Thursday Items

by Cliopatria

While many Yale US history Ph.D.'s are joining some Cliopatriarchs at the OAH, one recent student in the Yale program, Scott Kleeb, is running for Congress. Kleeb, who wrote his dissertation on the history of the American cattle industry, is standing as a Democrat in Nebraska's western 3rd district. The district hasn't elected a Democrat in the last 50 years--though the Dem candidate came exceedingly close in 1974 and ran reasonably well in 1990--so Kleeb has his work cut out for him.

The Times tells us of the importance of humanities courses, even for would-be doctors.

Juan Cole becomes one of the few scholars to issue an out-and-out defense of the Walt/Mearsheimer interpretation of the"Israel Lobby."

Big Brother can work both ways: various invasions of privacy (ATM video, cell records, dorm cardkey swipes) appear to have established a pretty solid alibi for one of the accused in the Duke case. How the DA could indict without attempting to determine whether alibi evidence existed is beyond me.

The FBI is trying to get access to Jack Anderson's papers, to remove"national security" items. I've looked at Drew Pearson's collection, which was surprisingly uninteresting, but perhaps Anderson's contains juicier items. It would be quite a setback for the integrity of the archival process for this request to be granted.

Inside Higher Ed reports on Northern Kentucky professor Sally Jacobsen being suspended after urging her class to exercise their"free speech" rights and vandalize a pro-life display on campus.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Robert KC Johnson - 4/23/2006

From what I've read--Seligmann's defense attorney asked to meet with the DA to show him the exculpatory evidence, and the DA refused the meeting. (My sense, to be frank, is that the DA is incompetent.) I agree with what you're saying in the abstract--but in the context of this particular case, someone like Seligmann (who seems to be able to prove his innocence) had every reason to go the extra mile to avoid being indicted--since the indictment alone has already cost him a semester at college and generated publicity that will haunt him for years to come.

Ralph E. Luker - 4/23/2006

If I'm not mistaken, KC, a potential defendent and a defense attorney are not obliged to reveal exculpatory evidence to a prosecutor until charges have been filed and the process of discovery takes place; and, particularly in this case, I suspect that attorneys for the various Duke student/suspects were withholding exculpatory evidence from the DA in hopes that he _would_ file false charges against someone and, thus, muddy his own case.

Jonathan Rees - 4/20/2006

http://www.nysun.com/article/31185

Jonathan Dresner - 4/20/2006

I was sorry to see Weintraub's piece on Cole's piece on M/W and their detractors (I can't get any closer to that, because I won't jump through Salon's hoop), because the last time I read Cole on the subject of AIPAC, etc., he was actually making points that made sense in a subtle enough way that I thought he had some real promise. Oh, well.