I wasn't clear enough yesterday. Sorry. I didn't mean to say that Harvard never tenures anyone (which is obviously false): I meant (unlike at other campuses) that *associate professors* at Harvard do not have tenure.
For a trivial illustration of this, see the first sentence of this news article: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=161800
(Obviously, everything else everyone has said about the awfulness of his book is right.)
Chris
On 24/4/08 07:21, "andie nachgeborenen" <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually, that's what I thought and in Goldhagen's case, feared.
>
>
> --- On Wed, 4/23/08, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] I Hate Daniel Goldhagen. (Was Re: Reading suggestions
>> needed
>> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>> Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 9:44 PM
>> Chris Brooke wrote:
>>
>>> ... Harvard never gave tenure to Goldhagen. (He was
>> once an associate prof.
>>> In the Government Department, but they don't have
>> tenure at Harvard; he never
>>> applied for tenure, and, if he had, Harvard wouldn¹t
>> have been able to tenure
>>> him without tearing up most of its existing procedures
>> regarding confidential
>>> peer review, etc.) Goldhagen did teach at Harvard for
>> years after Hitler's
>>> Willing Executioners came out, I think, but mostly
>> it's been part-time
>>> teaching in the Social Studies program, which I
>> imagine is on a fairly ad hoc
>>> basis (though they probably called him a
>> "lecturer" rather than an
>>> "adjunct").
>>
>> Harvard of course gives tenure, and Goldhagen was an
>> associate professor of
>> government and social studies, a tenured position. --CGE
>> ___________________________________