Nothing says fun like finals week. Sure, it means another couple of days of straight grading on top of the couple of weeks of project grading, but it does offer the quiet promise of a summer vacation prior to another class.
This semester has been especially trying for me. I have a lot of great students, but I've had some unbelievable brazen plagiarists, as well. I'm going to have to approach writing assignments in a whole new way I think. Technically, I'm not allowed to threaten someone with a firing squad, so maybe not a whole new way of that sort.
I've noticed one bizarre trend, though: if a paper is reputedly about a gay subculture, the paper I receive will be a glowing neon example of plagiarism. I wonder: why do students seem to think they'll get away with murder if the subjects are gay? Is this about their perceptions of me somehow?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Monday, December 22, 2008
Larry, you cute fuck!
I feel like I need to expand upon a point.
Recently, Larry Tribe posted the following on Balkinization:
My recent book, "The Invisible Constitution" (Oxford University Press 2008), argues that much of what we both do and should regard as the United States Constitution is neither expressed by, nor plausibly inferable from, the document's text. The book develops six models -- geometric, geodesic, global, geological, gravitational, and gyroscopic -- that are meant to display the principal ways of constructing constitutional principles from the relevant textual, structural, and historical materials.
Someone responded in the comments:
Great post, but "geometric, geodesic, global, geological, gravitational, and gyroscopic?" Are you trying to make it hard to distinguish them?
I posted in response to the commenter:
I agree. What's to be gained here by being cute?
To which my friend Robert Link responded:
Your assessment may well be completely valid, but it felt, to me, like a knee jerk, like we had internalized the general anti-intellectualism of the age so completely that such a system was deemed guilty of "cute" before being tried.
First of all, lemme make it clear where I'm coming from. As an educator, I see people get confused left and right when lists are used. One student's Homo erectus is another student's Homo ergaster (a forgiveable sin according to some researchers!), and the differences between Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus anamensis, and Australopithecus africanus are lost somehow in the beauty of the alliteration. They become used interchangeably, especially among the more casual students. Recalling which one is which seems to require a distinct label as well as a distinct concept. On the flip side, Homo habilis is rarely confused with Homo erectus, and Australopithecus boisei is no Australopithecus robustus. This is the foundation of my objection to a "six-G" typology of models used to construct constitutional principles.
A quick aside: I love the idea of playing with words. I play with them every day, like a poet with Tourette's. I rewrite songs on the fly, I mutter syllables under my breath and take joy from unique combinations--much to my partner's chagrin. I also like the idea of opening up new forms of expression and communication; for example, I applaud the fact that the aforequoted Tribe includes diagrams of his concepts in his book:
As if to underscore his argument that the Constitution is not confined to the written text, Tribe offers diagrams in the book to illustrate his points. His drawing of a geodesic dome, for example, is made up of interlocking segments representing separate, invisible constitutional principles (such as “protecting free speech by making it harder to sue critics of public officials” and “rights to sue government agents who violate personal rights”) that align to form a protective shield around the core constitutional value of free speech. --From the Harvard Law School website.
I am no stranger to, nor am I an enemy of, intellectualism. I don't care to be characterized as an anti-intellectual, nor do I believe that I've internalized such an approach. What I have internalized is a definite distaste for cleverness masquerading as serious thought. There is no doubt that Larry Tribe's work is going to be good stuff and on target, but why--why for the love of God and all that is holy would he insist on an alliterative list of potentially confusing terms?
I understand the playfulness: it is fun to make things match like that. Find six concepts that start with the word "t" to describe this post. Go ahead, write them down before continuing.
Seriously, I'm not kidding. Do my bidding--my pixels have power, dammit!
All right, did you come up with the ones I did? Torturous, tedious, tantrum-like, thin-skinned, terrible, and titivated? Maybe, maybe not. You may be unaware that I've edited this copy repeatedly to end up with the current version, so maybe "titivated" was off your list.
Can I find reasons to support "torturuous," "tedious," "tantrum-like," "thin-skinned," and terrible? You bet I can! But there would always be the sense lurking in the back of my head that I had fit the definitions to the terms; that is, my terms may not be as applicable to the concept I wish to discuss without me fudging the math. "Fixing it later in Photoshop," as they say.
Never mind, then, any concern over whether Tribe's ideas are brilliant. We'll assume, arguendo, that it is the most brilliant discussion of approaches to constitutional interpretation ever. Likewise, we'll assume that there are six distinct and different models, and the presence of these models are beyond controversy.
At that point, any scholar is faced with having to develop some catch phrases--clever summaries of the central ideas behind a concept that allow the reader to "snowball" information they are presented into a digestible form.
Consider, for example, the models of human origins:
1) Replacement model - humans developed in one place and replaced all other hominins.
2) Multi-regional model - humans evolved in place through worldwide gene flow.
The replacement model is also known as the "Out of Africa" theory. Of course, Homo erectus left Africa some 1.75 million years before modern humans are believed to have left its shores, leading some researchers to call it "Out of Africa II."
"Out of Africa" and "replacement" are memorable, distinct, and theoretically useful categories. "Out of Africa II" is just cute. Yes, we know that Homo erectus left before Homo sapiens --thanks for the reminder--but Homo erectus isn't an anatomically modern human, so why bring that aspect into a discussion of human origins? If you hold that Homo erectus was actually human, then you might as well call the model "multi-regional," since you've negated the difference between the two. It makes no sense outside of cuteness or snarkiness. Many other species left Africa before Homo erectus--should we call it "Out of Africa CCCXVIII?" (Didja see the snarkiness?)
Back to Tribe's typology. Supposedly, Tribe says that his terms come "at some loss in transparency of meaning." No surprise there, I think. It's bad enough that six terms all start with the letter 'G'--do three of them have to start with the prefix "geo-"? Couldn't there be geo- terms in place of "global," "gravitational," and "gyroscopic"?
The correct answer would be that the particular approaches to constitutional interpretion that the term "gyroscopic" indexes could not be matched well with any of the geo- terms available. Is that the case? Or have terms like "geodesic" determined the concepts to some (any) degree?
Dahlia Lithwick says:
I vote for obfuscation, but I agree with Lithwick and my friend Robert: these "whimsical" modes may be useful for rethinking approaches to the Constitution. Insofar as they succeed in developing new lines of thought and exposing those thoughts to his audience, I'm all behind the use of the "six-Gs." I remain unconvinced, however, that such a scheme is ideal for presenting this material to "ordinary Americans," if one has any desire for these terms to remain memorable and separate in the minds of one's readers.
Furthermore, this objection of mine may be aimed at an academic, but an academic target shouldn't make my comments a priori "anti-intellectual." I think there is something to be said for leaving the cute and pithy aside and keeping thoughts messy, despite the compulsion within academia to wrap things up in pretty bows and shitty prose. (See what I did there?) Given Tribe's desire to move past the false dichotomy of originalism and living constitutionalism, it would seem beneficial to have something other than cute alliteration to replace those tired categories, even if awesome diagrams are included. The problem is not that Tribe is being too smart--the problem is that he's not being smart enough!
In short, I don't mind if one dismisses my thoughts with a derogatory term--"kneejerk" is certainly warranted here. But "anti-intellectualist"?
Au contraire, mon frère: c'est "elitiste!"
Recently, Larry Tribe posted the following on Balkinization:
My recent book, "The Invisible Constitution" (Oxford University Press 2008), argues that much of what we both do and should regard as the United States Constitution is neither expressed by, nor plausibly inferable from, the document's text. The book develops six models -- geometric, geodesic, global, geological, gravitational, and gyroscopic -- that are meant to display the principal ways of constructing constitutional principles from the relevant textual, structural, and historical materials.
Someone responded in the comments:
Great post, but "geometric, geodesic, global, geological, gravitational, and gyroscopic?" Are you trying to make it hard to distinguish them?
I posted in response to the commenter:
I agree. What's to be gained here by being cute?
To which my friend Robert Link responded:
Your assessment may well be completely valid, but it felt, to me, like a knee jerk, like we had internalized the general anti-intellectualism of the age so completely that such a system was deemed guilty of "cute" before being tried.
First of all, lemme make it clear where I'm coming from. As an educator, I see people get confused left and right when lists are used. One student's Homo erectus is another student's Homo ergaster (a forgiveable sin according to some researchers!), and the differences between Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus anamensis, and Australopithecus africanus are lost somehow in the beauty of the alliteration. They become used interchangeably, especially among the more casual students. Recalling which one is which seems to require a distinct label as well as a distinct concept. On the flip side, Homo habilis is rarely confused with Homo erectus, and Australopithecus boisei is no Australopithecus robustus. This is the foundation of my objection to a "six-G" typology of models used to construct constitutional principles.
A quick aside: I love the idea of playing with words. I play with them every day, like a poet with Tourette's. I rewrite songs on the fly, I mutter syllables under my breath and take joy from unique combinations--much to my partner's chagrin. I also like the idea of opening up new forms of expression and communication; for example, I applaud the fact that the aforequoted Tribe includes diagrams of his concepts in his book:
As if to underscore his argument that the Constitution is not confined to the written text, Tribe offers diagrams in the book to illustrate his points. His drawing of a geodesic dome, for example, is made up of interlocking segments representing separate, invisible constitutional principles (such as “protecting free speech by making it harder to sue critics of public officials” and “rights to sue government agents who violate personal rights”) that align to form a protective shield around the core constitutional value of free speech. --From the Harvard Law School website.
I am no stranger to, nor am I an enemy of, intellectualism. I don't care to be characterized as an anti-intellectual, nor do I believe that I've internalized such an approach. What I have internalized is a definite distaste for cleverness masquerading as serious thought. There is no doubt that Larry Tribe's work is going to be good stuff and on target, but why--why for the love of God and all that is holy would he insist on an alliterative list of potentially confusing terms?
I understand the playfulness: it is fun to make things match like that. Find six concepts that start with the word "t" to describe this post. Go ahead, write them down before continuing.
Seriously, I'm not kidding. Do my bidding--my pixels have power, dammit!
All right, did you come up with the ones I did? Torturous, tedious, tantrum-like, thin-skinned, terrible, and titivated? Maybe, maybe not. You may be unaware that I've edited this copy repeatedly to end up with the current version, so maybe "titivated" was off your list.
Can I find reasons to support "torturuous," "tedious," "tantrum-like," "thin-skinned," and terrible? You bet I can! But there would always be the sense lurking in the back of my head that I had fit the definitions to the terms; that is, my terms may not be as applicable to the concept I wish to discuss without me fudging the math. "Fixing it later in Photoshop," as they say.
Never mind, then, any concern over whether Tribe's ideas are brilliant. We'll assume, arguendo, that it is the most brilliant discussion of approaches to constitutional interpretation ever. Likewise, we'll assume that there are six distinct and different models, and the presence of these models are beyond controversy.
At that point, any scholar is faced with having to develop some catch phrases--clever summaries of the central ideas behind a concept that allow the reader to "snowball" information they are presented into a digestible form.
Consider, for example, the models of human origins:
1) Replacement model - humans developed in one place and replaced all other hominins.
2) Multi-regional model - humans evolved in place through worldwide gene flow.
The replacement model is also known as the "Out of Africa" theory. Of course, Homo erectus left Africa some 1.75 million years before modern humans are believed to have left its shores, leading some researchers to call it "Out of Africa II."
"Out of Africa" and "replacement" are memorable, distinct, and theoretically useful categories. "Out of Africa II" is just cute. Yes, we know that Homo erectus left before Homo sapiens --thanks for the reminder--but Homo erectus isn't an anatomically modern human, so why bring that aspect into a discussion of human origins? If you hold that Homo erectus was actually human, then you might as well call the model "multi-regional," since you've negated the difference between the two. It makes no sense outside of cuteness or snarkiness. Many other species left Africa before Homo erectus--should we call it "Out of Africa CCCXVIII?" (Didja see the snarkiness?)
Back to Tribe's typology. Supposedly, Tribe says that his terms come "at some loss in transparency of meaning." No surprise there, I think. It's bad enough that six terms all start with the letter 'G'--do three of them have to start with the prefix "geo-"? Couldn't there be geo- terms in place of "global," "gravitational," and "gyroscopic"?
The correct answer would be that the particular approaches to constitutional interpretion that the term "gyroscopic" indexes could not be matched well with any of the geo- terms available. Is that the case? Or have terms like "geodesic" determined the concepts to some (any) degree?
Dahlia Lithwick says:
In its most whimsical section, the book includes Tribe's hand-drawn renderings of what he describes as six "modes of construction" of the invisible Constitution, including the "geodesic," the "gravitational," and the "gyroscopic." Each of the six models represents either an effort to connect the dots between the visible elements of the Constitution or to explain how the Constitution would collapse upon itself if the invisible portions were not there. Whether this act of pressing the hard sciences into service as models for imagining the Constitution's "dark matter" strikes you as clarifying or obfuscating, what Tribe is attempting here is to impose muscularity,
rationality, and structure on progressive constitutional thought. A term like "due process of law" needs to be both unpacked and constrained at the same time, and this is Tribe's project.
I vote for obfuscation, but I agree with Lithwick and my friend Robert: these "whimsical" modes may be useful for rethinking approaches to the Constitution. Insofar as they succeed in developing new lines of thought and exposing those thoughts to his audience, I'm all behind the use of the "six-Gs." I remain unconvinced, however, that such a scheme is ideal for presenting this material to "ordinary Americans," if one has any desire for these terms to remain memorable and separate in the minds of one's readers.
Furthermore, this objection of mine may be aimed at an academic, but an academic target shouldn't make my comments a priori "anti-intellectual." I think there is something to be said for leaving the cute and pithy aside and keeping thoughts messy, despite the compulsion within academia to wrap things up in pretty bows and shitty prose. (See what I did there?) Given Tribe's desire to move past the false dichotomy of originalism and living constitutionalism, it would seem beneficial to have something other than cute alliteration to replace those tired categories, even if awesome diagrams are included. The problem is not that Tribe is being too smart--the problem is that he's not being smart enough!
In short, I don't mind if one dismisses my thoughts with a derogatory term--"kneejerk" is certainly warranted here. But "anti-intellectualist"?
Au contraire, mon frère: c'est "elitiste!"
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Playing with wordle
I got this idea from Balkinization--the fount of many good ideas. Wordle examines the content of your page and does a pseudo-analysis of your word use to find which concepts are more frequently discussed than others. It may bare the soul a bit.
Here's mine:
Here's some images for favorite blogs o' mine:
I Regret Nothing
Trapdoor Zombie
Obsidian Wings
Here's mine:
Here's some images for favorite blogs o' mine:
I Regret Nothing
Trapdoor Zombie
Obsidian Wings
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday Night VP Debate
I'm excited about the VP candidates' debate this Thursday. I suspect it will be a remake of that Hollywood classic, Dumb and Dumber.
Doubt it? I don't.
Get your scorecards ready, kids...this' gonna be fun!
Doubt it? I don't.
Get your scorecards ready, kids...this' gonna be fun!
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Raising the Flag
A gem of an article showed up in today's AP feed.
Here's a piece of it:
Gov. Steve Beshear last month changed the old policy of lowering state and U.S. flags to half-staff from the announcement of any Kentucky-based soldier's death until his or her funeral. Now the flag will be lowered only for Kentucky natives and even then only on the day they are buried.
Maj. Gen. Edward Tonini, Kentucky's adjutant general, said the previous policy made it impossible to tell who was being honored and led to lengthy stretches where flags were lowered for multiple people. Between April 1 and July 2, the state lowered flags for 26 soldiers, only four from Kentucky.
"At one period in time, the flag was at half-staff for about a month consecutively," Tonini said. "And, who was that for? You just don't know."
Tonini went on to add*, "I mean, come on, if we lowered the flag for every one who died in battle, the flag would always be at half-staff. What's that all about?"
I applaud Tonini's desire that each death be special and recognized separately. I humbly suggest that ending the war would be a better approach than executive orders to change flag-lowering policies.
*No, he didn't.
Here's a piece of it:
Gov. Steve Beshear last month changed the old policy of lowering state and U.S. flags to half-staff from the announcement of any Kentucky-based soldier's death until his or her funeral. Now the flag will be lowered only for Kentucky natives and even then only on the day they are buried.
Maj. Gen. Edward Tonini, Kentucky's adjutant general, said the previous policy made it impossible to tell who was being honored and led to lengthy stretches where flags were lowered for multiple people. Between April 1 and July 2, the state lowered flags for 26 soldiers, only four from Kentucky.
"At one period in time, the flag was at half-staff for about a month consecutively," Tonini said. "And, who was that for? You just don't know."
Tonini went on to add*, "I mean, come on, if we lowered the flag for every one who died in battle, the flag would always be at half-staff. What's that all about?"
I applaud Tonini's desire that each death be special and recognized separately. I humbly suggest that ending the war would be a better approach than executive orders to change flag-lowering policies.
*No, he didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
