Andrew Golis

I will be starting a new blog, tentatively called Community of Inquiry. I am working on a new design and format, and seeking out regular guest bloggers who will share their thoughts on particular topics. If you are interested in being a guest blogger, please email me and we can discuss what you would like to write about and how often.

For those of you who have continued to come to the site to check in while it has been in hibernation, thank you for your vigilance. The new site will hopefully be up and running within a week.

The Leftie Language Translator. Check it out.

This is an open thread to express thoughts on the hibernation of ummm…, including thoughts on content, the value (or lack thereof) of blogs in a political community like ours, etc.

Just hit the comment button if the spirit moves you.

I will be taking a hiatus from this blog. During that hiatus, I will be reassessing both its content and its very existence.

As it stands, ummm… has about 100 unique visitors a day, the majority of which are Harvard undergrads like myself (I can tell what cities visitors are from). Over a given week, my guess is that about 200 people visit the site on a recurring basis.

Despite appearances, the goal of this blog is not simply to create a venue for me to rant and pontificate. The purpose of blogs themselves is to begin to democratize the opinion process in a given community and begin dialogue that strengthens those communities. Because of that, there are essentially two ways to gauge the value of this blog: readership (in pure numbers) and dialogue. I would be happy with a small community if we had regular dialogue and interaction or I would be happy with a larger community with the assumption that the more people here the more conversations I can start off of the blog itself.

As it stands, this blog is in neither place. For a community of this size (about 6,000), I have a small to medium readership that reads, but does not participate.

I will be reassessing my approach to the blog in order to do one of three things:

1. create a new blog with collaborating partners. This would focus on campus politics, provide multiple perspectives and hopefully encourage interactivity. In order to grow our readership we could advertise and reach out much more proactively than I have done. (IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN CONTRIBUTING TO THIS PROJECT, EMAIL ME.)

2. change the content to attract a more devoted, dialogue-based community. I might simply focus on the progressive community here on campus, UC politics, or something like that.

3. stop the blogging and do my homework.

Until I figure out which of these options I will be taking, the blog will be inactive. However, please feel free to offer your advice, thoughts or reflection on the blog itself.

In case you didn’t read the news, Dep. Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz was nominated to head the World Bank. Why? you might ask. Well, let Jon Stewart answer that one.

This is a good video on Bush propaganda from MSNBC. Remember, the Administration is making fake news and holding fake town hall meetings. Where’s the American outrage?

As of late, because of Larry and a whole host of important decisions coming up (the Curricular Review, Allston planning, etc.), many progressives have been calling for the “democratization” of Harvard. I’m trying to work through the issue because I’m not really sure what I think.

I think this OpEd from this morning’s Crimson does a good job of summarizing the major arguments for democratization. It makes four main points:

First, schools that practice, rather than simply espouse, participatory democracy do not assume that a few individuals make the decisions while the others in the school community study physics, teach classes, clean floors, or serve meals.[...]

On this point I would somewhat agree, in as much as those who want to be involved should be able to be at some level. However, for students at least, most probably like having an elected council to think about this stuff so they don’t have to. Teachers have the faculty council, and as I noted on Tuesday there are some clear problems with giving up major power to them. Workers, whether cleaning or making food, do need to be more involved. I’m not sure if that should be through unions or Harvard systems…

Second, rather than pluck promising students from troubled communities to propel them up the social ladder, democratic schools build long-term partnerships with communities near and far to together address their respective needs.[...]

While this seems like a great idea, I’m not sure it’s what a college is really supposed to do.

Third, schools committed to democracy more than prestige can accordingly devote their alumni networks to sustaining students’ nurturing relationships with communities as much as, if not more than, fundraising and social climbing.[...]

The problem here is that the very fact that Harvard spends its money on prestige is what gives the diploma value to its students. Focusing on altruistic ends would essentially be suicide unless it is a part of a massive shift in cultures in major American universities. If Harvard can lead it, I’m all for it.

Fourth, schools can democratize by popularizing more than professionalizing knowledge.

I’m not really sure what to make of this last bit. Thoughts?

as you can see, I took the day off today. I was writing a paper and living my life and whatnot. I’ll be back tomorrow, worry not. What’s on your mind today? Anything good in the news that I missed?

COMMENT (c’mon, don’t make me beg, I know you’re out there, alright, this is just getting sad, anyone?)

that’s what Noam Schreiber is implying over on his blog at the New Republic:

“According to The New York Times, Summers lost by a 218 to 185 margin, with 18 abstentions. The Times also notes that there are just over 800 voting members of the arts and sciences faculty. Since a faculty member had to attend yesterday’s meeting in order to cast a vote, the outcome suggests to me that Summers’s problem was more about turnout and intensity than a lack of support per se. That is, a relatively small number of strong detractors were motivated to show up and vote against him; almost everyone else (save an even smaller number of Summers partisans) stayed home.”

So basically if Larry had a field director he’d be fine. Hell, I could have told him that.

Spoke to Matt, who said it was a suprise to most in the room. The vote was a secret ballot, which was intended to allow people to vote without fear of retribution, and because of that the room was apparently suprised to hear the results. The censure vote, which was essentially a finger wag and a slap on the wrist also passed, and by more.

Also, the story has begun to get national attention again.

UPDATE: The Crimson now has the full story.