Posted on Jun 3, 2016
How Northwestern faculty derailed retired general's global studies job
2.45K
34
11
4
4
0
Karl Eikenberry, a former Army general and ambassador to Afghanistan, was hired by Northwestern University to run the Buffett Institute for Global Studies in November, but by April had withdrawn from the post after a debate over his qualifications.
Forty-six faculty members signed a letter in February describing Eikenberry as a ‘non-academic career military officer’ who was a bad fit for the job. An online petition emerged to oppose Eikenberry's appointment.
‘An ex-U.S. general will likely think about international politics in terms of war and from the perspective of the U.S.'s interests, and the research agenda will be negatively skewed as a result,’ wrote Charles Clarke, a Northwestern graduate student and one of the petition's backers. ‘Instead, why not appoint someone who will encourage research that is less belligerent and tainted by U.S. bias?’
The Faculty Senate voted to support the appointment, but opposition proved so persistent that Eikenberry decided in April to pull the plug. He planned to return to Northwestern on Tuesday to give a speech on civilian-military relations.
Eikenberry told The Washington Post that he bears no ill will toward the university over an episode that proved a significant embarrassment for its leadership. But he took exception to the label "non-academic career military officer."
"This is the worst stereotyping I can imagine and an affront to any veteran," Eikenberry wrote in an email. "What is it about a military officer's career that makes her or him unqualified to serve as the executive director for an institute of global studies? Their familiarity with leading large organizations, securing resources, directing strategic planning, and implementing institutional change? Their experience of living in diverse cultures abroad (in my case Korea - twice; China -- three times; Hong Kong -- twice; Italy; Belgium; and Afghanistan - three times)? Or their experience in the field of national security decision-making and international security issues?
Forty-six faculty members signed a letter in February describing Eikenberry as a ‘non-academic career military officer’ who was a bad fit for the job. An online petition emerged to oppose Eikenberry's appointment.
‘An ex-U.S. general will likely think about international politics in terms of war and from the perspective of the U.S.'s interests, and the research agenda will be negatively skewed as a result,’ wrote Charles Clarke, a Northwestern graduate student and one of the petition's backers. ‘Instead, why not appoint someone who will encourage research that is less belligerent and tainted by U.S. bias?’
The Faculty Senate voted to support the appointment, but opposition proved so persistent that Eikenberry decided in April to pull the plug. He planned to return to Northwestern on Tuesday to give a speech on civilian-military relations.
Eikenberry told The Washington Post that he bears no ill will toward the university over an episode that proved a significant embarrassment for its leadership. But he took exception to the label "non-academic career military officer."
"This is the worst stereotyping I can imagine and an affront to any veteran," Eikenberry wrote in an email. "What is it about a military officer's career that makes her or him unqualified to serve as the executive director for an institute of global studies? Their familiarity with leading large organizations, securing resources, directing strategic planning, and implementing institutional change? Their experience of living in diverse cultures abroad (in my case Korea - twice; China -- three times; Hong Kong -- twice; Italy; Belgium; and Afghanistan - three times)? Or their experience in the field of national security decision-making and international security issues?
How Northwestern faculty derailed retired general's global studies job
Posted from chicagotribune.com
Northwestern University
Politics
Liberal
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
4
4
0
I believe that most civilian academic settings lean left and see this as a "you don't fit in here" rub. As well it shows civilians have no clue about the military especially the senior leadership responsibilities. As to US bias - how about an entire university being liberally biased 4 to 1. Maybe they should look at their political diversity in regards to the faculty and examine how that impacts their students. Maybe look at if they're more interested in liberal indoctrination over say an education. Hypocrites -
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/1898/lackdiversity.html
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/1898/lackdiversity.html
Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities -...
Executive Summary (David Horowitz and Eli Lehrer) This report on political bias at 32 elite colleges and universities is the third in a series conducted by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and researched by Andrew Jones.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
3
3
0
Unfortunately this is a prime example of what our "Institutions of Higher Learning" have become. They thrive on information that feeds the psychology that the world is this big group of people holding hands and singing Kumbaya, (maybe replace the world "lord" with "Bernie" since many don't believe in God but do believe in Money) They do not want to hear the truth about the world and how dangerous it is today. They don't want to hear that the only reason we are not wearing swastikas and speaking German or Japanese is because of military might and the hard decisions of true strong leaders who had to sacrifice lives. What they don't either acknowledge or understand is the only reason they are able to ignore the world outside the borders of the US, is because of the military might that stands ready to protect the US. They also want to remain ignorant of the threat that stands ready to destroy American, our allies and take away all or our basic freedoms. And more amazing is the small segment of our population that makes up that group who stand ready to defend this nation against all enemy foreign and domestic----If you add their figures on veterans to the active personnel numbers only 7.3 percent of all living Americans have served in the military at some point in their lives. 3.1 percent of all living Americans have served in the Army, 1.7 percent in the Navy, 1.4 percent in the Air Force and 0.8 percent in the Marines, while the remaining 0.5 percent served in either non-defense or reserve roles. More than half of all veterans are over 60 right now. 5.5 million living U.S. veterans served during “peacetime,” meaning they didn’t serve at any point during a conflict (but they stood ready) — 11,213 of them served before World War II had even begun. 2.8 million veterans served in only the first Gulf War another 2.6 million served in only the second Gulf but there are another 1.6 million veterans that served in one of those conflicts as well as another. It amazes me that any real scholar could not see the value of someone like Karl's experience and knowledge, regardless if you agreed or disagreed with what he represents. In the words the mother of that very wealthy, famous military, businessman and humanitarian: Stupid is as stupid does!
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google