He is a certifiable Harvard Renaissance man though.
Familiar with the Noble Lie. So he may have been speaking esoterically.
It's not always clear if he understands what he is saying.
Posted on 07/29/2009 11:39:26 AM PDT by mnehring
WASHINGTON -- The University of Chicago released a statement Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama "served as a professor" in the law school -- but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday.
"He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an assistant dean for communications and lecturer in law at the school.
The U. of C. statement was posted on the school's Web site two days after the Clinton campaign issued a memo headlined: "Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements."
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Obama’s refusal to release any of his documents that either prove or disprove his eligibility to be President is a double-edged sword. If he were to sue any of us who think he is a commie, marxist, fraud, traitor, America-hater, racist, charlatan, puppet for George Soros, then all of those documents would be discoverable in a court of law. This means that he can be accused by the American people and our websites of every unethical move he makes or has made and he dare not allow himself to come under any court of competent jurisdiction.
I WANT THAT FRAUD OUT OF MY WHITE HOUSE!
He is a certifiable Harvard Renaissance man though.
Familiar with the Noble Lie. So he may have been speaking esoterically.
It's not always clear if he understands what he is saying.
Thank you.
You don’t help your cause with this. “Professor” is used in a variety of ways. That he was not a full professor (which is what the U of C. statement denies) is meaningless. He was not merely an adjunct, which is the lowest rung. If that’s all he had been, calling him a professor would be misleading. But law schools, or at least U. of C. Law school, in order to attract people who want to maintain a career outside the university while lending some sort of prestige to the law school, have categories between regular tenured faculty and mere sessional or adjunct lecturers. It’s my understanding that Obama was in the middle category and was invited many times to come aboard as a tenure-track faculty member but chose not to.
Now, the invitation to become tenure-track undoubtedly was affirmative-action driven and doesn’t mean he was that all-fired great an academic law teacher. I don’t doubt that the U of C Law school was interested in him because of his race and politics. But to imply that he was marginal at the school is inaccurate. He had a fairly high status position and could have turned it into the full-deal, had he wanted to. Whether he was fully qualified for that, is a different question.
He was not merely a glorified teaching assistant. That sort of nonsense posted on this thread does not help your cause. It makes the person writing it look like an idiot to anyone who has actually examined Obama’s record at the U. of C. Law School. He could have been a regular tenured professor had he wanted to be. He was not a glorified TA.
The school is the one who made the statement he never “served as a professor”. As it is their institution, they are the ones who are authorized to grant said titles. If you have a problem with the nuanced differences, take it up with Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an assistant dean for communications and lecturer in law. The school apparently thought the difference was important enough to release a statement setting the record straight.
Part-time lecturer sounds pretty close to the lowest rung to me. And I’ll repeat - if he had a great academic record, he’d have released it long ago.
bump #22
Be stupid if you wish. She denied “professor” in the strict sense. At my school students routinely call even adjunct instructors “professor.” To say that he was a glorified TA makes people look like fools. He had a status that was well beyond instructor or adjunct, a status built into business and professional schools like law schools because they want practicing businessmen and attorneys and political activists teaching, not merely as glorified TAs but with faculty rank. They consider this an asset to their program.
I’m sorry, but you will be more credible if you try to learn something about the issue instead of bombastically rejecting what I wrote.
But it’s your choice. I was trying to help you make your case. You obviously would prefer to undermine it. Be a fool.
Nagorsky said there is a major distinction between a lecturer and senior lecturer, though neither is a full-time position. She said the status of a senior lecturer is "similar" to the status of a professor and that Obama did teach core courses usually handled only by professors. Obama's appointment was not part of an academic search process, and he did not have any scholarly research obligation.
Translated to me, the underlined part that highlights the difference sounds like he was not hired on as a professor because of his knowledge or any other 'scholarly' designation or knowledge that would happen with a professor, he was just granted a job. It seems to me they are saying here he wouldn't qualify as a professor.
The school saw fit to, and made the statement. Take it up with them.
He was not “just an instructor.” You are applying the ranks and categories used in 4-year universities and colleges, where instructor marks non-tenure track and assistant/associate/full professor marks tenure/track and tenured.
Law schools are different. You can’t simply transfer the ranks and categories. They have special categories for professional reasons.
He was offered tenure/tenure-track and turned it down, more than once. He did not want an academic career.
Sure, he was offered it out of affirmative action, but he was offered it. The rank he had was in between “mere instructor” and tenured professor.
Whatever.. I didn’t call him a glorified TA and the school is the one who felt it necessary to point out he wasn’t a professor and define the difference between the two in their statement. You are the one who is reading into this terminology, what students call professors, why lecturers are given said jobs, etc- none of which are in the article. You are the one making assumptions.
So, if it is, as you said, no real difference, why did the school feel fit to make such a statement?
It sounds like Nagorsky was trying to make Obama seem like something he wasn’t.
It is scary how many different photos I’ve now seen with his chin up and that look. He could be Hitler reincarnated.
“Translated to me, the underlined part that highlights the difference sounds like he was not hired on as a professor because of his knowledge or any other ‘scholarly’ designation or knowledge that would happen with a professor, he was just granted a job. It seems to me they are saying here he wouldn’t qualify as a professor.”
No, translated, the underlined part means that he was in a category of active professionals teaching in a professional school because the presence of such teachers is considered important to the professional training.
His was not an academic track and published academic journal articles were not part of the requirements. But in his case they did try to persuade him to make that transition and he chose not to. He probably knew he wouldn’t be any good at it; certainly didn’t want to expend the energy toward it.
He was not a professor but neither was he glorified TA. I agree that people exaggerate when they call him a professor of law. But you undermine your case when you compare him to the sessional lecturers employed to teach undergrads at slave wages.
These are ranks for standard university, undergrad/graduate in the humanities and sciences. Professional schools are different even from graduate schools in the humanities and sciences. They have categories for people coming in from business or medicine or law who are active practiioners and have a higher status than mere recently minted PhDs or ABDs teaching semester by semester.
Re: “...........he has lied on everything, thus the sealed records............. (etc.)”
***
Yes, he has lied about everything and NO records on any aspect of his life are available for viewing; EVERYTHING is sealed.
The big question is WHY? What is he hiding and why? We need the answers now. If he’s a total fraud (as I suspected well before the election) we ALL need to know that now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.