It’s reasonable to say there were “CIA complaints” because the pressure came from a former deputy director and a current CIA director. Moreover, Morrell signed his letter in that capacity: he was writing as a former CIA acting director. The idea that it’s unreasonable to describe this as “CIA complaints” because they were only acting in their individual capacities as Harvard faculty and guests is beyond charitable.
Yours,
Rob Beschizza
Former Acting BBS Censor Who Still Has Admin Privileges And Friends Everywhere
There was an article in the NYT about Harvard’s administration’s overruling of a faculty decision to admit a former felon (who also happens to be back and female) into its doctoral history program. I was struck by the number of comments that contrasted this decision with their acceptance of Manning.
Bringing facts to an outrage rarely does any good.
Your headline text: “After CIA complaints”. The headline from the linked article is “Harvard Withdraws Chelsea Manning’s Visiting Fellow Invitation” so yeah you did in fact say that. Your self justification to @uplanduplandhere doesn’t change anything. Former employment does not in any way mean a person speaks for their former organization. Were I to speak for any of my former employers people would call BS on it quick fast in a hurry.
No, that’s the non-miltary one. But thanks for the linked article, that’s crazy.
That is precisely the idea! It was the classic early naughties 404 image web hosts used for “the content you are looking for is not here”.
Getting back to the OP I am not surprised that Harvard would disinvite Manning. They are too averse to controversy, and am astonished that they would even entertain the idea being as fickle as they are. Any school like them or MIT with deep government ties would obviously encounter high-level criticism.
But I think that Manning has an interesting and informed POV and a lot to teach, it would be great having her work in education somewhere.
While the two cases are very different, this was certainly an echo…
From the article…
“We didn’t have some preconceived idea about crucifying Michelle,” said John Stauffer, one of the two American studies professors. “But frankly, we knew that anyone could just punch her crime into Google, and Fox News would probably say that P.C. liberal Harvard gave 200 grand of funding to a child murderer, who also happened to be a minority. I mean, c’mon.”
Regardless of whether overruling the admission of Michelle Jones was the right decision, their reason, that Fox News would disapprove because of her race, is deplorable. That’s even worse than goosestepping to the CIA. Fox News, are you fucking kidding me? When did Harvard administrators become such a bunch of spineless milksops?
You’re having a reading comprehension problem, friend.
To say “the CIA” means the CIA, singular, as an institution, through a spokesperson or otherwise.
The term “after CIA complaints” isn’t so restrictive. It indicates that complaints came from a CIA source (i.e. former and current brass) and it implies their CIA status is salient to the complaints.
Former employment does not in any way mean a person speaks for their former organization.
He signed his letter with his CIA job title. He did this to remind Harvard – his current employer – from whence he came. The fact that these men are from the CIA is eminently relevant to the context and coin of their complaints.
Yours Truly,
Rob Beschizza
Former Barman, The Fox on the Hill Wetherspoons Pub, Camberwell, London.
I still disagree but did enjoy your changing .sig type closing here and above. Are you perhaps using that british place name generator previously posted?
There’s one in Carlisle called the Woodrow Wilson, because his mother was born in a house nearby. The other Wetherspoons there is the William Rufus, because his father William the Bastard never conquered Carlisle and left it for his son to do.
