Just Wondering
I offer this in a jovial spirit, so please don’t take it the wrong way.
What’s the deal with bow tie-wearing professors of international relations at Christian universities?
This one seems to have more in common with this one than just their neck wear and career choices (i.e. their war politics).
related articles
- Six Years Later: War, Not Tragedy (September 11th, 2007)
- D’Souza Smackdown (August 29th, 2007)
- The War Within (July 1st, 2007)
- Livingstone v. Blair (July 1st, 2007)
- The Clash of Civilizations (June 9th, 2007)
January 4th, 2006 at 8:58 am
I had also noticed that. Don’t know what to make of it.
–
January 4th, 2006 at 11:24 am
I do, but it is probably better if I don’t say it. Ahhh, who cares? I don’t know those guys…
Some people are incapable of making a productive living. Therefore, they seek shelter in a quasi-communist community where they are not required to produce, where they are rewarded for sloth, and where they are punished for working. Thus, they land in academia.
However, instead of realizing they have failed at the real purpose of life, they feel they have arrived. Proud of their entrance into what they perceive to be an elite group, they don a bow-tie.
A bow-tie represents the college professors of days gone by. It is nostalgic. It is characteristic of the wild-eyed professor of old. It is what they believe they are…
Sadly, they do not realize their choice of neckwear exposes them for what they really are. Rather than the brilliant proffessors of antiquity they seek to emulate, they are merely washed up socialist hacks dedicating their lives to an ideology on the wane.
To be short, the bowtie represents to them what they thought academia would be. To the rest of the world, it represents what it really is.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Um, that’s not exactly the jovial spirit I was going for, Baron. At least, you didn’t say that bow ties are for clowns, monkeys, and male strippers.
Seriously, I do know one of those guys, and I don’t think that is fair.
Your comment reminds me of another parallel I’ve noticed, however. It is typical of what I’ve heard from every follower of Ayn Rand I’ve ever met. I can’t quite put my finger on what it is, though. It might have something to do with the tendency to assume, without evidence, that those you disagree with are either lazy, stupid, or both. Or maybe it’s the inexplicable desire to overly personalize every difference of opinion.
It happens a lot with certain leftists too (like Michael Moore and Al Franken). When they do it, though, it is usually because they are incapable of focusing on substance. In my mind, it excuses somewhat those who reply to them in-kind. But neither of these guys have done that to you that I have seen, and you are certainly capable of focusing on substance.
However, I will admit that Professor Williams, whom I only know through his blog, tends to use disparaging remarks to dismiss those who disagree with him.
For example, he said:
He also said of Syriana:
That last is different from the approach taken in this post.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Baron, meanness is counterproductive. Personal invective against people you admittedly do not know undermines your credibility and reduces your character. As I understand it, you are in law school. Please take it from this lawyer (and I do hope Ex will back me up), regardless of your political point of view, your position or your zealous advocacy, such a lack of courtesy, collegiality and common manly respect belies any smarts you may have. I am hard at work making an honest living, and I fear that you’ll be hard pressed when you leave those very academic halls you so disdain.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I thought my reply was quite jovial - in the sense that it caused me to let loose a raucous belly laugh…
Seriously though, I do understand why you thought it was rude, and to be quite honest, it was.
I don’t have much respect for institutional academics (as I said in the same place I believe you read I was a Rand fan…). Because of that, I don’t have much respect for the people who choose to pursue that profession. Academicians are like lawyers - necessary evils. Neither should be lauded, only tolerated.
I see in the bow-tie the same thing I see in a lawyer that thinks to highly of himself (or herself): smugness, arrogance, and a misconception for how great he (or she) really is.
I am greatly humbled by your comment that something I said reminded you of Rand. I think I know what it was, and though it was not intentional, it was surely subconscious.
I believe it was when I said, “Therefore, they seek shelter in a quasi-communist community where they are not required to produce, where they are rewarded for sloth, and where they are punished for working.”
Indeed, this is the part of the comment of which I am most certain is irrefutable. It accurately describes the climate of academia. One need not be a professor to see the truth of the statement.
The great downfall of communism (and, in turn, socialism) is the reverse rewards. It seems as if environment of academia produces the same effect.
Once tenured, there is very little a professor can do to be fired. Thus, he is not required to produce to his (or her) potential in order to “succeed.” Further, there is a reward for sloth. Since the professor cannot increase his income by working harder, there is an incentive to spend less time producing. Finally, there is punishment for working. Since the income remains the same regardless of whether the professor works 40 or 80 hours per week, there is a dimished hourly return (punishment) for hard work.
So while you suggested that I might have “the tendency to assume, without evidence, that those you disagree with are either lazy, stupid, or both,” I cannot disagree more!
I am not assuming without evidence. Rather, I am drawing logical conclusions based solely upon the evidence. You can tell a lot about a person by the profession he (or she) chooses, especially when other options are or were available at the original choosing.
Because both professors are certainly capable of choosing other, more productive professions, their decision to pursue a living in the quasi-communist field of academia is quite enlightening.
That brings us to the bow-tie. In what is perhaps the greatest (if not only) piece of journalism dedicated to the bow-tie, Christopher Stump writes in Confessions of a Bow-Tie Devotee, “Eyeing fellow wearers in the street, the devotee nods and smiles. Like them, he has endured; like him, they have braved the loss of dear friends. Allies in a cause, fellow outcasts all, they have traveled together where necktie- wearers never go.”
But what is the statement they are making? In other words, why the bow-tie? He tells us that “[t]hey conjure up images of smoky men’s clubs and owlish antiquarians, of something faintly dainty…”
All of which supports my original conclusion: Bow-tie wearers feel superior.
In the particular case of two leftist college professors, I believe they feel superior because of the statement made by bow-ties: nostalgia.
In the olden days, college professors were wise and respected. The bow-tie seeks to to conjure up that image.
It reminds me of a Will and Grace episode in which Will (a non-courtroom lawyer) decides to take a client because it will allow him the opportunity to get into a courtroom. Fantasizing about his day in court, he tells Grace he bought half-rimmed reading glasses of the type worn by Paul Newman in Verdict.
He wanted to wear the glasses to conjure up an image in the minds of viewers. That is precisely what the professors are attempting to do.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Two quick points:
First, your comment reminded me of other followers of Rand, not necessarily of Rand herself.
Second, I don’t know about Pepperdine, but Harding doesn’t have tenure.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
JRB,
I am sorry I have upset you. I am quite glad you are hard at work making a living, though I am not quite sure how that ties in to my comment. I don’t recall saying anything about you. However, I offer you the same advice you offered me:
“[M]eanness is counterproductive. Personal invective against people you admittedly do not know undermines your credibility and reduces your character…. (Though, I would argue it doesn’t reduce one’s character so much as expose an already reduced character.) [S]uch a lack of courtesy, collegiality and common manly respect belies any smarts you may have.”
January 4th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
No tenure? That’s interesting. Do you happen to know how easy (or difficult) it is to get fired?
I wasn’t trying to hijack your comment section or even be mean, I was just trying to point out what I believe to be the truth behind the bow-ties on at least one of those guys. I sort of lumped the other guy in because I saw that he had a similar bent (in his “About Me” section).
I have thought about the bow-tie on one of those professors before, and a lot of what I said came from the fact that he childishly refuses to reply to my comments.
However, I suppose that fits well with his leftist world-view. In my experience, those types don’t want facts to cloud their rants, and I was pressing him to correct some facts when he childishly announced he was taking his toy and going home.
Again, sorry, but I hope you understand better where I was coming from…
January 4th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Guys, I think we need to remember not to assume too much about a person, much less a fellow Christian, by merely their blog “persona.” Both of these professors are my friends and I trust that if you got to know them on a personal basis, you’d like them a great deal. I assume that we’re all adults here and can befriend individuals with whom we disagree politically. Frankly, I’m disturbed by anyone that would describe himself as an “extremist” in his blog persona, but I have heard what a remarkable and fine individual the person “behind the curtain” of this blog is, and I trust that if we knew each other personally we’d probably like one another.
(ps. Pepperdine does have tenure, and I’m married to a political scientist here who’s trying to get it. And she’s fond of black leather outfits. What assumptions do you want to make about her?)
January 4th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
PS. Oh yeah. One more thing before I pop the other nitroglycerin tablet. I take issue (obviously) of Baron’s dismissal of academia:
“Some people are incapable of making a productive living. Therefore, they seek shelter in a quasi-communist community where they are not required to produce, where they are rewarded for sloth, and where they are punished for working. Thus, they land in academia.
However, instead of realizing they have failed at the real purpose of life, they feel they have arrived. Proud of their entrance into what they perceive to be an elite group, they don a bow-tie.”
I’ve found that to be patently untrue. I’ve seen far less incompetence in academia, whether it be Harding, IU, or Pepperdine, than when I worked for GM or Toyota (I’ve also met far more conservatives in academia than at either GM or Toyota). Can you point to specific examples of robust competence in private practice vis-a-vis academia, Baron, or are you just a disgruntled grad student?
Ok, I’ll calm down now, but I will forward your comments to my friend who’s the dean of the law school here…
January 4th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Uh-oh. JA just went Judge Starr on your head! Post up for the conservatives!
January 4th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Yes, by all means, lets all be adults. Now, I’m telling Judge Starr on you.
James, don’t impute Baron’s comments to me. I just thought it was amusing that these guys seem to have so much in common. I guess some folks can’t quite rhetorically embrace the “happy warrior” ethic.
As for my silly screen name, I’ve added additional explanation on that recently since some continue to raise it as an issue. However, if disturbs you so much, James, I’d be happy to change it for you. I’ll accept suggestions for a new one if I can trust your nominations to be kind.
I’ll be out of pocket for the next few days, on the road traveling. So you boys play nice while I’m gone.
January 4th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Above someone wrote that “[o]nce tenured, there is very little a professor can do to be fired.”
That is an exaggeration. Tenured professors get fired regularly. For example, Tulane just fired 60+ tenured professors. Likewise, within the past few years, my university fired several tenured professors for budgetary reasons. Depending upon a university’s policies, tenured profs can get fired for poor teaching evaluations, a lack of research/publication productivity, or non-collegial behavior. To be sure, tenure adds layers of review to any termination proceeding against a prof, but it is far from a job for life.
January 4th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Ex - I like your name, and I like the post. In fact, I laughed to myself, because I was ruminating on the bow tie convergence myself just recently. Also, I’m glad that Mark Elrod is such a slacker, or I wouldn’t be the political savant that I am today. I was just hoping the 2L would learn to write more nicely. I’m fixing to give up on that idea, though. Cheers.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Ok, I’ve calmed down now. Sorry for the sandthrowing (seriously). I guess to your original point, I’m the most qualified here to point out other similarities between the aforementioned professors. Both are passionate baseball fans (in fact, Robert authors an well-read and locally famous blog that offers commentary on local little league baseball), and both professors are incredible dads. Both men love Florence, Italy a little too much (if that’s possible). Both drive an SUV/truck. Both are loyal churchgoers.
But here’s a funny (if not ironic) fact: I don’t think either professor wears a bowtie on a regular basis (I’ve never seen Robert in one, and rarely have I seen Mark with one). Further, it’s a well-known joke around APSA (American Political Science Association) that most bowtie wearing political scientists are actually conservative (a la George Will, Tucker Carlson?). What’s also funny here is that to my knowledge these guys have never met, never spoken, and never communicated with each another.
There are big differences, of course, but I’ve probably violated their privacy enough already!
January 4th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
A couple of quick points -
James, perhaps your experience at GM/Toyota helps explain the fact that GM is on the brink of financial ruin and Toyota is chewing up free cash like yesterday’s lunch…
As to conservatives in academia, perhaps you have spent too much time at private Christian schools! IU is not exactly known for being a conservative think tank. I have had exactly zero conservative professors while I have been here. I have had about 30 self-professed communists/socialists/communitarians/Bush-loathers.
JRB,
To correct your passive attempt at slamming me, I am a 3L.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Ah, the calm before the career. Soak up that 3L year; there’s nothing like it.
January 11th, 2006 at 12:06 am
Elsewhere, Baron said:
[Followed by a quote from Dr. Elrod about how “the best three things about teaching are June, July, and August.”]
There’s that objectivist ethos again. Anyone who even jokes about being a slacker is a communist?
My unsolicited advice: dial it back about three notches. Of course there’s plenty of good-hearted fun to be made of the slothful academic ethos, but why make it personal? I know, he didn’t like your ‘tude and said he would refuse to respond to you. Big deal. He seems to have the same policy with me — though I don’t know why and there’s been no formal announcement as in your case.
Incidentally, today, I had a friend tell me about being an undergraduate teaching assistant at a major university. He actually lectured, for a 9am, 400-student, freshman-level course because the professor couldn’t be bothered to get out of bed on time. Now that’s lazy and irresponsible.
January 11th, 2006 at 1:49 am
I am neither a political scientist or a quasi-communist. I have the utmost respect for those who have chosen to sacrifice otherwise lucrative careers in the service of others through academia. I do not buy into the “Those who can do, those who can’t teach” philosopy. All that was to say this.
When asked to sit for a recent headshot for a brochure, I chose a bow-tie. For me, it doesn’t symbolize that “I have arrived,” but rather, “You can make me wear a tie, but it’s going to be MY kind of tie.” It’s the hippie in me, I guess.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Greg, having seen your appeal to go Mac, I’m now wondering about something else. Is there a correlation between bow tie-wearing and Apple advocacy? Steven Jobs was known for wearing a bow tie back in the day. He seems to have traded it in for a black mock turtleneck these days.
Maybe it’s just a fetish for being different. A desire to conform to non-conformity.
On the bow tie/political scoreboard, it’s two for the conservatives (Tucker Carlson and George Will) versus six and counting for the liberals (John Paul Stevens, Paul Simon, Tom Oliphant, Alfred Kinsey, Archibald Cox, and Anthony Williams. Plus, the professors at the genesis of all of this, of course. There must be many more, I’m sure.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
What about Murray Rothbard. He could potentially belong to either the Left or the Right. In fact, the very mention of his name in this context might tear a hole in the universe!
January 12th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Oooh -
How did Winston Churchill slip through the cracks? That’s one for the good guys…
But that point is quickly nullified by Tony Williams - certainly no conservative…
What sensible thinking American would count Arhibald Cox as a good guy? Not me. One more for the libs…
I will try to think of more, but I think the libs are going to win this one in a route…
January 12th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Whoa!
The Motherload!!
I dare not count…