David Remnick, “An American Tragedy:”

Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate but a resilient, intelligent, and competent leader, who never overcame her image among millions of voters as untrustworthy and entitled. Some of this was the result of her ingrown instinct for suspicion, developed over the years after one bogus “scandal” after another. And yet, somehow, no matter how long and committed her earnest public service, she was less trusted than Trump, a flim-flam man who cheated his customers, investors, and contractors; a hollow man whose countless statements and behavior reflect a human being of dismal qualities—greedy, mendacious, and bigoted. His level of egotism is rarely exhibited outside of a clinical environment.

For eight years, the country has lived with Barack Obama as its President. Too often, we tried to diminish the racism and resentment that bubbled under the cyber-surface. But the information loop had been shattered. On Facebook, articles in the traditional, fact-based press look the same as articles from the conspiratorial alt-right media. Spokesmen for the unspeakable now have access to huge audiences. This was the cauldron, with so much misogynistic language, that helped to demean and destroy Clinton. The alt-right press was the purveyor of constant lies, propaganda, and conspiracy theories that Trump used as the oxygen of his campaign. Steve Bannon, a pivotal figure at Breitbart, was his propagandist and campaign manager.

It is all a dismal picture. Late last night, as the results were coming in from the last states, a friend called me full of sadness, full of anxiety about conflict, about war. Why not leave the country? But despair is no answer. To combat authoritarianism, to call out lies, to struggle honorably and fiercely in the name of American ideals—that is what is left to do. That is all there is to do.

Please look out for one another.  As wise people who counsel children in the wake of trauma say, “look for the helpers.”  Be a helper.

39 thoughts on “Sad.

  1. Option one – every act of protest becomes a piece of sand which does its part to bring the machine to a halt. Option two – let this happen:

    Whose woods these are of course I know,
    His house is down in Mexico,
    He used to be our neighbor here,
    Til Muslim ban became a go.

    My monstrous horse sure is no Queer!
    It celebrates when we come near,
    Em’nent domain gave me this lake,
    Darkest passions it doth cheer.

    My passage is a piece of cake,
    My violence is no mistake,
    My Red Hats completed the sweep,
    The protestors their rights forsake.

    My words are empty dark and deep,
    But I have lies that I sell cheap,
    And walls to build before I sleep,
    And walls to build before I sleep.


    • Wow, Profane: did you write that?

      There are a shocking number of ppl. awake now (3:18 MST/5:18 EST) and corresponding on Twitter right now.


      • Yeah – I wrote it back it April after Trump and Frost somehow came up in the same conversation. At that point, I though he could be stopped from even getting the nomination.


  2. Your post’s leader says it all.

    “HIllary Clinton was a flawed candidate, but…”

    No man would have ever, ever been consistently introduced like this and have the author expect the piece to be construed favorably, The fact that that’s the de rigeur intro for the first woman to be a serious contender for the presidency says all there is to say about sexism and democracy in this country.

    Until this country gets rid of sexism, it will never have democracy.


    • I think last night’s results were in part due to the biased way the media & society at large evaluated Clinton vs. Trump, to her outrageous disadvantage. But I’m afraid that what happened yesterday was mostly due to race, and specifically, to white tribalism.

      Just think: Barack Obama has to turn the White House over to the man who questioned the legitimacy of the President’s birth and U.S. citizenship. The Obamas must welcome into their home a man who was endorsed by the KKK and David Duke.

      I’m really over white people.


      • If the problem truly is racism, how did Barak Obama get elected twice?
        This year proves that sexism is even more rampant.


      • I think a lot of white people who voted for Obama in ’08 (and by a lesser margin in ’12) experienced buyers’ remorse. I also think that Trump plucked nativist and racist strings that were there all along.

        Sexism is a big problem and was a big problem in this campaign. But it’s not the only one. The majority of white women voted for the Human Stain! No nonwhites–male or female–got anywhere near a majority vote for him. We know that sexism affects all of us, male and female, nonwhite and white alike. Do we really think that Latino, Asian, and African American women and men are less prone to sex discrimination on average, and it’s only white people who can’t see their way out of that paper bag? Much as I’d like to believe there is a portion of American society that is less sexist, I don’t believe it exists.

        Clinton took the nonwhite vote walking away because of the Human Stain’s obvious mobilization of racism–maybe sexism too, but race appears to explain the greatest divide between Clinton & Human Stain voters this year.


    • “Until this country gets rid of sexism, it will never have democracy.” Preach it!

      We never heard the end of the “flawed” slur on Clinton and apparently we still haven’t. I’ve never heard of a male nominee for the presidency called flawed. What exactly are Clinton’s flaws? Something equally uninformative: she’s inauthentic, calculating, or still under a cloud. That was what Clinton’s supposed supporters said about her. Et tu, David Remnick.


      • Oh, I think almost every pol gets their flaws pointed out for them, in living color and on the nightly news as well as 24-hr. cable channels and social media. Al Gore was ridiculed for thinking he had the mojo to run for president! He was Al Bore, Al Snore, etc. Bill Clinton was from the first assumed to have way too much personal baggage for the American public to take him seriously. And I think that Trump’s manifest flaws have been the subject of intense interest and media coverage.

        Clinton may suffer from comparison to the last successful Democratic candidate for the presidency. You’re right that few outside the right-wing media wanted to discuss Obama’s flaws and weaknesses endlessly.


  3. Shocked and heartbroken — it is a tragedy that we lost an excellent president. But Remnick is absolutely right: the American thing to do is stay and fight, not run away. My instincts push me to search for silver linings, and I see a few:
    1) we will be spared endless, vicious misogyny. Some congressman had already threatened to start impeachment proceedings even before she was inaugurated. What will Congress do now that they won’t be spending thousands of hours on Benghazi hearings?
    2) now Republicans have to actually govern and take responsibility for what they do.
    3) I think that the Human Stain will seriously try to fulfill his promises about deportation and the wall, which will be a disaster. Aside from that, I don’t think we can predict how he is actually going to govern.
    4) not an upside: we lefty liberals liked to think that we supported and wanted to help the losers in the current political/economic system. The People have now given a big, fat finger to the system, and we’re one of the groups they’ve told to piss off. The People will now get what they wished for. I am not sympathetic.


    • Except that there are so many Dem voters who will be hurt by The Human Stain’s presidency too.

      Sent my child off to school today asking her to be kind and to look out for her Latino classmates, whose parents may fear deportation under the new administration; for her Muslim classmates, esp. those who wear hijabs to school; and her African American classmates, who will witness a man who was endorsed by the Klan and who questioned the citizenship and legitimacy of the only black president we’ve ever had. So many vulnerable people are even more vulnerable today and for the next 4 years at least. We have to watch out for them.


  4. He’s not my president, I know that. Nor is the FBI an agency to which I would “say something” if I ever happened to “see something,” even though an uncle of mine once worked there for a couple of years on the way to a law career. The destruction of the electoral “college” is one thing that needs to be carried out. Other than that, the nation will reap the whirlwind that it so mindlessly embraced. It was a great night for Russia, Isis, and their dupes in the Red zone. Embarrassed on behalf of Pennsylvania.


    • I know: Pennsylvania! To paraphrase the great Nina Simone: Pennsylvania, Goddamn!

      Whichever way the election cut, it would have been close. While it would be comforting–and infinitely preferable–to be looking at a President-Elect Clinton, this election exploited and exposed rifts that those of us in Blue Bubbles (like Colorado!) had chosen not to pay attention to.


      • Well, I’m not sure we Pennsylvanians should be surprised to find lots of other Pennsylvanians receptive to Trump’s message. If his ideal audience is white, blue-collar people, then that’s a lot of votes. And while I notice that Clinton won the counties in Pennsylvania that tend to have large numbers of college-educated voters (I assume she won Centre County because of Penn State), it is also true that Trump got votes everywhere. 105,000 people in the City of Brotherly Love chose Trump.


  5. I’ve been thinking of you all night/morning. On my drive to the airport, I avoided the news, and listened to the RadioLab episode on “One Vote”. Great discussion of passing the 19th amendement in Tennessee.

    I think we progressive white people, especially women, have to be on the front lines protecting friends and neighbors from deportation etc. Not sure how. . .

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree. We have to be the helpers.

      My kid was very upset this morning. I haven’t even dealt with the punch in the gut of electing the idiot bloward bigot who doesn’t do the homework instead of the good girl who does. Let’s just toss out all anti-bullying curricula in the schools right now, because how can adults seriously hold children to account while electing the Human Stain? Does not compute.


  6. Oh, no, David Remnick, you can’t put all the “credit” off on the alt-right. I’ve been following many “progressive” sites and YouTube channels, and I’ll sum up the “support” she got there: “I hate the corrupt b*itch, but I hate Donald Trump more.”

    “Oh, she’s not Bernie!” Well, except for that virtually identical Senate voting record (but since when does reality count?) and the long history of actually working for programs that help the disadvantaged instead of just talking about them.

    And another shout-out to most of the political comedy shows, who couldn’t resist feeding the “it’s the worstest election ever!” “both candidates suck” memes. We saw the results of the “it doesn’t matter” attitude in 2000. Yeah, I know, you’re comedy shows. It’s just that what’s likely to come isn’t likely to produce yucks in many of us — at least not the laughter kind.

    With the exception of the goddess Samantha Bee, of course.

    Can you tell I’m just a little p*ssed?


    • The false equivalence is an artifact of our robust and immovable two-party system crashing into the ethics of modern journalism: “both sides” have to be said to be equally at fault.

      Can’t wait to see what Sam Bee has to say on her next show. Maybe just a 30-minute primal scream?


      • I disagree here. I believe that the two-party system is a result of our American character.

        Remember, George Washington anticipated that America would be without political parties. The emergence of the two-party system was headlined by founding fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Adams was a confrontational, borderline paranoid piece of work. But Jefferson was a sleazy backstabber, enlisting other pols and the media of his day to do his dirty work.

        Ask those third-party dreaming millennials how they feel about their alma mater’s sports (especially football) teams. And listen to their “us vs. them” character emerge. Here in Michigan, the uber-rivalry is Univ. of Mich vs. Mich State. Visit the sports instead of political pages, and watch college grads toss the most juvenile venom at their rivals. (As a Wayne State grad, I’m neutral in a pox-on-both-your-houses kind of way.)

        Our nation might evolve. But it won’t be any time soon. Let’s see if any of the gripers (not by any means limited to millennials) are interested in doing the work to build the Green Party, or abolish the electoral college, or whatever else their utopia is. (Remember, we still haven’t got the damn ERA passed and ratified.) Or if they wait until the next election cycle and again lament that no one gave them what they want.

        Speaking of the much-despised Electoral College, it is theoretically possible that they could reject Trump in favor of another candidate. I don’t expect it to happen (just typing that made me snort), but correcting possible stupid decisions by We The People is why the College was instituted.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Electoral College … could reject Trump in favor of another candidate”

        Ha. Yes, theoretically possible. Another sort-of-parallel to Brexit where Parliament might, perhaps, maybe pull everyone’s chestnuts back out of the fire. Of course, our EC is a far cry from Parliament, so there’s no hope there, but it is fun to think about. In a parallel universe sci-fi kind of way.


  7. this election exploited and exposed rifts

    I think it exposed some very old truths about the United States. The US has moved precious little away from its white male founding, relative to other western democracies. This election looks to me like the heaving of a great, racist beast that is not ready to give up its entitlements. That this beast is also armed to the hilt is disturbing but I will not be surprised if an inward-looking government allows the other bad actors in the world to do what they will. The people who need to get out are living in Ukraine, not the US. If I were a person who cared about what it means that China is building artificial islands on top of coral reefs in the South China Sea, I’d be worried. I don’t think the typical American cares about these things and clearly, the new president does not.

    Commentary on the news here this morning includes the idea that the EU needs to get its act together, asap. I agree with this entirely. No nation is without its offences against humanity, the difference is whether we see those as our heritage or our shame.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. H’ann, this will be my last comment. I appreciate your tolerance for my former ones.

    I didn’t see the “reply to” button underneath your reply to mine, so am posting it here.

    You want to blame white women for what happened, but I think there are some facts you are missing. You of all people should know that white women’s means of making a living, like that of the women of every single other ethnic group in this country, has not changed from Jane Austen’s days: primarily, on our backs with our legs in the air. I.e.: marriage. That is what marriage is for women when we are forced into it as our only or primary means of making a living.

    The men who have never stopped ruling this country never stopped wanting an economically conscripted marriage market. For that to keep going, white women especially (because white men rule this country) could not be permitted to earn their own living, and most importantly, raise even one child in reasonable comfort by themselves. The evisceration of the laws that gave women our one chance at freedom began in the 1980’s. It was gleefully covered up by every male owned media outlet, including NPR. Liberal white men were no different than any other in demanding that their wholly owned servants continue to be available to them.

    For two generations, children of both sexes have been drowned in the media propaganda that one gender was born to serve the other, that one was less capable as a human being than the other. There are also the exclusively male ruled religions, that the woman hating liberals would call “minority governed” if those religion’s laws hurt some man, somewhere, somehow, that saturate girl children literally from their birth with the fact of their inferiority. Catholicism is most to blame, but liberal men have other darlings as well.

    The one group of white women with an out, in which you are included, voted in the majority for Hillary Clinton, and sanity, and tolerance, etc. They are the ones with college educations.

    You have to have experienced the complete non-existence of EEO laws for women, which I have at every level, to know the horrors of earning one’s own living in the female segregated workforce that is all that America offers any woman now and has for the past two decades. I won’t describe it here, this is already too long, but to summarize: women’s jobs pay so much less than men’s it’s difficult for women to support themselves, forget about a child or children, they have no path whatsoever to advance, and their days at work are filled with that phenomenon known as horizontal aggression, as well as being the worst of any kind of work available.

    Given all this, it is reasonable they identify with the men of their socio-economic group, rather than even with themselves. They don’t make their own living, the men they sleep with do. Again, it’s called marriage. Without a college degree, this is what work and marriage is for women in this country, in this time.

    Women would work the jobs from firefighter to laborer to auto mechanic to electrician to road maintenance if they were allowed to. These are the jobs that give men the economic power to control women. But we have been excluded from these once again going on two decades now. I’ve lived all of this, seen women give up, be forced out, have no recourse whatsoever.

    What would you have these women do, work minimum wage jobs, live in poverty, have their children live in poverty and live themselves as cultural outliers, rather than accept the very intimate and damaging servitude that is marriage for economic reasons? Any human being is going to excuse and identify with those they are forced to accept on so intimate a level, rather than themselves, and certainly rather than anyone outside this.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I get where you’re coming from, and I don’t disagree entirely with your analysis here. In fact, you’re making my point, which is that white women in the main chose racial solidarity over gender solidarity. It’s the choice they’ve always made, because they can.

      White women w/college degrees only voted slightly more for Clinton, 54% to 45% for the Human Stain. I disagree that white women alone are somehow uniquely responsible for the Stain, because that ignores the much higher rate at which white men voted for him.

      Black women turned out in the highest numbers to vote, and they voted 94% for Clinton:


      • Also–here’s Stephanie Coonz making the same points you make, PDXpat:

        So what attracts women to this? Most women do not like to be sexually harassed. Most women now say that they ought to get equal pay for equal work. But the fact remains that women who have the fewest opportunities to compete successfully in the labor market are the ones who are much more likely to support the policies and values that reward a traditional division of labor in the household.

        Women with more social, economic, or educational capital are much more likely to support the activities of women making their own way in the world, to be proud when they see powerful women who stand up or who are getting ahead of men in any way, and they’re also much more open to supporting social policies that reward individual initiative even if they know that it’s not always rewarded equally.

        Women with less economic or personal autonomy are often drawn to a culture of family values that emphasizes men’s responsibility to look after women. Women who have a shot at achieving or competing on their own emphasize equality, supporting the kind of policies that make it possible for them to move up in their jobs and combine work and family.

        Women who want to be protected in the private sphere or need to be protected in the private sphere tend to emphasize the need to protect and privilege women’s special capacities for nurturing. I think it’s a big factor in the debates over contraception and sexuality and abortion. The flip side of women having all these freedoms from male control, they believe, is that it actually threatens women’s entitlement to male protection.


      • 54% to 45% is not slightly more.
        No one’s denying that the election reflects the racism of our country, we’re saying that sexism is just as prevalent and damaging.


      • Not quite, Historiann. PDXPat has it right. White women showed their indifference to racial justice, yes, but they didn’t embrace “racial solidarity.” They are indifferent to many other things too, and that’s because they are desperate and oppressed human beings. They voted for their own survival. In the aggregate, they can’t support themselves (let alone the children that most of them have) with wage income.


  9. Pingback: Be a Helper and Rise | Yesterday and today: Merril's historical musings

  10. Grr. This right here: “Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate but a resilient, intelligent, and competent leader” is a large part of the reason we’re in this sewage pit.

    Almost nobody could bring themselves to discuss Hillary without some caveat about how “flawed” she was. Hello? She was about as unflawed as they come. Yes, she’s human, but nobody felt the need to point that out, every single time, with any other candidate. What exactly is so flawed about a politician with her list of accomplishments, her skill in keeping her promises, aka truthfulness? There’s exactly one big difference. Running while female.

    By not examining their own prejudices for long enough to see who, really, was flawed, they tore her down enough so that in the great words on Laura Hudson on twitter: “I’ll never forget how it feels to know that when the country had a choice between a woman and an actual monster, it chose the monster.”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Reports continue to accumulate steadily, including from very near to where I am now, about acts of physical aggression and violence in primary and secondary schools, administered by runagadoe teen-aged (and under) Trumpist brigades, unleashed and culturally authorized by the vile campaign that Trump ran for a year and a half. Right up until the day he sat in the damask chair in the Oval Office next to the actual president and talked about the need for the nation to “come together. “The reports, unsurprisingly, tend to emphasize this kind of activity targeting children of color, or those perceived to be of sexual minorities, and others in classic categories of outsider status.

    A California congressman last night on CNN refused to back down (an inch) in emphasizing these reports, despite Wolf Blitzer’s bizarre–almost as if sponsored–skepticism, to the effect that Trump was actually beginning to act nice now that he has secured the prize. I was on a cardio machine, but I almost wanted to yell into the screen, “Wolf, you fucking bastard, what campaign have you been covering?!?”

    At a university that I know something about, high-level administrators have just chided the faculty at large for “reports that some members of our faculty are using class time to express personal opinions about the outcome of the presidential election.” Calling it “understandable” that there would be “strong emotions” about the election, these messages describe it as “not understandable–nor is it acceptable–to use one’s position of authority to make political statements if they are not germane to the subject of the class.” (To my knowledge, the professor decides what the “subject of the class” is on a daily basis, from first non-tenurable job to retirement party). An amorphous and unenforceable clause in the collective bargaining agreement adjuring faculty members to “be careful not to introduce…. controversial matter which has no relation to [the] subject,” is cited, seemingly with the consent of the faculty union.

    This is a profound misreading of the entire purpose of higher education, or at least what that purpose has been understood to be in the liberal state, before universities began “aligning” their missions with those of the Pirelli Tire-Changing Academy. When I was in college during the Vietnam era, undergraduates were not naïve enough to doubt that faculty members, since they were human beings, were also political beings. Teachers in all disciplines wove back and forth between “the subject” and “the world, ” and we thrived on encountering (and in many cases doubting) the diversity of views that came into play. College-level academics are not teaching third graders, despite the proliferation of “dual enrollment” “articulation agreements” that administrators love to revel in. They are not, for the most part, running for anything, and they know better than their critics the limits of their ability to “indoctrinate” anybody about anything.

    But what is really happening in the memoranda quoted above is not any gradualist but persistent institutional “alignment” with the exciting business model being developed over at Pirelli T-CA. It is, rather, nervous if not desperate effort of administrators to align their interests with those of the emerging Trumpist world order, especially in states on the periphery of the Great American Desert, newly-gone red in some cases, and perceived to be ready to fiscally reward such alignment. Or to punish its failure. Maybe administrators should worry more about the possibility that the faculties’ children, if not their own, are over there at Maple Street Middle School, cowering at the antics of their thuggish classmates. Which side are the universities on (as if we can’t see the slippage already beginning to happen)?

    Faculty should reject this advice. The First Amendment follows them into the classroom. Academic Freedom is the framework for the teaching and learning process itself. Their “opinions,” about whatever it occurs to them to introduce, into whatever context, are not smudgy contaminants stealing oxygen or time from the stream of facts and case studies about what bolt goes with which wrench that they were brought on board to deliver from the virtual script approved in the Office of Student Life. Viva Portlandia!


    • Indyanna, the “clause” in your collective bargaining agreement that you say was quoted “seemingly with the consent of the faculty union” is not some eccentric formulation peculiar to your university. It originates in the AAUP’s 1940 “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure”: “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.” In 1970 the AAUP explained that “The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is ‘controversial.’ [. . .] The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.” I do not see how these AAUP principles misrepresent “the entire purpose of higher education,” though I suspect that the administrators at your university need to be reminded that the objective is to discourage faculty from “persistently” introducing material unrelated to the subject.


  12. Well, where it came from is not of particular interest to me, but I’ll note that the 1940s were a particular era of consolidation and retreat on the part of a whole lot of agents and entities that had taken strong positions in the previous decade that were deemed objectionable by established power authorities. So, maybe this language, as a kind of blurry half-concession to orthodoxy, pre-empted stronger reactionary clauses. I don’t know.

    But “should” is not a piece of contractual terminology, and cannot be made so by its placement in a document that mandates duties, terms and conditions for duties, compensation for duties, and mechanisms for enforcement. In its subjectivity, it invites administerial intrusion into the classroom at the beck of anyone who does not like what ze is hearing from the lectern or the head of the seminar table. That intrusion may not happen until a broader context makes the invitation fraught, but when that happens, watch out. English literature should join history and other humanities in acknowledging that the “subject” of the course is an inherently subjective and unstable thing, and–whatever it may say in the “syllabus of record” developed by faculties who have been dead for half a century, or even the syllabus handed out ten weeks ago, the “subject” is reincarnated every day if not more often than that when the instructor walks into the room. We are manufacturing knowledge on site in the give and take, not distributing inventory from well-stocked shelves in disciplinary warehouses out on the interstate.

    “Persistent” zigs that don’t zag back, or that abandon what seems in the catalogue or the syllabus to have been the objective of the course, I agree with. My Cubs fan colleague can’t (and hasn’t) react to the World Series win by making the rest of hir Asian History course a seminar on baseball in Chicago, peppered liberally and prophylactically with references to Hideki Matsui, or Babe Ruth’s winter tour of Japan. But even persistence threatens to become a slippery slope, and an invitation to prodding of the historian by an administrator who once was an astronomer back during that whole thing about whether Pluto was “actually” a “planet,” but who has done nothing but work on assessment initiatives and community outreach programs since that debate died down. When mushy hortatory language about professional responsibility morphs into efforts to suggest that a professor who begins a psych class by saying that this week’s election *was* indeed “rigged,” only in the other direction, or a professor in the B. school who opens class by saying that he *still* thinks that they should “lock her up” is of a piece with teenaged Trumpist jihadis in a local school system slamming kids into the wall for wearing Hillary buttons, then Article 2-A of the contract becomes a wide tear in the academic freedom safety net.

    I was not saying that the original language, of itself, “misrepresents” the “entire purpose of higher education.” But its use very much can, and in this case I think has. The language belongs in the handout pile at the new faculty orientation session, not in a legal document that appears to set duties, powers, requirements and remedies. In the specific case that I cite, I continue to believe, until proven otherwise, that what is at issue is the scrambling efforts of university administrators (possibly state-wide, in a state that just unexpectedly went “Red”) to “align” institutional interests with an anticipated emerging Trump world order in upcoming legislative and appropriation proceedings. Faculty, especially untenured faculty in a system using annual reappointment reviews until tenure, can be expected self-protectively to take very narrow views of what the “subject” is in their particular courses. That does fly in the face of what academia is and should be about.

    Very different from my old late 1960s Russian and French Revolution history prof in college, whose doctoral advisor had been arrested in 1915 for participating in the plot to assassinate the Archduke, and thus for helping to start WW-I. Which prof (mine), managed to get the word “fascist” into at least every twelfth sentence. All the while denouncing himself like a Stalin-era state prisoner for driving a battered used Cadillac, and living with a wife and 2.2 kids in an upscale American split-level suburb. My econ major friend in that class who went on to Wharton shortly after Trump left there liked the course as much as I did, only for different reasons. That’s the kind of environment that you learn things in. (Of course, that school only had five administrators listed in the catalogue, none of whom was a provost).


  13. Since Wednesday morning I’ve been speechless. At times, literally. All I’ve managed to say to my students is that they need to be kind and respectful with each other. Still, the chancellor had to send out a mass email acknowledging that an “incident” had occurred on campus and that any others should be reported immediately. Friday afternoon he was knocking on faculty office doors, asking how our students were doing. This is a small town in Wisconsin, in a county that voted Democratic across the board.


Let me have it!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.