Finally, the National Association of Scholars has started a blog. The first three entries cover the politics of professional organizations, the belief of some (or many) college writing teachers that it's counterproductive to teach proper grammar, and the KC Johnson debacle at Brooklyn College. Worth a look, and regular return visits if NAS Online Forum develops the way it promises to.

I have a question about the NAS. In their briefs in the Michigan case and elsewhere, they claim to be made up of some of the most distinguished scholars in the country.

Can anyone give me any examples of distinguished scholars who are NAS members?

Are there legitimate grounds to doubt Stanley Fish's judgment of the NAS's political motivations?

The NAS has plenty of impressive scholars and public intellectuals in its organization. Some are strongly associated with conservative causes, and others are not. Among those not so easily identified with a particular politics and easily identified as extremely impressive intellectuals, I'd list:
J. Barzun
E. Genovese
S.M. Lipset
S. Thernstrom
E.O.Wilson
James Q.Wilson
I'm not sure what Fish thinks the politial motivations of the NAS are. World domination? Show trials? Fish's own efforts to remove colleagues he considers conservatives from university committees are well known - I don't know of any similar activities or motivations in the NAS organization.

James Q. Wilson? Not so easily identified with a particular politics? Oh my stars and garters.

Well, if I'm only wrong about one of them, that's too not bad, huh?

I'm still wondering about what might be accomplished by this type of blog, given the content of the early posts. Most appear to be "inside baseball", concerning the intricate professional dances performed by the already-initiated.

What never seems to be addressed are questions like the following:

(1) What is it about the teaching profession that allows professors to be bamboozled by con artists like Jayson Blair, who, though he didn't graduate, nevertheless appears to have dazzled his J-school profs?

(2) When I was an undergraduate, the president of my college blurted, "We know our most intelligent students achieve grades in the B and C range." Is there truth to this? What leads to it?

(3) How can universities avoid the two-class system of instructors, tenure-track vs. adjunct or part-time? Why can't universities acknowledge that teaching assistants are employees? What changes in academic culture would result if universities were forced to treat TAs as employees?

(4) What are the benefits of the tenure system, balanced against the disadvantages? What would be a productive way to manage and incent academic careers if tenure were abolished?

These are just a few of interesting questions that ought to be addressed by academic professionals, though I believe some mixture of obtuseness and self-interest will likely prevent serious discussion -- we'll just go on with safer, though less productive issues, like who gets tenure.