Academia, Free Speech, Society

GW International School Announces Policy Of Gender Diversity Of Panels

downloadA couple of faculty members at the Elliott School of International Affairs sent me an email yesterday from their dean, former Ambassador Reuben E. Brigety, II that they found unsettling and unwise.  The school has adopted a policy that all panels in the future at the school cannot be composed of a single gender and that “Non-adherence to this policy could result in cancellation of the event.”  The policy raises serious questions of academic freedom and the subordination of intellectual content in favor of the diversity policies. No one has suggested that Dean Brigety is likely to impose mandatory quotas and disciplinary actions.  He is an experienced diplomat at a nationally respected graduate school, though he has had controversial moments during this tenure as dean.  However, there has been no real discussion of the implications of these policies and how they impact the academic mission of universities like George Washington.

The email below notes that there are other diversity concerns including race, sexual orientation “and beyond,” but the current policy would extend only to gender.  However, that means that an academic panel may have to drop a male moderator or panelist who is viewed as more influential or knowledgeable simply because of his gender.  Academic panels have long been driven by their intellectual content regardless of the sex or race or other characteristics of the participants.

I have seen an increasing application of de facto quota policies at other institutions.  A few years ago, I was on a panel at the World Bank that had been long arranged and composed of international leaders in the field.  World Bank officials however panicked at the event when they realized that the four of us were all white males.  They solved “the problem” after some delay by randomly taking an African American woman from the audience and having her introduce everyone on the panel.  The draftee had no knowledge of the backgrounds of the panel or much involvement in the subject matter of the event.  However, it was viewed as essential if the panel was to go forward.

To the credit of Brigety, he is being open about a policy that is widely applied informally at schools.  I have been reportedly told that panels were changed because there was a need to add a panelist due to their race or gender.  In truth, I have generally found that the replacement was equally qualified as the person dropped. However, the eliminated panelist often is not told that they were removed because of their race or gender.

The concern of my colleagues at the Elliott school is not a desire to exclude people on the basis for gender or race or other criteria. Rather the message is clear that they are not to assemble panels based solely on the work and influence of the panelists. Indeed, under the policy, they are expected to bar a person based solely on his gender to achieve diversity goals.  That could easily be viewed as a form of discrimination against someone who would otherwise be the most qualified participant.

In Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 525-526 (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that immutable characteristics “bear no relation to ability, disadvantage, [or] moral culpability.”  In academia, intellectual content and contribution is the coin of the realm.  We are judged by our scholarship and our work, not by our race or gender or other immutable characteristics. Indeed, minorities face such discrimination from those who could not look beyond their personal characteristics.  Like all professions, we have fought prior discrimination and advocated for color and gender blind policies.  Many academics came to this profession to enjoy an environment that celebrates the mind and  where intellectual ability is the sole criteria for advancement and success.

Dean Brigety is not the first to demand that academic events be tailored to the race or gender of the participants rather than the quality of their work.  As discussed recently, a new study has called for a concerted effort to cite academics of color and greater diversity to make from the hold of “white heteromasculism” on research.  Geographers Carrie Mott (professor at Rutgers University) and Daniel Cockayne (professor at University of Waterloo in Ontario) has identified the reliance on research by white males as a “system of oppression” benefitting “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.”

Professors are reluctant to publicly question policies like the one at the Elliott School because they do not want to be called insensitive or worst yet sexist.  As a result, there has been little debate over such policies and discriminating on the basis of immutable characteristics becomes the more in the name of diversity.  Many professors believe that intellectual contribution should be the sole basis for inviting speakers — a standard that rejects discrimination of any kind beyond the content of one’s work.  The focus of this traditional approach has been identify and counter any decisions that discriminated against academics on the basis  of other grounds.  The clear message sent by deans like Brigety is that no only are events subject to being cancelled but that academics responsible for such “Non-adherence” could face repercussions.

There are important diversity objects underlying this policy that are worthy of discussion and debate.  However, there is little real dialogue occurring on this difficult issue.

What do you think?  If panels must now be constructed to guarantee gender diversity, why should not race or sexual orientation also be required?

brigety-reuben_0Dear Faculty and Staff,

As we begin a new semester, please be aware of the following new policy for all Elliott School sponsored events:

Gender and Diversity Policy for Elliott School Events

Policy: Effective July 1st , 2017, for any panel, symposium, or multi-speaker event (3 or more

speakers) held at the Elliott School, there should be no single-gender discussion panels. If a panel consists of a single-gender, please ensure that the moderator is of a different gender.

Context: The George Washington University and the Elliott School recognize the importance of promoting diversity and inclusion within and beyond the university. To underscore the importance of this mission, we are actively looking for ways to encourage diversity throughout the school. We know that diversity spans a wide range of factors including race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, political beliefs, gender, and beyond— all of which contribute to a thriving intellectual community. In order to advance greater diversity at the

Elliott School, a new policy regarding gender at Elliott School sponsored events is outlined above.

Note: Non-adherence to this policy could result in cancellation of the event.

Thank you very much for your on-going efforts to make the Elliott School a welcoming place to work and study.

—

Reuben E. Brigety, II, Ph.D.

U.S. Ambassador (ret.)

Dean

Elliott School of International Affairs

The George Washington University

328 thoughts on “GW International School Announces Policy Of Gender Diversity Of Panels”

  3. OK, speaking of women, and technical thingies. Suppose that I have a Minolta SRT101 35mm camera. It is one of those old timey ones that uses 35mm film, and you have to wiggle the lens thingie around to get stuff in focus, and make sure all the little buttons like the ISO thingy are on the right numbers and stuff. I can usually get it to work.

    Then, suppose you get an old timey Canon Sureshot camera which is also 35mm, but none of the stuff wiggles around or anything. You just point it at what you want to shoot and push a button. None of the lens stuff comes off like on the Minolta, I guess unless you break something.

    My question is, can you use the same film in the Canon that you use in the Minolta??? Because they are both 35mm, but I don’t want to go cram something into the Canon that will break it or screw it up? It would be embarrassing to ask somebody in person at Best Buy, or maybe a camera shop.

    Sooo, can anybody who pre-dates digital cameras give me some help???

    Thank you, if you can.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. What, pray tell, does this have to do with gender diversity on panels? Find a blog that deals with camera issues. This isn’t it.

      1. I am hoping that a big, strong, smart man will come along and tell me what to do! I only paid $5 for it at a garage sale Saturday, but I don’t want to ruin it. If you push a button the little lensy thing pops out like a, like a,. . . well you know what. Anyway, sometimes you just have to rely on the kindness of strangers.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

          1. I am pretty sure. It has a little back door thingy, and when you open it, there is a round place for film. But on line they call it 135 film, and my Minolta just takes plain old 35 mm film, and the stuff looks the same size, but I don’t want to ruin anything. I already burned out the batteries playing with the cats, so now I have to buy batteries for it, too.

            I just googled color film for Canon 105 megazoom, and it shows something call Kodak 400 Ultramax, but it also says that “135” stuff. Sooo, I am guessing that the only ISO thingy for it is maybe 400, where the Minolta will just ISO all over the place, as long as you set something on it. Or maybe that’s the Nikon my father gave me.

            Oh, this analog stuff is sooo confusing! But I read that maybe Annie Liebowitz used a Minolta SRT101? It’s been a while.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

                1. Squeeky – then go to a real camera store and find someone who can identify the camera.

                  1. That is probably what I will have to do. Just pop in and pretend that I know what I am doing, and ask what film they think is best for the Canon. But it still won’t answer the question about whether the films are interchangeable.

                    Which, there doesn’t seem to be anything on the Internet which gives a straight answer. Which means it is probably the dumbest question of all time, like buying two shoes and wondering which one goes on which foot.

                    Oh well. Time to swallow my pride. Gulp. Gulp. Gaaaagh!

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. Squeeky – just tell them it was a gift from a favorite aunt and you don’t know diddle about it. 🙂

                    2. I never warmed up to digital photography, I use it for my job, but to me, the real artwork is in the traditional film method. I used a completely manual exposure camera and had the feel of the right shutter speed vs. aperature to achieve my desired effect for my images. Knowing which speed of film to use, it’s advantages and disadvantages, etc. The good ol’ days. Any 35mm film will work. I am not sure what is left out there. I would recommend starting with a 400 speed film for general use, then experiment from there. You’ll have to check where you can get it processed though… there is no one left in my town who does that. I thought about doing it myself, but investing in the chemistry–that has a relatively short shelf life (if it’s even available) is problematic.
                      Just to tie it back in a little. My good friend, who I grew up with learning this whole photography thing, made the photography business the focus of his life. He was one of those master Kodak guys who ran a pro lab where people sent their best professional images to be processed. He could not adapt to the new digital scene. He became and alcoholic and died in his early 50s. I guess that’s an extreme example of “creative destruction.”

                    3. slohrss29 – I had heard that Kodak had closed its film facility. I am not sure where, even in a place of 4 million, I could get film developed. You can always do b/w in your laundry room or bathroom, but color is another matter.

                      My problem is that I shot everything on slides, so I have about 5000 slides that need to be converted. 🙂

                    4. You don’t have to pretend you know anything about the camera. Just ay you were given it or bought it or found it and don’t know anything about it and ask if they can help you. It’s best to be honest. Any camera expert worth his salt will figure out within minutes that you know nothing about the camera.

            1. It’s Squeeks who needs some camera helo, not me. She isn’t likely to find it here. It’s true, she’d probably get a more valid answer from a woman, especially one who is married and a mither so hasn’t had her intellect extinguished by being on a discussion panel.

            1. Poor “little” damsel in distress? 🤣Good self image is important to someone’s well being, even if completely untrue.

  4. Here is where all the gender diversity crap can lead you – – – The Equifax Hack!

    Female Executive With Music Degree Oversees Largest Computer Hack In World History

    The unprecedented hacking of 143 million Americans’ credit file details, including their social security numbers, government-issued IDs, names, addresses, and other personal information, is raising serious questions about the credentials and academic qualifications of a major corporation’s female head of IT security. Susan Mauldin, who serves as credit-reporting agency Equifax’s Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), appears to lack any proper academic qualifications for her role, which required her to thwart exactly the kind of massive hack that hit her employer in late July.

    With firms desperate to hire women in senior IT and other STEM roles under threat of financial sanctions from governments, it is possible that Susan Mauldin got her current job because of her gender. She has a bachelor’s degree in music composition and a master’s degree in music composition, a major that seems to have had no relevance whatsoever to protecting the details of the affected 143 million people.

    For Equifax, this might become one of the costliest mistakes imaginable. Vanity Fair and other outlets are reporting a somewhat likely $70 billion loss as a result of anticipated litigation. One Senator, Heidi Heitkamp, is presently calling for at least some senior Equifax employees to be jailed, though in this case she is mostly responding to allegations of insider trading after several executives sold company shares before reporting the hack.

    Regarding college dropouts like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, at least they made sure that their uncompleted degrees roughly matched the fields they made their billions in. The same cannot be said of Susan Mauldin, whose entire job description revolves around protecting sensitive data.

    http://www.returnofkings.com/130013/female-executive-with-music-degree-oversees-largest-computer-hack-in-world-history

    There is more info at the link!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  5. Olly wrote: “How about this; everytime DSS posts a comment, you fact-check it and when you have proof it’s false, then report that. When you have proof it’s true, you report that. That’s objective and reasonable, right? If you won’t accept that, then you’re not interested in the truth being reported.”

    Some faulty logic, there, Olly old boy. (You seem to have a lot of spare time, though. Maybe a logic course would serve you well.)

  7. Turley, study some genetics. So-called race is genetic differences connected with skin color and a few other minor physical characteristics such as nose shape. Those genes are not connected to intellect, no matter how measured.

    However, men and women have different brain structure. An obvious difference is the thicker corpus callosum in women. For this reason, both genetic men and genetic women ought to be represented.

    Not so for race or self-assigned gender except for discussions of those topics themselves.

    1. Researchers have now found thicker corpus callosi in individuals on the autism spectrum who show a particular type of small gene deletion on chromosome 16. These individuals performed poorly when assessed for interaction and home living skills. Do you propose to include them also on upcoming panels because of their unique structural brain difference? Are we now to subject panelists to structural MRI analyses to ascertain the best participants? Or was your whole comment snark?

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170808074314.htm

      1. Cape Cod Skeptic – just because they don’t play well in the sand box doesn’t mean you can keep them off a panel. They might have been pre-screened off the panel to begin with. 🙂

        1. Hey, I’m all for including more people on the autism spectrum in all aspects of society, but when they start dressing people down for being idiots don’t say I didn’t warn you.

      2. Cape Cod, we will always be among those that wish to catalogue people so that they can have an argument to promote their particular theories. Right now feminism is in and these people want to follow leaders like Linda Sansour who promote the destruction of the modern woman all in the name of feminism.

          1. Perhaps you can explain how allowing women on panels would lead to the “destruction of women”. Presumably you mean the destruction of YOUR idea of what a woman should be. Why does being on panels not lead to the destruction of men?

              1. Cape Cod, In the past one would obtain a degree or advancement based upon merit. Today it seems to be based more and more on PC attitudes. I understand prejudice against Asians, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, American Indians, etc. and now Caucasians. I certainly don’t advocate any sort of prejudice, but I always have to think of the question of who I want flying the plane I am on, a pilot advanced through merit or through PC?

                1. Indeed, it’s quite obvious to anyone with eyes in their head. But I guess examples like Squeeky obligingly provided are necessary to drive the point home. I’ve dealt with “social promotion” throughout my ~25 years of consulting with state and federal government employees. Examples of outright incompetence, but are protected from firing due to quotas. Makes it impossible to get anything done. Luckily, for the most part, nothing I work on is acutely life-threatening.

                  1. A friend of mine recounted how government jobs were managed. In one example there was an employee that was terrible and causing terrible problems in their department making everyone look bad. They could not fire the employee or do anything about the problems so the boss to save her own department advanced the employee which placed her elsewhere. Sounds looney, is looney, but apparently that is what happens with all thos cr-p we have to face due to PC. In another incident the department had extra money at the end of the year. Rather than return it to the taxpayer and run the risk of lower budgets in future years they replaced all the two year old computers with new expensive ones. Spending other people’s money leads to vast overspending.

                    1. Public employees should be terminable at will should three people in their chain of command (or fewer, if they haven’t more than two working over them) countersign an instruction so ordering. What’s important in public employment is that people be recruited and promoted according to the results of timely examinations. That people have tenure in those positions is simply bad.

                    2. Allan, government contracts work that way; if you don’t spend all your money in the fiscal year, the granting agency will reduce your funding for the following year. This is the way the system works, and everyone knows it. As far as the employee situation you describe–social promotion, failing upwards, it’s prevalent everywhere, but obviously that manager did what he had to do to keep the peace and make sure his group worked effectively. It’s unfortunate he had to fob his problem off on some other group, but I’m not surprised in the least. DSS’s suggestion to you re: remedy is a good one, and having 3 people agree on the firing of problem employees means protection from accusations of bias/harassment.

                    3. DSS, no disagreement, but I do find your methodology for firing interesting. Tenure should be the unusual, not the usual.

                    6. There was a book published quite a few years ago, called the Peter Principle. It showed how employees are usually promoted or “kicked upstairs” until they reach their level of incompetence–the job they can’t do, and that’s where they stay. It’s a good book, still relevant today. Finally when the author was asked who runs the companies if everyone reaches his level of incompetence, he said it was the secretaries, the only ones who never get promoted and who, therefore, never reach their level of incompetence.

                  2. Someone very wise said that equality won’t be attained when women sit in boardrooms. It will come only when female schlemiels get ahead as fast as a male schlemiels.

                    The same could be said about Black schlemiels vs White schlemiels.

                    1. “Equality” is not a goal. Procedures congruent with the common good would be the goal. Those procedures promote achievement within the boundaries set by moral imperatives. Women-in-general will not ‘advance as fast’ because they want different things out of life on average. As for the black population, we’ve 400 years of history under out belt and all the culture and habits which go with navigating that history. Blacks, on average, have somewhat different agendas. In a free society, different segments of society will have different observable properties.

                    2. So tell us what those properties are, oh wise one. That’s the kind of thing that has justified keeping women and people fo color.down for millennia. Claim they have different agendas. Different from whom? The superior white male? Racists and sexists have made white males the standard and criticise every deviation from that false standard. Therefore veryone’s agenda rhat deviates no matter how slightly from the agenda of the white male is suspect.

  8. Pity universities are hell-bent on a diversity of opinions, only race and gender. Speaking of which, how’s that going in genetics class these days? What are they teaching kids about X and Y chromosomes? Just wondering.

  9. Turkey seems focused on exclusion which doesn’t seem to be required. No male panelist need be removed, in some cases involving a woman may be required. No big deal.

    1. No male panelist need be removed,

      If they cannot hold a panel because they cannot locate a token broad, the panelists who were slated to appear are excluded. If the panel discussion is disrupted by having on it some dame who might rather be elsewhere, their participation is truncated.

        1. The spokesman added the secretary’s office ultimately decided the use of military aircraft was “unnecessary” after it became apparent that other methods for secure communication were available.

          I expect our public servants to exceed the limits of their offices. So did the framers of our system of government. Our system of checks and balances worked. The request was deemed inappropriate and denied. The swamp critters aren’t affected by such things which means conservatives go begging via FOIA requests.

          You may need to double-up on your red pill dosage. When you do, do another drive-by on any thread of your choosing and let us know how that DWS/Awan/DNC/Democrat investigation is progressing. For some reason it’s not getting much attention from the MSM.

          1. “DWS/Awan/DNC/Democrat investigation is progressing.”

            Thank heavens for places like Zerohedge.

            1. Yes, the Dumbocrats would certainly like this little national security risk swept under the rug. Hillary’s Pity Party tour provides a nice distraction, but blissfully it can’t last for long.

              1. Olly – I heard that Aswan was asking for immunity for a tremendous amount of information on DWS and the DNC.

                1. I had read that as well. My suspicion is this corruption will dwarf Watergate and expose a great many people. For all we know, Susan Rice admitting she did the unmasking was an effort to get out in front of what she knows will be discovered through this investigation.

                  1. Whatever is discovered there is one fact to keep in mind. Trump has a lot more money to pay people off than Nixon ever had–and there are a lot more people in 2017 who will accept bribes. Money talks. People listen.

                2. It remains to be seen if anything really happens with this; I won’t hold my breath. The Lou Dobbs interview keeps pushing DWS, and I understand why, but other Dems employed these foreigners, including Rep. Julia Brownley (CA-26). The investigation needs to include the small fry, also.

                  1. Cape Cod Skeptic – from what I have read, at one time the brothers were the IT for most of the Democrats. If they were siphoning off info, it could really be interesting.

                    1. Paul, I agree it COULD be very interesting……I just don’t have a lot of faith that the truth will out. I hope I am wrong, though. 🙂

    2. Same narcissistic personality disorder troll, just different names. Tedious and sad.

  11. What could possibly go wrong by making one’s race or sexual identity a central qualifier for inclusion? It’s not as though they are running for President.

    1. How about the decades or centuries where sex and race were the main qualifiers and you couldn’t get on a panel or even get a job unless you were white and male? Do we overlook that? Prtend that race and gender were not the main qualifiers for jobs or advancement?,

  12. Did anyone see the descendants

    of the slaves that Lincoln freed

    “shopping”

    in Ft. Lauderdale during Hurricane Irma?

    Funny, “shoppers” usually stay away

    from stores during a storm.

    Like rank, Affirmative Action does have its privileges – AAHIP!

  13. Actually, Brigety appears to be someone with connections but weak professional focus and accomplishment. He attended the Naval Academy and was commissioned an officer, but seems to have spent only a modest amount of time as a working naval officer (about 2 years), with the rest of his time devoted to positions on administrative staff or detailed to graduate study abroad. He was an academic for six years, but appears to have not been granted tenure where he was working. I do not have access to IBSS or ABC Poli Sci to undertake a proper review of his bibliography, Cannot help but notice that GoogleScholar turns up four pieces published by Dr. Brigety over a period of 14 years. One was an adaptation (for university press publication) of his dissertation. One of the other three wasn’t peer reviewed (and is on a humbug topic). He then had a series of discretionary appointments in the foreign policy apparat during the late Bush period and the Obama 1st term. He’s also been employed (in one case it appears as a consultant and in another on salary) by a pair of rancid advocacy groups. One is a red-haze pseudo-human-rights organization which has been around for about 40 years and the other is one of the many components of the sorosphere. His modest body of writing has jumped from ethical questions regarding military technology to ‘human rights’ humbug to international development.

    As a scholar, he appears fairly rank and file, a candidate for a position at one of the state colleges in Maryland or Virginia. As for his time in government (and in the military), activity is not accomplishment. As for his time working for Soros, well, we all have to earn a living. Nothing really wrong with this man as academics go, but why is he ‘respected’?

    2. DSS wrote: “Actually, Brigety appears to be someone with connections but weak professional focus and accomplishment.”

      No need to view his life through a distorted — and possibly cloudy — lens. Let’s start with this:

      Education

      Ph.D., International Affairs, University of Cambridge, England

      M.Phil., International Affairs, University of Cambridge, England

      B.S., Political Science, United States Naval Academy

      Publications

      “Why Abandoning Paris is a Disaster for America,” (co-author) Foreign Policy, June 2017.
      “From a Shining City on a Hill to a Banana Republic,” Foreign Policy, May 2017.
      “Diversity and U.S. National Security,” Foreign Affairs, December 2016.
      “The New Pan-Africanism: Implications for US Africa Policy,” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, Vol. 58, Iss. 4, 2016.
      “Swords and Ploughshares,” Center for American Progress, January 2009.
      “Humanity as a Weapon of War,” Center for American Progress, July 2008.
      Ethics/ Technology and the American Way of War: Cruise Missiles and U.S. Security Policy (London: Routledge, 2007).
      “Just War Theory and Child Soldiers” with Rachel Stohl, in Rethinking the Just War Tradition (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2006).
      “Caring for Carthage: Humanity as a Weapon of War.” Praxis: The Journal of Human Security, Vol. XXI, 2006.

      Distinctions

      Life Member, Council on Foreign Relations (June 2008 – Present)

      Adjunct Senior Fellow for African Peace and Security Issues, Council on Foreign Relations

      Board of Trustees, The Carter Center

      Board of Directors, Atlantic Council

      1. From the site/page supplied by JT — for those who didn’t bother or take the time to look — but may be interested.

        https://elliott.gwu.edu/brigety

        Areas of Expertise

        U.S. foreign policy in southern Africa, security in sub-Saharan Africa, U.S. refugee programs in Africa, humanitarian partnerships, international relations, human rights, and humanitarian assistance

        Ambassador Reuben E. Brigety II most recently served as the appointed Representative of the United States of America to the African Union and Permanent Representative of the United States to the UN Economic Commission for Africa on September 3, 2013. Prior to this appointment, Ambassador Brigety served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of African Affairs from November 14, 2011 until September 3, 2013 with responsibility for Southern African and Regional Security Affairs.

        From December 2009 to November 2011, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. In this capacity, he supervised U.S. refugee programs in Africa, managed U.S. humanitarian diplomacy with major international partners, and oversaw the development of international migration policy.

        A native of Jacksonville, Florida, Ambassador Brigety previously served as Director of the Sustainable Security Program at the Center for American Progress from January 2008 to November 2009 and as a Special Assistant in the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance at the U.S. Agency for International Development from January 2007 to January 2008. From November 2008 to January 2009, he also served as a senior advisor for Development and Security to the U.S. Central Command Assessment Team in Washington and in Doha, Qatar.

        Prior to his work in the policy arena, Ambassador Brigety served as an assistant professor of government and politics at George Mason University and at the School of International Service at American University between August 2003 and April 2009. In addition, Ambassador Brigety was a researcher with the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch (HRW) from August 2001- May 2003, where he conducted research missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Before joining HRW, Ambassador Brigety was an active duty U.S. naval officer and held several staff positions in the Pentagon and in fleet support units.

        Ambassador Brigety is a 1995 distinguished midshipman graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, where he earned a B.S. in political science (with merit), served as the Brigade Commander and received the Thomas G. Pownall Scholarship. He also holds an M.Phil. and a Ph.D. in international relations from the University of Cambridge, England. Ambassador Brigety is a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a Life Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a recipient of the Council’s International Affairs Fellowship.

        2. Elaine, simply ignoring my points and adding verbal chaff does not refute my argument.

          1. Any working academic at a research university has a terminal degree.

          2. His career in the Navy was truncated and pre-occupied with odd things (administrative staff work and graduate schooling).

          3. It’s a reasonable inference he was denied tenure at Mason. Not a slam dunk, just a reasonable inference. Academics who are denied tenure at a research university often have a second chance at a teaching institution. Often they do not. It’s not hard to figure why he might have been denied tenure at Mason: his publication record is more characteristic of faculty at one of the more selective teaching institutions, not faculty at a research university, where a vita with just four peer-reviewed publications generally means goodbye. At the more selective teaching institutions, you’d have a shot with four publications depending on the discipline and depending on the precise publication; seven publications is about normal for someone applying for tenure in that environment. If his career trajectory had been normal, he’d be an associate professor on the faculty at Towson State, not the dean at GW.

          4. Political science is a heterogenous discipline and in their published research faculty typically stay in their lane: political theory, international relations, comparative politics, domestic politics, or foreign-area studies. Even within that, they often limit themselves to subspecialites in their publications e.g. Congress, local politics, political corruption, international political economy, Enlightement-era political thought, etc.

          1. Just because the desperate one — DSS — says that it’s true, doesn’t make it so. She’s talks a good game, but needs to be fact-checked. Even when she’s wrong, she continues to stand her ground. Start here:

            https://jonathanturley.org/2017/09/04/exoneration-first-investigation-later-comey-under-fire-over-draft-clearing-clinton-written-before-interviewing-key-witnesses/comment-page-1/#comment-1653034

            DSS… — gettin’ it wrong, but still claimin’ that she’s right.

            (And she’s been known to cite the “esteemed” Keith Ablow.)

              1. @DSS:

                His own material stands — and speaks for itself — to counter your biased (and not always accurate) analysis.

                1. His own material was not refereed by-and-large, is not voluminous, and is published in quite ordinary venues. Political science faculties might give a pass on peer-review for something as broadly circulated as Foreign Affairs since that’s a professional venue. He’s a rank-and-file academic, like hundreds-of-thousands of others. He’s not an academic dean at GW because of scholarly accomplishment.

                1. I said absolutely nothing incorrect and my primary argument was not over discrete bits of information but over their interpretation.

                  You’re dishonest. And you project that upon others.

                  1. DSS, twisting the truth: “I said absolutely nothing incorrect and my primary argument was not over discrete bits of information but over their interpretation.”

                    DSS, lying (and projecting): “You’re dishonest. And you project that upon others.”

                    All anyone needs to do is read the exchange. It’s that simple. You were wrong, but wouldn’t admit it:

                    https://jonathanturley.org/2017/09/04/exoneration-first-investigation-later-comey-under-fire-over-draft-clearing-clinton-written-before-interviewing-key-witnesses/comment-page-1/#comment-1653034

          2. Desperate, She is a one trick pony, quoting liberal sources obsessively and saying little herself. She says and adds little because there isn’t much upstairs, but just as a few mediocre poems.

            1. She seems to be referring to some exchange we had weeks ago on some other topic irrelevant to the one at hand. I’d wager she’s lying about that too.

                1. Keep an eye on DSS and her “facts.”

                  LOL! That was hilarious coming from you. There is sufficient evidence with DSS’s facts on any number of topics that she hardly needs to be rebuked by you. But whatever you do, don’t stop swinging. With any luck you might reach the Mendoza line.

                  1. All DSS had to say was that s/he got it wrong — that s/he made a mistake. S/he wouldn’t admit it then, and s/he’s still not taking responsibility for it.

                    This doesn’t have anything to do with me, Olly.

                    Smart readers will fact-check DSS.

                    1. I’ve described Dr. Brigety precisely. You keep linking to a dispute we had weeks ago about whether Stephen Mnuchin was an employee of George Soros or whether Soros was an investor in Mnuchin’s firm, which is irrelevant to a dispute about Brigety.

                    2. All DSS had to say was that s/he got it wrong — that s/he made a mistake. S/he wouldn’t admit it then, and s/he’s still not taking responsibility for it.

                      First of all, none of us is responsible to you or anyone else to admit anything. DSS made a comment and if you or anyone else disputes it, then prove the statement false. Anyone concerned with the truth will weigh both sides of the issue and draw their own conclusion. The facts are the admission. Anything else is pure ego.

                    5. Smart readers will fact-check DSS.

                      Is that supposed to be earth-shattering? How about this; everytime DSS posts a comment, you fact-check it and when you have proof it’s false, then report that. When you have proof it’s true, you report that. That’s objective and reasonable, right? If you won’t accept that, then you’re not interested in the truth being reported.

                    6. Olly wrote: “How about this; everytime DSS posts a comment, you fact-check it and when you have proof it’s false, then report that. When you have proof it’s true, you report that. That’s objective and reasonable, right? If you won’t accept that, then you’re not interested in the truth being reported.”

                      Some faulty logic, there, Olly old boy. (You seem to have a lot of spare time, though. Maybe a logic course would serve you well.)

                2. Anonymous, I’m not sure of the veracity of what either of you say because I didn’t follow the dialogue long enough or in enough depth, but what I do know anonymous is that you will attack with a citation that is lengthy and you won’t point out the specifics in an effort to protect yourself and your ego. You want people to fight with third parties while you hide. When they do respond and it appears to make sense suddenly you run out of time and escape.

                  That is what I have seen and therefore I can’t find any benefit in anything you say even if I agree with you. I have had my own disputes with DSS, but DSS has said what DSS believes and doesn’t hide. I am sure DSS is wrong many times, but you don’t prove it by providing citations. The way to prove it is with answers and then respond DIRECTLY to the responses made.

                  In this present dispute as I have already said I can’t tell who is right or wrong and I don’t want to waste my time reading all this crap including lengthy citations, but at least I believe DSS has attempted to be honorable. I cannot say the same for you until you start responding to good answers that do not lead to your preconceived conclusions.

                  1. @ allan

                    Read the “citations” — or don’t read them. I don’t care.

                    And, yes, my time is limited. Furthermore, there are times when it’s pointless to engage.

                    Here’s the thing: What you think doesn’t matter to me.

            2. I don’t know what happened between you and “Elaine”, Nicky, but get over it: It’s history. Go write a book and see if anyone will publish it.

              1. anonymous, That makes a newbie wonder why you care what happened between Nick and “Elaine” unless of course there is a relationship between you and “Elaine”.

                  2. I didn’t talk about other people. I talked about you, “That makes a newbie wonder why you care what happened between Nick and “Elaine” unless of course there is a relationship between you and “Elaine””

                    1. @allan

                      “That makes a newbie wonder why you care what happened between Nick and “Elaine””

                      I have never said that I “care what happened between Nick and Elaine”, allan.

                      Let me amend my earlier statement:

                      “I don’t know — or care — what happened between you and “Elaine”, Nicky, but get over it: It’s history.”

                    3. @allan

                      Nope, not confused.

                      Allan wrote: “Anonyous, I believe my response was to frankly telling her that her response was tangential to what I had said. I don’t have the slightest idea of what you are commenting about,”

                      When the reply buttons are missing, it makes commenting more difficult — especially when one is in a hurry. Never mind.

                    4. “Nope, not confused.” “When the reply buttons are missing, it makes commenting more difficult — especially when one is in a hurry. Never mind.”

                      Anonymous, In other words because of the difficulty presented by the lack of a reply button you became confused and thought I was talking to you when I was talking to frankly.

                      You then write “never mind”. If you really meant that you wouldn’t have replied. Therefore, you must have said that to make a point.. What point you wished to make lies in your head and is probably is just as confused as the other one.

                  1. And the only reason that I sometimes make a point of mentioning that I’m not Elaine — given the sh*t that Nick Spinelli started — is that I don’t want my comments, here, to be linked/tied to her, in any way.

                    2. It looks like a very happy little kid’s book.

                      I did a kid’s book once for my nephew. I drew it all out, and all that. I could probably not get it published because of copyright issues. I called it Thomas the Tank Engine Meets Frankenstein! It was very scary, and my nephew loved it!

                      My sister was less than thrilled for some reason. I will see if he kept it, and if so, I may try to photo it and put it on line.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    3. Squeeky – I am sure there will be copyright issues from the Thomas the Tank people. 🙂

                    2. allan, anonymous wins Queen For a Day virtue signalling. “I just bought Elaine’s book and plan on donating it to the local library.”

                      A couple of thoughts. Does any library want the book? If you loved the book you wouldn’t give it away. You would keep it, and virtue signal saying you are making a donation to the library.

                      It is plainly difficult for knuckle dragging liberals to understand “anonymous” has been used by countless people as their alias, all having one thing in common, NO IMAGINATION. That’s one of the factors in my deducing AN anonymous, is Elaine.

                    3. Yes. It’s much more imaginative to call yourself Nick Spinelli rather than “Anonymous.” It tells us so much more about you than “Anonymous” would.

                    4. Anonyous, I believe my response was to frankly telling her that her response was tangential to what I had said. I don’t have the slightest idea of what you are commenting about,

                3. Elaine became a grandmother and assumed daycare for both of the children. She retired from guest blogging and blogging in general.

                  1. Thanks for the added clarification, frankly.

                    “She retired from guest blogging and blogging in general.’

                    Smart woman.

                    1. Absolutely..She was good chef,also. I made her almond cake a couple of times and wanted to try her pierogies. She is a solid person and not the “nut” some are trying to make her out to be

                    2. @ frankly

                      “She is a solid person and not the “nut” some are trying to make her out to be”

                      Truer than true — and it sickens me that her name has been brought into this…

                    3. Your solid person has offered 10 separate comments concerned with a passing exchange on a thread several weeks ago, all concerning a factual point which was unimportant in the course of the discussion at that time (and perfectly irrelevant to this one).

                    5. And you’re wrong, yet again, DSS. (Yep, she definitely needs to be fact-checked.)

                      (DSS continues to disparage Elaine M. — based on the erroneous input from the “crackerjack PI”, Nick Spinelli.)

      2. One only has to read Bridgety’s article “Why Abandoning Paris is a Disaster for America” to see an example of the dean’s sloppy thinking.

        1. Cape Cod Skeptic – I am not going to read the article, but who was abandoning Paris and why? I thought sub-Saharan Africa was his area of expertise.

          1. Trump’s abandoning Paris (and the rest of the world). Brigety is just like all the rest who thought the wealth distribution that was the Paris Accord was a good thing. He couches the abandonment of the Paris Accord as allowing the Chinese to take global leadership position, putting our businesses at a competitive disadvantage (WRT clean energy technologies), dooming our children and grandchildren to increasing environmental disasters, and retreating from the global stage WRT getting consensus to fight global issues such as pandemics. Nothing hundreds of alarmists haven’t written before.

      3. Elaine, 5 of the 9 publications you listed were not peer-reviewed. A sixth is ambiguous. We can check Web of Science, but I don’t think Survival or Praxis are top journals in political science.

  14. He is a well-respected diplomat and academic

    Just why? If he’s so valuable, why is he promoting policies which are inane?

      1. They are inane, and would be recognized as such by professional women who do not have a taste for the inane.

                    1. On second thought, a logic class might be wasted time and effort on your part. “Lost cause” comes to mind. : )

      2. Inclusion on a panel because you have a uterus (or a thicker corpus callosum, lol) is absurd and any respectable female academic or professional would refuse. To accept is to play along with the whole charade.

        1. …which is why they will need to include “respectable female academics or professionals” — and there are many.

          1. Yes, there are many, but there are not necessarily many in the particular field that a panel requires. Mandated inclusion of a female or minority for every panel may require lowering academic standards or reaching far afield. What if the panel is scheduled at a time that is a conflict for one or more female (or minority) experts? The panel must be cancelled because she can’t make it? Unnecessary complication to reach a goal with unproven benefits.

            1. Cape Cod Skeptic – I did my Master’s thesis on Ben Jonson. No one in my department really knew anything about him so the went to the Medival-Renaissance people and asked if they had a Jonson scholar they could borrow while I was defending my thesis. Comes my thesis defense and it turns out their Jonson scholar is actually a Samuel Johnson scholar. My defense took about 10 minutes. 🙂

              1. That’s brilliant! Easiest 10 minutes of your life, huh? So what was your take on Jonson? I shamefacedly admit to scant exposure to his brilliance (arguably his best-loved poems On My First Son, and Song: To Celia). Lovely stuff.

                1. Cape Cod Skeptic – I was working on one of his ‘city’ plays, Epicoene, or the Silent Woman. It has all these inside jokes and references to London and the surrounding area. I had submitted my thesis with the minimum amount of time allowed to examine it. Since I had borrowed heavily from Interlibrary Loan, our library did not have many of the sources. It was 200 pages of an annotated bibliography for the study or production of the play. Plus, a 40 page introduction. My committee was at a loss as to what to ask. After we officially closed my defense, we spent the next hour debating whether Shakespeare would be better off in modern English or early modern English.

                  1. Wow, above my pay grade. Your committee must have felt like they were drinking water from a fire hydrant. I take a Shakespeare class every fall with the Rhetoric teacher at son’s old high school. She is a drama geek. Othello this year. We focus a lot on production quality and director choices in casting, dialogue, staging issues, etc. in various different films and films of theatre productions. Definitely a fun, painless way to enjoy The Bard.

                    1. Cape Cod Skeptic -having seen 17 of Shakepeare’s plays, including all the film versions, I would posit that some are neither fun or painless. 😉 There are two Shakespeare movies that still drive me crazy. The modernized Romeo + Juliet and one with James Mason. However, there are some that have blown me away, like Ran and Throne of Blood.

                    3. R&J: are you talking about Baz Luhrmann’s version, or the one with Hailee Steinfeld (haven’t seen that one, it got terrible reviews) Aside: Hailee went to preschool with my younger son when we lived in CA; she was a sweet little girl back then). The really good Othello productions we won’t be able to see b/c they are proprietary to the National Theatre, BBC, etc. Am hoping to see clips of Patrick Stewart and cast in the photo-negative version. I adore Richard III, we did Richard II last year and that was quite good (particularly the version with Ben Wishaw and Rory Kinnear), Hamlet with David Tennant is flippin’ brilliant (but then he’s a god). The only one I haven’t liked was King Lear (even with Sir McKellen), but then I found it impossible to identify with any of the characters and I found the lines just didn’t sing when compared to other plays (Hamlet, Richard III). The RSC version of Julius Caesar with Paterson Joseph as Brutus was incredible. Please feel free to recommend your own particular faves to supplement my education!

                    4. Cape Cod Skeptic – the BBC did the entire canon years back. Burton’s Hamlet is exception, if only for Hume Cronyn. It was screened live to theatres across the country. It is available in b/w. Both Ran and Throne of Blood are exceptional. Those are Akira Kurasawa’s adaptations into feudal Japan of King Lear and MacBeth. Parts of both will chill you to your bones. Not sure if you know but Japan has a huge Shakespeare Society, one of the largest in the world.

                    5. Paul, yes I was aware BBC did all. Was not aware of Japanese Shakespeare society, but did vaguely know about Kurosawa’s foundations for those two films. I will check out your suggestions. Many thanks.

              2. No wonder you knew who this Spenser person was! Ben Jonson wrote something that was probably later picked up by John Gay in his Beggar’s Opera, which in turn was picked up by Bertold Brecht in his Three Penny Opera, or was it Kurt Weill??? Anywho, it was the whole Mack the Knife thing, IIRC. Which I may not be because I just fell asleep in the chair with a cat while reading the Beauty and the Beast libretto, which the one Phillip Glass did was an opera, because I found it last night.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. Squeeky – Brecht and Weill did Three-Penny Opera together. I have two funny stories about that show. I was hired to run a spotlight for a production of Three-Penny Opera and it was in the olden days before all spots were electric. Anyway, I was supposed to follow one of the female characters and as her song ended, I was to cut the shutter. However, the shutter stuck about 1/4 left leaving me with a spotlight on her boobs. 🙂

                  Second, we literally had a one-handed curtain puller. I do not know why, but the curtain would slowly jerk its way closed.

                  Show itself was good. Excellent talent.

            2. Then there should be a second appointed for each member for just that sort of possibility. Where there’s a will there’s a way. Where there’s foot dragging, there’s always an impossible scenario.

            3. What if ithe panel is scheduled at a time that is a conflict for one or more male experts? The panel must be cancelled because he can’t make it? Unnecessary complication to reach a goal with unproven benefits.

              “Mandated inclusion of a female or minority for every panel may require lowering academic standards or reaching far afield.”

              That is a misgynistic statement. ,anynwomen are more qualified than many men who would be invited to attend.

              Mandated inclusion of males only for every panel may require lowering academic standards or reaching far afield.

              1. What part of that statement indicates a dislike or hatred of women?
                “any women are more qualified than many men who would be be invited to attend.”
                Your statement is unsupported by evidence, and does not refute what I said.

                Nobody is mandating males only. Try not to manufacture straw men, or in your case, straw women.

                1. No one may be mandating males only, but it seems to work,out that way more often than not. Ever wonder why? I can imagine a panel on women’s reproduction issues and abortion containing only men, This was not an unusual,situation for many years. You still see it happening today. Even panels of medical doctors on any subject are predominately men even though there were many femal doctors even more qualified than the men on such panes. I would like to see a panel made up exclusively of women discussing men’s sexuality.

                2. The part where you said, “Mandated inclusion of a female or minority for every panel may require lowering academic standards or reaching far afield.”

                  Of course you would not recognize that as misogynistic. How about mandated exclusivity of males on every panel? Apparently you don’t think that would require lowering academic standards. In fact, there are plenty of women in academia who are head and shoulders above many men, academically and intellectually. so mandating exclusively male panels automatically lowers standards by keeping better qualified women off.

          2. How about exclusive inclusion on panels because you have testicles? Is that any better? Yet that’s been the standard throughout history.

Comments are closed.