Academic Blogging

(O.K., maybe the relevance of this to CLT is a bit of a stretch.  But it is:  1.  about blogging;  2.  about academics who blog;  3.  about the effect of controversial blogging on tenure & appointments;  4.  about conservative v. liberal bloggers; and  5. about controversy generated by positions on contemporary Middle Eastern politics, so arguably relevant to Pope Benedict's Regensburg remarks.)

There's an interesting editorial in the Sep/Oct issue of the Yale Alumni Magazine about Yale's decision not to hire Juan Cole, a professor of Modern Middle Eastern history.  It raises the issue of the effect of blogging on academic tenure and appointments decisions. 

Do those who live by the blog die by the blog?

In April, Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan--Ann Arbor, whas turned down for an appointment at Yale in contemporary Middle Eastern politics.  This kind of event doesn't ordinarily stir up excitement in the wider world.  But it became a hot topic in the blogosphere, because Cole himself is an eminent blogger.  "Everyone who is anyone reads his blog,"  writes NYU professor Siva Vaidhyanathan in the Chronicle of Higher Education.  Apparently, everyone who reads Cole's blog thought Yale rejected him because of it.

Cole has an impressive c.v.  He has written, edited, or translated 14 scholarly books, many of them for prestigious academic presses.  But on his blog, Informed Comment, he is an unrelenting critic of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, and several conservative bloggers were outraged that Yale would consider him for tenure.  The blog Little Green Footballs called Yale's interest "almost unbelievable."  John Fund of WallStreetJournal.com called Cole "hothead" and "intolerant."

The faculty of two departments voted to hire Cole.  But at Yale, senior tenure decisions must pass three levels of committees.  Cole failed the second level:  the Tenure Appointments Committee in the Humanities, composed of two deans and nine tenured faculty, voted him down.  Now it was the liberal bloggers' turn for outrage.  "Neoconservative zealots . . . screwed professor Juan Cole out of a job"  (Majikthise).  "This reaction reeks of fear"  (Whiskey Bar).

There's no way of knowing if those who reviewed Cole were influenced by their political views.  Politics are strictly dissallowed as critera for hiring at Yale.  But academics are human.  It would be surprising if nobody on those committees was influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by feelings about Cole's outspoken stands.  It would be surprising if nobody at all wondered about the consequences of hiring a controversial public figure.

. . .

The Cole affair may help push academia to define how it feels about blogs.  Cole's blog is opinionated but erudite;  he translates Arabic and Persian sources and comments on theology.  But academics haven't reached consensus yet on how to weight blog posts in evaluating scholarship. (It's not clear how, or whether, Yales' committees assessed Cole's blog.)  As more and more academics engage in blogging, universities will have to decide whether blogging matters.

UPDATE:  My colleague, Elizabeth Brown, adds:  "You may be interested in a posting by J.B. Ruhl, the Matthews & Hawkins Professor of Property at the Florida State University College of Law, on his thoughts regarding the “Hierarchy of Legal Scholarship” here:  http://jurisdynamics.blogspot.com/2006/09/hierarchy-of-legal-scholarship.html   Basically Ruhl, like Brian Leiter (who Rick Garnett commented upon in his MoJ post here: http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/2006/09/leiter_on_blogs.html ), thinks that blogs (while lots of fun) have zero value as scholarship. 

Ruhl thinks the most valuable contributions to legal scholarship are empirical studies of law’s impact on society.  Ruhl’s rankings have generated a lot of comments among other law bloggers."

Lisa