Nearly a century ago, the great American author and social critic Upton Sinclair wrote a withering portrait of the College President of his day. Sinclair’s College President is a manipulative, cynical figure, a smooth operator who effortlessly shuttles between the stuffy lecture halls of academe and the smoky backrooms of the business world, ultimately and solely serving the interests of the latter while modestly taking “the salary of a plutocrat” for his efforts. When faced with faculty opposition, Sinclair’s College President always gets his way, whether by cultivating alliances through flattery and handouts or by mobilizing a “kitchen cabinet” of administrators to discredit opponents, play campus interest groups against each other, and fabricate reasons to eliminate troublesome individuals and programs outright (“Perhaps they find that they have too many men in that department; or they decide to combine the departments of literature and obstetrics.”).
But while Sinclair’s College President possesses a “thousand different devices” to achieve his goals, he always invokes a single value to justify them: a selfless love of truth. Writes Sinclair: “Always they tell the professor — with their right hands upon the Bible they swear it to the public and to the newspapers — that it is purely ‘an administrative matter,’ there is no question of academic freedom involved, and everyone in their institution lives, moves, and has in his being the single-minded love of truth.”
Emory’s current President appears particularly fond of the rhetoric of truth. If you visit the main Emory webpage, you will be greeted by a “Welcome from President James Wagner,” who writes that “As a destination for path-breaking researchers, renowned teachers, superb students, and dedicated, competent staff, Emory University strives to help its community members fulfill their highest aspirations. Our vision is to discover truth, share it, and ignite in others a passion for its pursuit.” In his controversial recent essay in Emory Magazine, which incidentally also includes a rather different invocation of “highest aspirations,” we encounter yet another appeal to the value of “truth,” this time as a guiding principle for how Wagner argues university discourse should be conceived: “Part of the messy inefficiency of university life arises from the intention to include as many points of view as possible, and to be open to the expectation that new ideas will emerge. The important thing to keep in view is that this process works so long as every new idea points the way toward a higher shared ideal, namely truth.” Emory is a place, President Wagner appears to assure us, where difficult questions are bravely asked and serious answers honestly given, and this process of dialogic inquiry exists in the service of truth, a value which we all share.
At the last faculty meeting, President Wagner was given an opportunity to answer serious questions posed in good faith by faculty who displayed considerable bravery by asking them. As the Wheel reports: “One faculty member asked Wagner about what connection he was trying to make in his column and whether he was calling on the liberal arts faculty to compromise in light of the department changes. Wagner responded that the column was first meant to demonstrate the importance of compromise in reference to the state of politics in the country. The column’s connection to liberal arts was only that Emory ‘has a responsibility to prepare people for that ability,’ Wagner said.”
As a test case of the imperative to honor “truth” in response to “courageous inquiry,” this response is simply astounding. In his article, Wagner did indeed gesture to contemporary legislative gridlock in Washington concerning the fiscal cliff – but only briefly, and as a pivot to address something nearer to home: “Whatever the outcome of this fiscal debate over the next months or years, the polarization of our day and the lessons of our forebears point to a truth closer to our university.” And what was this “truth closer to our university”? Precisely the raging controversy over the program cuts announced in September: “At Emory of late we have had many discussions about the ideal–and the reality–of the liberal arts within a research university,” Wagner wrote. “All of us who love Emory share a determination that the university will continue trailblazing the best way for research universities to contribute to human well-being and stewardship of the earth in the twenty-first century. This is a high and worthy aspiration. It is tempered by the hard reality that the resources to achieve this aspiration are not boundless; our university cannot do everything we might wish to do, or everything that other universities do.” President Wagner’s article was about the program cuts to the liberal arts at Emory, and for him to claim otherwise inaccurately represents his own words.
What Wagner wrote in December is a matter of public record, remaining online on Emory’s own website and readable in the 110,000 hard copies sent out to alumni. Wagner’s response to the question put to him by that faculty member also unfolded in the public record, this time in front of a reporter from the Wheel and before the entire assembled college faculty. There are words that could aptly describe this response. A selfless pursuit of truth, high aspirations, and a respect for courageous inquiry do not figure among them.
Whatever you may think about the program cuts announced in September (and which are now being euphemized as “department changes”), President Wagner’s baldfaced attempt to deny his public, written statement on the matter should outrage you. This is not a matter of personally “vilifying” our President, but of simply stating the facts, of quoting James Wagner in the full context of his own words. Since the Three-Fifths controversy hit the headlines, President Wagner has repeatedly expressed a stance of selfless gratitude that the “attacks” of national criticism have been “personally directed” at him, and not at Emory more broadly. But the truth of the matter is that it is precisely his personal and self-interested decision to stay in office that has intensified this criticism, and that will continue to damage the Emory brand as long as he remains its representative to the world.
Some ninety years ago, Upton Sinclair saw in the College President a figure who deployed the high-minded rhetoric of truth as a personal shield against criticism and as a warrant for the craven exercise of administrative power, cynical ambition, and shameless careerism. Whatever his high-minded rhetoric of courageous inquiry, ethical dialogue, and love of truth, James Wagner’s brazen response to his faculty and to a now-national audience in fact reveals the profound arrogance of power towards truth, the fact that, as Sinclair wrote, “Such is the advantage of being an autocrat; criticism does not affect you, and whether you are right or whether you are wrong is the same thing.”
To shamelessly invoke the value of truth can cheapen its worth to be sure, and our President has been profligate with that coin indeed. But by this point even the most jaded among us must admit that Emory University, we the Emory community, and, yes, even truth itself all deserve a better advocate and representative than James Wagner.
Patrick Blanchfield is a sixth-year Ph.D. candidate and Woodruff Scholar in the Department of Comparative Literature.
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
It is not a stretch at all to say that Wagner’s column was about the cuts or perhaps, more pointedly, about the how the liberal arts are valued. If you Google “Wagner 3/5 compromise”, the very first link is this blog:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/02/almost-verbatim-emory-university-president-james-wagner-the-35-compromise-is-a-model-to-which-we-should-aspire-also-the-liberal-arts-are-like-slaves-and-should-be-treated-as-such
the last line of which merits reading.
i fully respect and support president wagner, based on his past performance, what he has
accomplished presently, and what he has on the future agenda for emory. i see no
reason to change my thinking in this regard
what substantively does he have on his agenda besides more cuts and less transparency? and why should faculty trust him about any of that, especially when he’s liable to make damaging, unforced, self-inflicted PR disasters like this?
Should he explain the basis for the cuts in the humanities before making the cuts? Is there a pattern of any kind in the cuts so far:
(Liberal Arts ((https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=sander+gilman&oq=san&gs_l=hp.1.0.35i39l2j0l2.2961.4456.0.8409.3.3.0.0.0.0.301.682.0j1j1j1.3.0…0.0…1c.1.7.psy-ab.GgBvDwnJNMI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44342787,d.b2I&fp=e2288168e0a15621&biw=1044&bih=430)); German/Jewish Studies) ?
Should the faculty be consulted before such cuts?
Should the cuts be proportional across the humanities and sciences?
Should the cuts be by attrition?
Should we anticipate a reduction to 4/5 of what we were before the crash?
How will this situation affect donation to Emory vs. Rice, Duke, etc.?
What does Provost Lewis think of this situation?
I always thought that a three-fifths compromise was a sexual tactic. You know two in the pink and one in the stink. Because you’re using 3 out of five fingers. Is that why everyone is so offended?
Emory VP Gary Hauk, is that you?
Well said, Patrick.
James Wagner is just a glad handler. He’s a politician who tells people what they want to hear. If you expect anything more out of him, you’ll end up disappointed.
Yep. It’s kind of shocking how he’d lie, transparently, straight-up to people who know better just to get out of a sticky line of questioning. I guess he probably just doesn’t care.
The Board of Trustees in 100% behind the President. None of the other faculties in nursing, Oxford, public health, medicine, business or law have raised a finger. Not even THEOLOGY! I’d say you all are outnumbered.
Actually, only the Chair of the Board has expressed his support, and that before the crisis reached national media. Significantly also, of the three minority members of the Board, two “could not be reached for comment” about Wagner’s piece, and one said only he had no intention of reading it (!).
President Wagner cannot credibly govern this University if the Faculty of the College vote no confidence in him. Unless that is he wants to abandon the pretense of running an institution for undergraduates. As for the other divisions, that is a matter for their consciences. Perhaps when they find themselves cut, and then compared to human chattel, they will feel differently.
PRESIDENT WAGNER HAS HAD AN OPEN DOOR, AT ALL TIMES, TO STUDENTS, ALUMNI, DONORS, THE BUSINES COMMUNITY, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, THE ACADEMIC COMUNITY, ET AL. HE HAS NEVER DUCKED AN ISSUE AND HAS
BEEN AN OUTSTANDING SPOKESPERSON ON BEHALF OF EMORY UNIVERSITY.
HIS CONDUCT HAS BEEN PROFESSIONAL IN EVERY ASPECT AND HAS
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF. I PERSONALLY SUPPORT HIM WITHOUT RESERVATION
RICHARD WE ARE SO GLADDENED BY YOUR FAITH IN JAMES WAGNER ALL OUR WORRIES HAVE BEEN ASSUAGED BY YOUR FULSOME EXPRESSION OF LIMITLESS SUPPORT EVERYTHING WAS JUST SO WORRISOME AND BOTHERSOME AND VEXING BUT NOW YOU HAVE MADE YOUR FEELINGS KNOWN SO WE CAN ALL RELAX AND BE CALM AND EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE A-OK
And honestly – is supporting someone who blatantly lies to his own employees while claiming ethical thought leadership something to be proud of, even in numbers? Is the silent inaction of people who aren’t paying attention or who aren’t brave enough to call out this man when he outright, on the record, unapologetically lies really something to be proud of?
“Not even THEOLOGY!” – I’m curious about your excitement over the absence of opinion from our esteemed colleagues in the Divinity School. Perhaps your reading is that Jim Wagner himself has even God on his side?
God, Jim Wagner, and Ben Johnson III … the new holy trinity?
SARCASM IS UNCALLED FOR
OK BRO IF YOU SAY SO BUT THE THING THAT GETS ME IS THAT YOU STILL HAVEN’T SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HOW JAMES WAGNER LIED TO HIS OWN EMPLOYEES WHEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HIS ARTICLE RE: THE CUTS. SO LYING IS OK BUT SARCASM IS NOT?
WHAT ARE THE LIES THAT YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO?????
AND I AM NOT YOUR BRO
bro until you actually read and engage with the claims in the article – which are evidence-based and use only Jim Wagner’s own words, no more, no less, you’re lucky I’m just calling you bro and not calling you son
Richard there are bunch of replies to you below.
bro until you actually engage with the claims in the article – which are evidence-based and use only Jim Wagner’s own words, no more, no less, you’re lucky I’m just calling you bro and not calling you son
Tits or STFU!!!
Tits or STFU!!!
This book should become required reading at Emory:
The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind http://www.amazon.com/The-Victims-Revolution-Identity-Studies/dp/0061807370/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364446988&sr=8-1&keywords=the+victim%27s+revolution
Wow! The Amazon reviews compare this to the work of Dinesh DSouza, so it’s gotta be good!
You have any actual thoughts on this article, and on Wagner’s lying on the record – or are you just going to post links to RW hack pieces – what’s next, the Bell Curve?
PRESIDENT WAGNER HAS BEEN PROFESSIONAL IN FRONT OF ALL AUDIENCES,
HE HAS NEVER DUCKED AN ISSUE, HE HAS BEEN HONEST AND FORTHCOMING,
AND I PERSONALLY CANNOT RECALL WHEN HE HAS EVER “BLATENTLY LIED”
TO A STUDENT, EMPLOYEE, ALUMNI, OR THE ATLANTA COMMUNITY.
HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE ABOVE? WHEN A FACULTY MEMBER ASKS HIM THE CONNECTION BETWEEN HIS ARTICLE AND THE CUTS, HE SAYS THERE IS NONE – BUT HIS OWN WORDS SAY OTHERWISE. IF THAT’S NOT LYING THEN I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS BRO.
COMPARE: “One faculty member asked Wagner about what connection he was trying to make in his column and whether he was calling on the liberal arts faculty to compromise in light of the department changes. Wagner responded that the column was first meant to demonstrate the importance of compromise in reference to the state of politics in the country. The column’s connection to liberal arts was only that Emory ‘has a responsibility to prepare people for that ability,’ Wagner said.”
WITH WHAT WAGNER ACTUALLY WROTE: “At Emory of late we have had many discussions about the ideal–and the reality–of the liberal arts within a research university,” Wagner wrote. “All of us who love Emory share a determination that the university will continue trailblazing the best way for research universities to contribute to human well-being and stewardship of the earth in the twenty-first century. This is a high and worthy aspiration. It is tempered by the hard reality that the resources to achieve this aspiration are not boundless; our university cannot do everything we might wish to do, or everything that other universities do.” President Wagner’s article was about the program cuts to the liberal arts at Emory, and for him to claim otherwise inaccurately represents his own words.
SO IN ONE BREATH – IN FRONT OF THE ASSEMBLED FACULTY AND A REPORTER – HE SAYS HIS PIECE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CUTS TO LIBERAL ARTS BUT THEN WHEN YOU ACTUALLY READ IT TURNS OUT TO HAVE BEEN EXPLICITLY ABOUT THEM. WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT IF NOT “DUCKING A QUESTION” OR LYING OUTRIGHT?
Richard, do you actually read these articles before commenting on them, or do you just pen knee-jerk faith claims of support in James Wagner? Like, seriously, read the article above. Wagner wrote one thing and then when asked a hard question about it blew it off by denying what he had written.
Read the article and judge for yourself. If you have an explanation for why he writes one thing and then says the opposite, and can explain how that isn’t the same as being deceptive or misleading, the internet is all ears. But you should stop using CAPSLOCK because it looks ridiculous.
By “all audiences,” do you mean the 110,000 recipients of Emory magazine who got an essay from him where he described the maintenance of slavery through political chincanery “noble”? And by “ducking an issue,” do you mean the time there was a meeting with the whole faculty, and somebody asked him a basic question about what he had written, and he blew them off?
Why are you still bogarting my name?
It’s an act of bromage!