Who wrote the UofC memo and why did they use a small p.

Why did the University of Chicago press release not use a Capital P to call Senator Obama a professor and who wrote this unsigned memo. First this thread is not about if BO is a Professor of Constitutional Law and my views on this are well know.  This can be discussed else where.

This is to discuss who wrote the so called memo and how it magically appeared on the UofC web page almost at the same time the BO campaign came out with a release suggesting that HRC is lying and BO is if fact a UofC Professor?  And let me say for total transparency I went to Graduate School at the UofC and did part of my Medical training there so I know a little about the institution.  So besides the fact of an almost super national cosmic event that these two releases came out at the same time it is interesting to determine who wrote the memo.  And I have list of question that my University needs to answer. The post is below.

"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

There are several things about this letter than IMHO smell and I will outline them.

1.    Who wrote this memo?  There is no signature listed and to me that seems really odd.  I mean this is about the likely Democratic Nominee for the Presidency of the United States.  No name.  Doesn't that seem odd?

2.    Who approved this memo?  It was on the Law School web page but something of this importance should have come out of the office of ether the Provost or University President Office?

3.    This statement is full of parsing "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track".  First it does not say Senator Obama was a Professor it says "are regarded as professors".  So we can all agree this does not say Senator Obama was a Professor it says regarded as which is clearly parsing.  Second, did anyone notice a small but not Capital letter is used for professor?  But the post does Capitalize the S and L of "Senior Lecturers" but the p is not capitalized when they write "regarded as professors".  And this was done twice in the memo.  ". Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School".  Again when saying his 12 years as a professor the p is not capitalized. But in Senior Lecturers the S and L are capital.

The reason this was done was to make it clear that he did not have a rank as Professor.  This may seem like pin-head academic stuff (and I agree it does kind of) but you can be sure several big shots at the University and likely the dean were involved with this letter and Professor should always capitalized.   So I think we can all agree p is not capitalized to make clear his rank was not professor but they considered him like a professor.

4.    The memo states that "Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined".  Why was this included?  If this memo is to address Senator Obama's University Rank why did it include that he was offered a full-time, tenure-tack faculty position?

5.    Was Senator Obama ever officially offered a Full-time faculty position?  Because the memo states this. While the University of Chicago is a private University there are rules and trust me lots of rules.  Faculty positions at the University of Chicago have to be advertised, a committee has to meet and interview candidates, and then the chair of the committee has to recommend a candidate with the approval of the committee.  But before an offer can be made the Department Chair must approve and then both the dean and the Provost must draft and sign an offer letter.  Was this done?  The University should either provide the documentation of this or state that we discussed the possibility of a tenure track position with Senator Obama but no offer as was suggested by the Law School statement.

6.    Finally, the University needs to state for the record that no one from the Obama campaign was involved in ether the writing or the release of this memo.

OK first off.  No "I am calling BO a lair stuff".  My guess is this is just a misstatement and/or a mistake and it is not germane.  However, I have read on dkos about how this statement from the University proves that HRC is a lair and suggesting that Obama is not a Professor is another example of what an awful person she is.

But lets also all agree that this memo does not say BO was a professor of Constitution Law at the University of Chicago it says he was regard as a Professor but did not in fact have a University rank as Professor.  Finally, I am very angry that my University would post this parsed, less that correct statement.  Like several other academic faculty on this page (who based on their comments are senior to me) we consider our graduate school as "Our University" and it is very upsetting to read this nonsense.  I know there are politics on campus but Universities are political neutrals and are not suppose to get involved with political campaigns and right now the phones are off the hook at the Office of the President, Provost, and Dean.  The University of Chicago is in a big mess.


There's more...

Thoughts of a HRC supporter and the Fall electon

HI Everyone,

So I don't post thread much but I very good friend emailed me and asked why is support HRC and if I hate BO and I think he is expressing what a lot of dems are feeling and I drafted a long letter expressing how I think a many HRC supporters are feeling and it also made me think what I will do if BO win and how I feel about a pretty tough primary season.

I saw the Gallop poll and that 28% of HRC supporters will vote for McCain but also 19% of BO will not vote for HRC.  First, I don't think it is fair to call these voters HRC supporters who are hard core dems.  These mostly represent working class Democrats or Reagan democrats that have always supported the Clinton's and BO has had trouble with these voters since day one.  These are the same voters than went for Bush and not Kerry.  We are all dems here and we all know that these numbers are artificially high due to the tough campaigns on both sides.  Most of these 28% and 19% voters will vote dem.  However, 28% - 19% leaves about 10% and these are very likely Reagan dems and they are still up for grabs. And let me repeat myself here IMHO they are still totally up for grabs.

And the reason BO is doing even worse with these voters is the Wright flab.  I know BO supporters think his speech was great (I liked it to) but his numbers are going down with Reagan democrats because of both Wright and the speech. These voters see race in a very different way then netroots dems.  I have tried to explain this many times with little luck.  Working class dems (like my mom and Dad) are big Clinton supporters and when BO and his supporters attack HRC as a liar or racist they get upset and because of this they are moving to McCain. Especially race. And i feel for BO supporters who think HRC has been totally negaive and not their candidate.  However,these voters feel left out by the system and want to know what dems will do to help them and they feel "rightly or wrongly" that resources have gone to others and not to help them.  And they support HRC and think she is the one who will help them. IMHO these voters have decided the presidential election the last 45 years.  These are not West or East coast liberal voters, these are middle America voters who are barely getting by and not nearly as liberal as BO and are not sure if BO will help them.

I like BO and will vote for him and I have tried to hold my tongue but I am sure I have slipped but like many here I have said things that perhaps were motivated by anger.  I support HRC and I think it is wrong to say "she did nothing important as first lady" and come on HRC has been a solid Senator and democrat.  And I think a lot of other things said about HRC are just wrong as well.  And I think a lot of HRC supporters like me get upset when we constantly hear about how HRC is a liar and dishonest.  We need to all understand that BO has to go to HRC voters and ask for their vote in the fall and not the other way around (since he is more likely to win).  So to BO supporters please think about putting yourself in HRC supporter's shoes and be honest think about some of the things you have said and think how someone who is a HRC supporter would feel?  I try to say this all the time.  HRC very strongly represents about 50% of democrats and we need these voters now and in the future. And i well agree that HRC and her campiagn has played rough.

So my friend asked my what i surport HRC and not BO.

Why do I support HRC? First, I am the child of working class voters.  My grandparents came from Italy and my brother and I were the first in my family to go to college.  My parents could not afford to send me to private school.  I went to Chicago public school and after that Chicago City college.  I drove a Chicago city bus to pay for college since my parents could not afford to send me to college.  I didn't get to go to Harvard or Yale (OK I went to the University of Chicago for professional school after college). I couldn't afford to go to schools like Harvard or Yale even if I could have been accepted there and students like me have a pretty small chance coming from Chicago public schools.  I very strongly feel a bond with these working class voters who support HRC.  The Clinton's are Icons of middle American working class voters and me.  The Clinton's speak for working class voters and I just don't have much in common with dems like the Kennedy's, Dukakis, etc.  That doesn't mean I don't vote dem and have done so since Carter in 1980. And that includes Dukakis, Ooch.

And i need to add this.  I think if BO wins he will be good for working class voters but i think they just feel more comfortable right now with BO and hopefully by fall these voters will see this as well.

Bill Clinton's grew up in a single mom family me (like me until my mom remarried), and lived in a lower middle class area (I lived in a changing Chicago are and we know what I mean by changing) much like me.  Like many working class voters I feel a very strong bond with Bill Clinton as well as with Hillary and I think that is true of a lot of traditional middle America dems. BO is a dem and I will both vote for him (I assume this will be easier in the fall when my sights are focused on McCain) and I will send serious money in the fall.  Much like I would if HRC if she should win.

Second, I don't think BO can win in Nov and that is very important for me.  A liberal senator has not won the WH since 1960 and the reason JFK won was he had LBJ on the ticket to bring in working class voters.  If you look at Dems who have won the presidency or the popular vote they were all southern moderate dems (LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Gore).  If you look at the losers they were all northern liberal dems (McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry). So you understand I don't think BO can win and this is another reason i support HRC.

And while HRC is a NY senator she is much more conservative than BO and as a wrote the Clinton's are icons to to working class voters and frankly to me as well.  Now I understand BO supporters think he does have a plan to win and I respect this it is just for an older dem like me I just don't feel like taking a chance on a new model to win.  The models for LBJ, Carter, and Clinton have won and i don't want to lose the WH again. Again this is not a criticims but this is why i support HRC and not BO.

I think BO as to win CO to win the since i dont think he can win OH, which i think HRC could win.  I BOsupporters think he can win CO (maybe NV to for a 269 tie) but CO has not voted for a democrat for president since "well I cant remember".  So at least for me this is another reason i support HRC.  And please no "look at the poll" we all know that those numbers will be different in Oct and frankly i will admit that i have no idea for sure what will happen in the fall but i support HRC because imho i think she has a better chance.

You understand right now HRC and BO are within 1% of each other in total vote (or about).  That means nearly ½ of dems support HRC?  There is a very strong voter demographic going on here.  BO is supported by AA and wealth liberal whites and HRC is supported by working class voters, older married white women, and latino's.  So what i am saying is HRC IMHO HRC has a better chance to win than BO and I totally agree this is just my opinion.  But this is another reason I support HRC and I think it legit.

Every time someone from BO campaign attacks HRC honesty (or calls her a liar) or something else silly this drives more and more of these voters away. I know BO supporters think it is unfair since you think HRC has been totally negative and BO has not but I disagree; BO has also run a hard hitting and negative as well.  And I am ok with this since IMHO politics is a rough sport.   You understand another thing I like about the Clintons is they will do what it takes to win.  Kerry, Dukakis, etc lost because of this.  So I always find the HRC will do anything to win narrative silly.  We don't want this.  If BO is not willing to do what it takes to win he should quit.  If he wants my vote in the Fall he needs to show me this.  And really come on everyone he has run a rough campaign and IMHO has showed he will do what it takes even if I think he is the weaker national candidate.

To all BO supporters, working class and older more conservative dems love and admire Bill Clinton and feel he was their president and so do I.  Their lives improved during his presidency and they have loyality and so do I.  If HRC "drops out now" they will go to McCain in even higher numbers than 28%.  I keep trying to say this but many BO supporters so dislike HRC that I think they know this but cant bring themselves to really admit this.  We (HRC supporters understand this as well) dont really get this and dont understand the hate coming from sites like dkos.

I have heard that HRC hasa plan to run in 2012.  This is nonsense.  If BO is the candidate HRC and Bill will campaign for him.  We all know that.  BO knows this as well.  Didn't everyone see his speech on Tuesday saying his supporters need to tone down the talk?  He knows as well he needs HRC voters in the fall as well as the help of the Clintons.

And I have said this many times the longer HRC says in the more pressure BO will have to make her the VP candidate and that is IMHO the only way he can win.  Or maybe better put IMHO has the best chance to win.  So take a breath and think for a second about how HRC supporters are feeling and how important it is that they vote for BO in the fall.  

Also, this is a long letter so since I am dyslexic there will not doubt be some typos.


There's more...


Advertise Blogads