Ristorante Da Luigi: My Favorite Place on Earth

  • Da_luigi_photo_4
    Da Luigi, the restaurant in this photo, is not far from the Blue Grotto on Capri. If I had only one afternoon to live, I think I would like to spend it here. Drift on in to the little cove in the boat you've hired for the day, drop anchor, and await the restaurant's launch that will bring you in to the sunbathing area. This is where I like to look around to see if my future wife is in attendance. From there, a chatty Italian waiter will escort you to your table, where you are encouraged to while away the afternoon over delicious food, wine, and plates of olives, prosciutto, and parmigiano.

« 2008 Election Joke of the Day! | Main | "Scientific Observation" Quote of the Day. . . »

Tuesday, December 18, 2007


terry Brown

And besides- what kind of republican works for the Brookings institution AND the Clinton Administration...?

terry Brown

In response to Chris' post above, I would argue:
His example of how 'political beliefs don't necessarily tie into scholarly beliefs' is anecdotal in the face of statistical arguments by Maranto. And his example states that in his dept. there are 3 democrats- no republicans- and yet their scholarly beliefs cover the ideological spectrum. So does Chris posit that in a larger context including say 30 professors across other departments or universities, that all scholarly beliefs would just as likely be evenly represented if all were democrats than if there were a balanced number of republicans and democrats?
That's a pretty tough sell in the face of, well, logic.

In addition, his assertion that 'Maranto's article proceeds from the false premise that one's political beliefs and affiliations somehow impact their scholarly work and teaching to the detriment of competing political beliefs'
is not backed up by anything other than this weak anecdote including his conjecture on the behavior of 3 people- including himself- in his dept.
Although he does step outside this overwhelming pool of evidence to speak for 'the vast majority of scholars,' with an extremely reassuring explanation of their feelings: (they) "feel duty-bound to educate their students in the ideas that are relevant to the subject under study."

So I guess we're supposed to take his word for it- despite the overwhelming evodence to the contrary...?
Not exactly convincing.


As a typical "leftist" professor, let me try to answer your question. First, a course on classical imperialism would primarily be found in the history department and would focus on European imperialism from roughly the end of the Napoleonic wars until WWI. Not being a historian, I'm not sure what would be taught.

I had a colleague who taught an Imperialism in Literature course in the English department. Her reading list for the quarter featured a number of Third World authors, but also included a number of selections from Rudyard Kipling and Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness."

I'm a sociologist, and from my perch in the social sciences we don't much offer courses on "imperialism," (with a few exceptions) although it's a topic that does find its way into many substantive areas. I have taught courses on Global Development, which certainly features a heavy literature about imperialism within the field. In that course (and I have no reason to believe that the manner in which I taught is that different from the vast majority of my colleagues), we covered neoliberal/free-market theories of development, Marxian (that is, class-based analysis that may or may not be connected with Marxism's political project) theories, and post-colonial theories of development, as these are the three dominant schools of thought in the field. I do offer my scholarly opinion on which theories I find best fit the data, but students are under no obligation to agree with me, and I am, in fact, delighted when they offer well-argued disagreements, as it shows that they not only understand their own beliefs, but they've been able to understand different points of view and critically engage them. Again, I don't believe myself to be atypical in this regard.

Maranto's article proceeds from the false premise that one's political beliefs and affiliations somehow impact their scholarly work and teaching to the detriment of competing political beliefs. While it is true that one's political beliefs will have some impact on what sort of scholarly research in which one egages, the vast majority of scholars are professionals who feel duty-bound to educate their students in the ideas that are relevant to the subject under study. Moreover, political beliefs don't necessarily tie in to scholarly beliefs. As an example, there are three of us in my department who specialize in development issues, two who are fairly liberal Democrats, and the other who I'd characterize as a left-leaning centrist. One of the Democrats is firmly in the camp of free-market development theories; the left-leaning centrist works primarily within the post-colonial camp (what I would regard as the most radical of the traditions), and the third straddles the Marxian/post-colonial fuzzy border. There are very spirited but collegial engagements between the three of us. All of us strive to fairly present the positions and criticisms of the major currents of thought in our field, and all three of us make no apologies for offering our learned opinion to the class on what we believe is the strongest position - our students do, of course, pay to learn from experts in a given field.

I hope this provides you with some sort of answer to your question.

The comments to this entry are closed.