at Yale University, which is basically what my piece was about.

Militarization? Draw back and look at it with a wider lens. It's the celebrity academic and the chummy insider culture at the top in DC, Boston, etc.

Ever been to the Harvard Coop? Look at the "celebrity academic" book display in the front.

Publishing a key article in a key journal is good scholarship.

Getting on t.v. or NPR or writing for the New Yorker is even better scholarship.

I once had a faculty member (hazy on the specifics but I remember the point very well, because it shocked me) tell me that it was better to get on television than it was to publish something in some journal, especially since I was in clinical medicine and not in basic research. How many actors from the latest awful summer blockbuster go to Ivy League "finishing" school for a few years? How many celebrity faculty actually get kicked out for plagiarism or for publishing nothing of value and how many get scandals pushed under the rug?

At the top they want money and celebrity and connections, because that gives your institution money and celebrity and connections in turn, too.

(If we had any contemporary novelists or artists with any real intellectual b*lls, we'd have something of real value out of the celebrity culture of academia. The campus novel is just not what it used to be. Don't mind me, though, I grew up a campus "brat" and have been studying this culture my entire life. A packed CV matters more than basic character and it gets worse every year. Half the time I'm appalled, half the time I'm riotiously amused. But don't say any of this to the people that do fellowships or get whatever degree. You have to ask the faculty, not the "product" to get at some of this. Some know, and some are in denial.... : ))

So, maybe Gian is correct but it is part of a larger trend, as far as I can see.

To recruit the celebrity academic, one needs to take special needs into account. I mean, come on, or else, they might walk on to the next institution. Can't have that.

I never understood why the Globe was so boring with all that potential material. The stuff that went on under their nose, I'm guessing.