Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 13, 2010


How the Committee of Twelve has already dictated the outcome of Strategic Reorganization at UT
(Power Point slide #743: West (Secor Road) Entrance welcome sign)


Anonymous said...

Ashame that the letters get stolen some time. Did you report this to maintenance so they could fix it?

Anonymous said...

I tend to think of None, or the anonymous e-mailer, or whatever his/her name is, as pathetic and delusional. But geez, even I think this current comment is sexist. Not classy, D.

horns n' fins said...

Although a fairly clever play on words, this post strikes me as clearly sexist and I don't want to be associated with it. H n' F

Anonymous said...

So go sulk with Xerox in the anal sandbox.

zoroxyz10 said...

Diogenes – though I am in strong sympathy with your criticism of the CSO Girl’s Club and their silly org charts – this Heniversity stuff is just stooping to the level of adolescent feminist theory – that actually thinks silly things like keeping the “men” out of the “women” by spelling it “womyn” is somehow edgy and profoundly meaningful (when in fact it’s really just a bunch of lame-brained bullshit).

It is also a bit disingenuous of you to claim you aren’t grinding your own axe like everyone else with your GPL student petitions etc.

That being said, it could not be more clear that putting a program like Geography and Planning on the chopping block, in of all places the notoriously Geography-challenged USA – while leaving redundant, mediocre, politically correct pseudo-disciplines like Women’s Studies, Africana Studies, Law and Social Thought etc. etc. on the table is just, dare we say it, bullshit.

But you don’t really think the PC Girls were going to cut any of the PC programs – do you?

Especially given that those who have proven themselves so adept at perpetuating countless bullshit anti-male, feminist myths have also perpetuated a common myth that pertains directly to men, women and geography.

We all “know” that men “never ask for directions.” But where did this myth come from? Why, from the very women who don’t know a road map from a recipe book and can’t navigate their own way around the block – that’s who. So they do the predictable thing – project their own inadequacies on the obvious target – men.

And whose fault is it that the lines outside the “womyn’s” room extend around the block while men just get in there, “gitter done” and get out?

Nobody knows what the big holdup is in the “womyn’s” room – least of all women. But they know for absolute certainty whom they’re going to blame for all the long lines and over-extended female bladders: MEN.

The real irony is that, as far as I can tell, women are able to do their business as fast as or faster than men. Whenever my significant other and I enter the restrooms at the same time – even though I have no health problems and do not waste any time, as often as not SHE is waiting for ME when I come out.

That’s just the sort of no-nonsense kinda gal she is. And I really like that.

But now, after giving up the academy inch by inch year after year to the whiney PoMo/PC feminists – you wake up one day and wonder what happened?

I hate to say I (and a lot of other people) told you so, but…

Whereas men may still be all too willing to chivalrously defer to (and pathetically grovel before) women in a self-flagellating mutual denial of reality (and all this for nothing more than a little bit of nice cleavage now and then) – Reality itself will never bend one iota for all the high heels, lipstick, perfume and T&A in the world.

Anonymous said...

A 'he-niversity'--as universities have traditionally been--is just as sexist as the sexism of a 'heniversity' some are reading into this post. I for one am tired of unnecessarily raising contrived issues such as this and find it incredibly disappointing and discouraging when this is done. Grow up, people!
Horns n' fins, for what it's worth, I generally respect your posts and am sorry to see you falling into this trap. Please don't let that narrow-minded thinking that sees insults where none are intended take you in!

Anonymous said...

Careful, the children are playing!

Anonymous said...

What I see in this symbolically is the lack of effective, good leadership at UT--initial letters missing = no leadership.
What I see in it really, physically is the lack of basic maintenance care here at UT. This can't make a positive impression on anyone seeing it as they arrive to visit the campus.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:51: Now that you know about it, have you reported it? If not, why not?

Anonymous said...

It symbolizes the reality that having a great university means more than pronouncing it from above, issuing decrees, grabbing power, and giving yourselves big raises and grandious titles and mumbling catch-phrases here and there about quality. You still need real people to push the buttons and turn the screws who make the gears run...didn't we fire all of those folks?

horns n' fins said...

Anon 4:44 - I appreciate your point, and I too have always held that one doesn't take offense where none is intended. And I believe that to be generally true with posts up to this point. The difference I see this time is that instead of poking fun at the silly plan put forth by the CSO, the post is making fun of the women themselves by calling them "hens" - a traditional insulting term for women as in "henpecked" or "when you hens get together" etc. I'm pretty sure I'm seeing insult where insult is intended this time. If that isn't the intent of the title HENIVERSITY with reference to the all female committee then what is the intent? Believe me, I would love to be wrong on this, but I haven't seen anything so far to convince me otherwise.

Watchful said...

It appears to some of us that Diogenes has been driven to distraction by the gender inequities and hostile work environment created by this clutzy/cynical/contrived/clever Jacobs' administration move to give over the College of Arts and Sciences to this unrepresentative committee of 12.

Everybody knows that Jacobs is an astute politician, albeit a myopic visionary. What he has done here, certainly deliberately, is to cause a split between the feminist/gender studies power block and others. Any criticism of this committee's work and existence is taken as sexism--as an attack on women. Plus the move both placates and appeals to the self interest of the the "women's block," some of whom have been behaving as if they see the word "Dean" before their names concerning the leadership of all these new schools.

Everybody also knows that Jacobs is vindictive when it comes to Arts and Sciences. Even before A&S embarrassed him by rejecting not just a a dean, but Jake-mandated reorganization--it was obvious he thought the whole thing needed to be reworked in his image. Which was top down, monotheistic (i.e., Jake worshiping) , no meaningful faculty governance except flunkies and lackeys (sounds like the bulk of the leaders of the committee of 12). Thus, all in one move, he throws a sop to the womyn, who have been a problem to him in the past by vocal resistance--and overcomes the built in disciplinary resilience of the College departments. And we argue amongst ourselves and factionalize just as he hoped.

The end is nigh.

So pity poor Diogenes, and send him to get some counseling. He makes a bad joke, graveyard humor about the death of a college engineered by a master politician. One can see why is is upset. But don't think Diogenes is the problem--and don't waste your ire on him, for he is but a symptom of infection.

Watchful said...

Two additional brief comments. I partly agree with you Horns and Fins--but sexism begets sexism. The Jake policy led to this Diogenes stupidity. I think that male faculty members in A&S should go down to Big VP Larry Burns office and file charges of sexism and a hostile work environment. They have been written out and off. It's funny that as close cronies Jake seem to favor men, but as flunkies he seems to have a pattern of using women. Does anyone else see this?

And what makes zoroxo10 think he/she has some absolute right or claim on this blog or its readership or to superior placement? Things appear to come and go here. I agree with much of what he says re postmodern BS and so forth, for which the obvious cure is to have higher standards and hire better faculty. But this is not what Jake is creating for the former A&S college (soon to be) . He is merely cutting it down and letting the loons run wild to make a cash cow situation where he can drive students in one end, whether they come out the other or not, not spend much money on them, and take all the money raised by ed loans and so forth away to spend on his medical college and other pet projects. The anti-post modern agenda is of interest , but does not directly address the big problem of financial-educational subversion championed by the Jake Dynasty.

Soon they will sell off the buildings and then lease them back. Who benefits?

Bloggie said...

How is it that when letters fall off or a removed from a sign this gets transmuted into sexism?

Strange projections occur in times of unrest.

Anonymous said...

So it goes in the serraglio of Rooster Jake ...

Anonymous said...

"Who benefits?"

For starters:


zoroxyz10 said...

Re Watchful

It seems clear PoMo/PC has rotted the A&S College from within and caused much disgust from without - from ordinary citizens and other people in the real worlds of science, technology, business, finance etc.

I really don't think Jacobs would be turning A&S on its head in what appears to be some pretty fundamental and drastic efforts towards reform (albeit possibly misguided efforts) if A&S hadn't already for quite some time now been taken over to a large degree by the PoMo/PC mediocrities and "loons."

I personally think the PoMo/PC issues are fundamental to why UT A&S and academia in general are in so much trouble and why UT A&S is being manhandled by Jacobs.

And in many respects I think this (or some sort of) manhandling of A&S is very necessary and well-deserved.

It also seems that because many do not recognize this and/or are themselves part of the PoMo/PC problem, the right issues are not even being considered.

You all keep saying Jacobs is burning the place to the ground - but this is pretty general and nebulous and could easily be seen as people just resisting change and clinging to the status quo out of fear and self interest.

And in the highly politically charged campus environment, Jacobs would be a fool to just come right out and plainly state exactly what his true strategic objectives are - because whatever they are they would then be open to clear and forceful attack from any and all who see themselves as being directly threatened.

So here's the question:

What EXACTLY do you think Jacob's is trying to do to A&S?

WHY do you think he's trying to do it?

And WHY is this so terrible?

If you know something everyone else doesn't know - please share. Seriously.

Anonymous said...

I think the general feeling is that Jacobs is a control freak, and that the administrators of the medical college side of MCO in general are control freaks. A&S is the largest college here (and yes, I can see it's full of lunatics, but that's not the point). Jacobs says he wants to transmogrify the university into a 21st century something, but what that means is that he wants to be a 12th century type of leader.

Kind of like the late unlamented George Steinbrenner. Who only became a winner after he let the baseball guys start making the big decisions.

A&S is in the way of Jacobs' control simply by its size (ok, maybe partly by its PC lunacy, but let's not blame the victim too much). Hacking it up into smaller pieces will just make it that much easier for the lord of the manor to push the villeins around. That's all.

By the way, if we're really self insured for health care--where is all our money going in between the time it gets out of our paychecks and into the doctors' and hospitals' hands? I understand it vacations in the Bahamas under the watchful eyes of certain administators....

Yr humble & obt servt

John Dickinson.

zoroxyz10 said...

Re John Dickinson

Thank you for your remarks.

I believe you mentioned in an earlier post that you "welcome the new overlords" so I gather you feel Jacobs is doing the right thing on balance?

It seems clear some significant updating, realignment and/or “synergy” (even though this is a notorious buzzword) in many disciplines in the humanities and social sciences is much needed.

This in order to make these academic disciplines more realistic, accurate, effective and relevant with respect to rapidly changing 21st century challenges and realities and the ever-increasing knowledge and understanding in other fields – particularly the sciences.

(See my earlier On Bullshit post and also some of the extensive elaborations in the comments section of that post).

Judging from past history it appears doubtful this necessary academic discipline reform can come entirely (if at all) from within the overly-politicized disciplines themselves.

The CSO org charts may be (or may not be) some attempt at this academic “synergy” – but I suspect, as with so much other theory- and jargon-laden reform nonsense in academia, that this is just one more convoluted way to promote existing academic and political agendas and careers under the cover of another reform smokescreen.

I may be wrong. I certainly hope so.

Bloggie said...


Bloggie is beginning to think that you should go sit in Larry Burns' lap, if you aren't already

Despising a bunch of pretentious posturing postmodernists is one thing, they are truly despicable, but embracing administrative thuggery and systematic anti-intellectualism, another.

But perhaps you are merely another paid shill earning your bread? If so, labor on.

Anonymous said...


No, I only welcomed our new insect overlords because I have been brainwashed by the Simpsons.

The question I wonder about is, there's no reason to think that Jacobs knows what he is doing. He wants to make big organizational changes, apparently, for no good reason. He says it's to deal with the 21st century or some such bullshit. But how does he know? How does he know this will work? Why should we believe him? Is there any evidence for his claims? I think not--he's just a bully who likes to push people around.

Do you really think an abrasive nonscholar who detests the humanities (not as they're taught here, he just has no use for them from my reading of the situation) actually knows how to run a 20,000 student university that comes with distractions like a medical school and division I football? I don't.

Yr humble & obt svt

John Dickinson.

Anonymous said...

Of course he's a shill. He disagrees with Bloggie. That's the definition of shill, isn't it?

zoroxyz10 said...

Re John Dickinson 2 -

You may be right about Jacobs. I can only surmise based on what I can gather from second and third hand sources like this blog.

Especially since Jacobs’ statements and actions can often be perplexing and seemingly contradictory.

On the one hand Jacobs will tout PoMo/PC nonsense like “diversity,” cite references like Jean-Francois Lyotards “The Postmodern Condition” and appoint a Committee on Strategic Organization (CSO) comprised entirely of women (a good number of whom are known hardcore PoMo/PC partisans).

On the other hand Jacobs presents himself as a very forward-looking and more academically and politically conservative business, science and technology-friendly president.

Despite Bloggie's completely unsubstantiated innuendo, I have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Jacobs/Burns and they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me - so I honestly don't know exactly where Jacobs/Burns are coming from.

If anyone honestly doubts this – go ahead and ask Jacobs/Burns at the next UT Town Hall meeting.

Assuming they even know I exist on this blog – they will reaffirm without hesitation – and on the record no less – that they have absolutely nothing to do with me and visa versa – and moreover that they have no idea who I really am.

Would a Jacobs/Burns “shill” go to such great lengths ripping the Jacobs-appointed CSO org charts to shreds, or take other obvious hard-line anti-Jacobs positions as I have done??

Regarding the UT/MCO merger – again I have no privileged inside information – but on the face of it I can’t see how it would not be highly mutually beneficial for UT, the former MCO and our entire region to have one of our leading medical institutions united with our largest local institution of higher education.

Re college sports – on that I am in full agreement with you. I think individual and/or more small time informal team college athletics are VERY important for ALL members of the campus community – students, faculty, staff and administration – far too many of whom eat too much, drink too much, lay around too much and weigh too much.

I mentioned this very obliquely in my On Bullshit post and also referenced the excellent book on the subject, Beer and Circus: How Big-Time College Sports Is Crippling Undergraduate Education, by Murray Sperber, Professor Emeritus of English and American Studies at Indiana University Bloomington.

Among other things Sperber chronicles how IU was literally owned by former legendary IU basketball coach Bobby Knight and how EVERYONE from the BOT and President to students had to go along with what the arrogant and often unhinged coach wanted – often to the detriment of IU’s academic interests and objectives.

Sperber’s book should be required reading for ALL higher education faculty and administrators.