At the moment my problem is this: we’re hiring for a position which like mine is always discriminated against by default, for structural reasons, not because of who occupies it. If we weren’t, I’d be following the I don’t give a damn recommendation of the book: listen to no crap, work to rule, focus on my teaching, my research, my friends, do requested service but take no initiative there and do no favors. But we’re getting an enthusiastic assistant professor with big plans which are in fact good ones. In any normal place they’d be welcomed but he’s going to get hit on the head for having them … and if I warn him I will be called his oppressor (for saying no) and I will also be effectively speaking ill of us … yet if I don’t, I’ll be sending him like a lamb to the slaughter … and if I don’t actively support, I’ll be passively aggressively or else directly obstructing, and if I passively support by advising, then I’ll just create us both as problems. And if I enlist the support of the group, I’ll be seen as unduly exerting influence. And finally, if I say look let’s just do nothing and teach service courses, he’ll get disanimated, not get to develop, etc. etc. It’s a real bind in about 12 ways. ?

http://www.ogletreedeakins.com/publications/index.cfm?Fuseaction=PubDetail&publicationid=329

I thought Mayer’s article was well done, although it was far from unbiased. I got the impression that Mayer thought that the mob was crazy and unfair, and that El-Haj was a brave scholar. (Of course, that’s my bias too, so I didn’t mind so much.) I thought that it was clear that the mob was trying to get El-Haj as revenge for their never having been able to purge Columbia of the late Edward Said. What did you think? (Anyone?)