The fifteenth annual Cultural Studies Conference will be held this spring at Kansas State University. In honor of the event, KSU English professor Don Hedrick has issued a provocative call for papers. His panel will be entitled "The Secret Lives of the Conservatives," and he welcomes submissions on the following topics:

Papers can be on a wide variety of topics related to the conference theme of privacy and secrecy and the public sphere.

Papers on specific instances are welcomed, and papers considering a variety of issues and concerns: tabloidization and the neutralization of the political; the personal as political; hypocritical Puritanism; the defense by offense; vast right wing conspiracies; "outing" as a political tactic; scandal amnesia; "spin" and tactical framing; true evil beneath the compassionate, Christian front; why nothing makes a difference; left tactics and despair; the politics of denial and shame; business secrecy vs. personal secrecy; liberal vs. conservative secret lives; sexual dysfunction in conservatives; Laura Bush's private life; scholarly muckraking and shockjocking.

Send brief, 200 word abstracts by email, not attachment, to Don Hedrick, along with a very brief bio, to Don Hedrick, Department of English, Kansas State University, at hedrick@ksu.edu, by October 24. Inquiries welcome.

Via Winston's Diary.

Seems to me that this represents the spending of public money to advance a partisan political cause.

The title says it all. To ordinary Americans, there is nothing secret about conservatives. They believe certain things and they support certain things. The only way to regard them as secretive is to live in a world without them. What will be interesting is to see is if any of the participants shows any evidence that he or she has ever actually engaged with conservative people or read deeply in conservative traditions.

What strikes me, and maybe this is to elementary to point out so forgive me, is that the second issue and concern that Mr. Hedrick lists is the "personal as political" while the second to last issue and concern he lists is "Laura Bush's private life". Quite honestly, I don't really care about her private life, let alone anyone else's (qualifier for scum who prey on children).

Then there is the whole ""outing" as a political tactic" which immediately reminded me of either Kerry or Edwards making some statement about Mary Cheney being a lesbian.

I guess what makes me weary of all the political crap is that I see the same thing from all politcal parties.

I agree that this isn't a very scholarly panel, but not really because it illustrates some sort of anti-conservative bias. That's basically true; the proposed panel is clearly meant to be partisan. But the real problem here is that there seems to be no scholarly content. This call reads, in essence, like an invitation to rant about how politics in the US basically stink. I don't see why an English professor is more qualified to do that than some guy you’d meet at a bar. And I don’t see how “balance” would help anything there. Is the solution to the academic proliferation of flaky, left-wing ranting really to invite some flaky, right-wing ranting ro round things out?

Indeed, what this call shows me is how Cultural Studies is, generally, its own worst enemy. Rather than revitalising cultural history, which it does at its best moments, CultStud too often serves as an opportunity for people with an academic background to hold forth on the most general and often the most self-indulgent topics imaginable (like, say, “tabloidization and the neutralization of the political” or “why nothing makes a difference”). This strikes me as a pretty good example of that tendency, unless there’s some sort of ironic sensibility here that I’m missing.

So I would think that the general flimsiness here would be most worrying; political prejudice, I think, is a secondary consideration at best, especially for a blog so frequently annoyed – and rightly so – by overly touchy claims of bias.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in holding a conference that would feature papers on the subject of "why nothing makes a difference"? If nothing made a difference, why bother having a conference about it? It seems like an awful lot of trouble to to through, literally for nothing.

There's also the irony of having "hypocritical Puritanism" alongside "true evil beneath the compassionate". Isn't the use of the word "evil" implying the existence of and belief in a moral absolute, which is a singularly "Puritanical" concept?

I'd love to submit a paper on quite a few of those topics, but I suspect my own impressions are the polar opposite of what Mr. Hedrick is looking for.

It would be useful to keep this in perspective. It's ONE panel at a conference that will have many, many panels. Jerry White is right to ask about what the relationship between this panel and cultural studies as a discipline, and like him I think that's an interesting and not at all easily answered question--it's typical of some weaknesses (not so much ideological but methodological) that appears in one self-indulgent lineage of American cultural studies, but also very unrepresentative in other ways of work in cultural studies, both as scholarship and in its prevailing assumptions.

So don't make a mountain out of a molehill here, folks, or mistake this for being more than it is.

While Timothy Burke may be correct that this is only one facet of cultural studies, the fact remains that the organizers of this conference approved this panel, and that such blatantly biased and unacademic work has thus been given the academic seal of approval.

Quite simply, this panel should have been rejected. That it was not is an indicator of a far more pervasive problem than Mr. Burke would have us acknowledge.

I agree with Timothy and Jerry. Sure the panel has an extreme bias, but in a "free" country can't one propose a panel with bias? Or should Don invite some Rush Limbaugh like conservatives to balance this one panel?

As a side note, Don taught one of my graduate classes, and he didn't bring politics into the class.

This panel doesn't seem scholarly, but I think Winston's hint that Hedrick be fired (his call to Kansas taxpayers) is fairly repugnant: if one has disagreeable views one should be fired--isn't that something this site fights? Certainly, even extreme liberals deserve the same protections as extreme conservatives.

I question the ability of anyone so ideologically blind to function as an academic.

As for the call to taxpayers, I think that they should be questioning whether or not this man is doing the job he was hired to do. He's supposed to be a Shakespearean, not a political activist.

You're really questioning someone whose views are radically different from yours--maybe he would say you're "ideologically blind."

Who says he doesn't do his job? This is a conference panel; it is neither a course description, nor a syllabus. He can't be a Shakespearean and a political activist? Your questioning is based upon views with which you disagree. Had his panel been about how homosexuals are evil, affirmative action is evil, and (fill in any conservative cause) I doubt we would be having this discussion.

The panel wants to hear "secret" material on Laura Bush's private life? It is should be hard for anyone who participates in this panel to henceforth claim even the thinnest veneer of open mindedness or tolerance for intellectual diversity. This group is way over-due for some serious self-examination. This sounds like a panel the National Inquirer would run.

Your doubts are incorrect. You know nothing of me, save that I have a problem with leftist bias in academia. I'd have a problem with right-wing bias, too, were I ever to encounter any. If a CFP on any conservative cause were to come through the listserv, I'd be on it as quickly as I was on this one. So quit trying to cloud the issue with unfounded counter-accusations.

Mr. Hedrick is organizing this panel and involved in this conference in his capacity as professor at Kansas State. Since his department bio indicates that he is responsible for the formation of Cultural Studies at Kansas State, it is natural to wonder to what extent his involvement in cultural studies--particularly the type of cultural studies he is practicing in organizing this panel--are detracting from his ability to do the job he was hired for, which is to be a Shakespearean.

As for the lack of politics in your course with him, perhaps that was the case then, but if you read the descriptions of the two Shakespeare courses he is offering this Fall, you will see that the door has definitely been opened for leftist politics to take center stage.

"Or should Don invite some Rush Limbaugh like conservatives to balance this one panel?"

What does Rush Limbaugh have to do with it? Do you seriously think there are no conservative scholars?
This is a caricature of an argument.

Jason -- In a free country, people can express themselves with bias if they want to, as a consequence of free speech. But academic inquiry is not the same thing as personal expression. It must conform to rules of scholarship, rigor, and circumspectness that imply balance and an absence of bias, at least within the research itself. Within those constraints, an academic may research whatever s/he wishes. But those constraints are there nonetheless, and I don't think it's unfair to call the bona fides of this panel, and the people who organized it and let it run, into question on the basis of the extreme bias it portrays. If by your own admission the panel has extreme political bias and doesn't seem scholarly, then what's it doing being held at a scholarly conference in the first place?

I'm not trying to cloud the issue. My comments are relevant to the issue: my claim is that you wouldn't see conservative bias as bias, or as wrong because that's your position. I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with you having that position except when you call those who oppose you "ideologically blind." I have serious doubts that you would leap on any conservative bias--again I don't think that's bad.

I know as much about you as you know about Hedrick, so I think any accusations I make are as legitmate as yours. You're in academia, so you know that the deparment Shakespearian, Victorican, American, ______ professor frequently teaches other classes. That they do this rarely detracts from their performance.

As for politics taking center stage in his courses, you're exaggerating a bit; aren't you? Isn't Shakespeare and Gender acceptable (after all the plays had male and female characters)? Or are you of the opinion that any time gender or race is discussed a class is ruined. Should these things be avoided? Certainly these issues can degenerate into a "white males are bad" discussion, but that most frequently happens with students. The class I took occasionally looked at gender when appropriate. Was that too political? What are the alternatives? Avoid any discussion of gender or race?

David--since you often compare Iraq war protestors to WWII protestors--implying that the two wars are similar, you have little room to talk about "caricatures of arguments."

Besides my point was that the left-bias in the panel was so extreme that to balance the panel one would have to find an extreme right-bias, thus the reference to Rush. I know there are sensible people who are conservatives, just as there are sensible liberals.

Is it a class on Shakespeare? Or a class on gender? Is it a class that centers around literature? Or a class that centers around gender politics?

There are enough buzz words in the course descriptions to cause concern. Coupled with this CFP, I cannot help but be extremely suspicious of this professor, and whether or not he has abandoned the teaching of literature in favor of the use of literature to make political points. I am not calling for his dismissal. But I am calling for closer scrutiny to be paid to this man and his actions as a professor.

And you can stuff your tu quoque argument. I regularly recognize conservative bias, particularly in my students, and do what I can to combat it. The fact that I don't discuss conservative biases in academia can be attributed to the fact that there are not, save in recognized conservative institutions, none of which with I am affiliated, so I have no knowledge of what goes on there. Also, they are already isolated and out of the mainstream, so I do not find them as dangerous. Their biases are regularly exposed and widely acknowledged.

But I think the main point, and one I am disturbed you are not getting, is that extreme bias of any stripe is simply not acceptable in academia. As another comment points out, extreme bias is actually antithetical to the academic endeavor. We are here to question and explore, not to propagate. This man's panel cannot be defined as academic in any rational sense of the word.

I do acknowledge that extreme bias is bad-especially in the classroom. I know I haven't made that clear in my posts, but I officially announce it in this post.

I also think this panel is just that--one panel. Academics can't have bias in a panel? No one is forced to attend this panel; are they? I have seen political bias in professors (liberal and conservative), and it's only interfered with the class one time that I can think of---I afterwards avoided that prof.

In addition, while liberals may be a majority in academia they are a minority in society as a whole (just look at recent elections), and given the extreme conservative nature of our current government might a presentation like this offer a valuable look at a different view? Isn't it okay to criticize those in power? The conference panel is dealing with a significant portion of our culture. I'm not whole-heartedly endorsing this panel; I'm just trying to offer a devil's advocate position. Hedrick might say that he's questioning and exploring the nature of conservatives--a few of the categories seem appropriate for that. While questionable, this kind of discussion could be beneficial in a conference (in reality it will probably be preaching to the choir).

Jason, I know you're just trying to put the best light on this as possible, but when one actually suggests "sexual dysfunction in conservatives" and "the secret life of Laura Bush" as acceptible panel topics, it is not an instance of "questioning and exploring the nature of conservatives". There is not enough sugar in the world to coat this as being real scholarship. If the people at this conference want to go out for a beer once the conference is over and talk about this stuff, then fine, but to bring it into a conference is an insult to the academy, even if it's "just one panel".

It's not stifling dissent to say so, either.

"This is a caricature of an argument."

Indeed, but this session is, itself, a caricature.

And if the conference as a whole is judged by it rather than the more professional sessions, they don't have anyone to blame for it but themselves. It's like an international or national geoscience confrence having a two sessions on earthquake prediction: One using state-of-the-art technological approaches and the other using the Bible Code, psychic predictions and other "Fortean" approachs. Guess which press releases are going to get broad copy by the media?

Robert and Bill--you're right. It's human nature to focus on the bad examples and neglect the others. Some appropriate categories mixed in with extreme won't do much good.

I think it would be valuable to have an opposing panel that points a critical eye at the life of liberals--the problem with both panels is that neither side will listen to the other.

If only the moderates of both side could get together. Maybe a panel titled "the secret life of extremists"--who's in?

If I were still in academia, I'd be embarrassed to be associated with this kind of nonsense. It says a lot to me that there *are* academics who apparently are not embarrassed to see such a mockery made of their intellectual discipline.

Aren't these guys looking out for their profession? Are professors such a timid bunch that nobody said, "Hey, Don, maybe you ought to rethink your approach to this panel"? When does the professionalism component of university professorship kick in?

But Jason, this isn't "pointing a critical eye"; this is moonbat crap. A panel of right-wingers who proposed such possible topics about leftists would strike me as being equally unhinged, and equally undeserving of a position in academia.

I would most definitely not be in on your panel, and I would condemn it as vociferously as I've condemned Hedrick's.

moonbat crap--nice term.

I saw my panel as more reasonable--pointing out the flaws (and damage caused) in any extremist agenda. Even though I was only semi-serious, the panel could discuss the issue in an academic way: the history of rhetoric, misuse of rhetoric, etc. In this case, it would be exploration and legitimate criticism (for a conference about culture).

I do think several of Hederick's points are worthy of discussion, even if tainted by the other moonbat crap.

Guess how I would vote on money for that school if I were so located?

If it makes you feel any better, Jason, I use the term "fundie crap," too.

Jason, I don't disagree that some of the issues mentioned in the CFP are "worthy of discussion," but come on: who hasn't been discussing these subjects in the past half-decade? The culture of the political right has been hashed and re-hashed by editorialists, academic and current-affairs bloggers, talk-show hosts, the nightly news, hundreds of newspapers, stacks of books (some scholarly, some middlebrow, some trashy), and countless magazines and journals that span the ideological spectrum. What do you think a few English profs, each given 20 minutes to bitch about politics, will say that hasn't been said before?

They'll probably all list this session on their CVs, and they may have fun in their little chat session, but really, let's not pretend it's scholarship.

Winston's next-to-last comment above is exactly right. The whole problem here is that this is ad hominem conservative-bashing masquerading as scholarship. And the way to rectify it is not to introduce equal and opposite crap -- it's to get rid of the crap altogether.

Winston--i wasn't being sarcastic; i really liked "moonbat crap"--it's funny.

The week before Michael Moore spoke at the U of A, I said to my wife, "wonder if they'll have Ann Coulter next week or not?"

Lo and behold, they did, and I didn't like her fanatics any more than I cared for the Moore-ites, which is to say not much at ALL.

So sign me up for the panel on extremists! Oh wait, I'm a mathematician (or is it computer scientist this week? :-)

The internet is a poor medium for tone of voice, I fear. I assumed you were proceeding under the assumption that I was only against moonbat crap.

I agree that a panel on extremism would be useful. Hell, I'd like to see a whole conference on extremism, and I'd like the fruits of it to be that extremism finds itself discredited and academic extremists are shown the door.

Personally, I see no real difference between the far right and the far left, between theological blindness and ideological blindness. The results, particularly in terms of academic rigor, are the same. People on the extreme ends of the political spectrum don't ask questions, because they already know all of the answers. Such an attitude does not square with the academic endeavor.

in that way, we're a lot alike--i see extremists on both sides as mirror images of eich other. both sides offer different forms of fascism. the original causes matter little.

there's some hope, i suppose. we've stayed pretty civil.

goodnight all--

I think I'll attend this conference. I'll put together a panel on terrorism and conservatism, particularly on terrorism in conservative areas, and it'll be about the Norman, Oklahoma suicide terrorist bomber last week. I wonder how that would go over.

Jason offers:

In addition, while liberals may be a majority in academia they are a minority in society as a whole (just look at recent elections), and given the extreme conservative nature of our current government might a presentation like this offer a valuable look at a different view?

1. The current administration was returned to office with a majority of the electorate;

2. Outside the realm of foreign policy, that administration has not persued policies of great discontinutiy with its predecessors. Mr. Bush has had little quarrel with the general features of the sort of mixed economy the country has had for seven decades or so, and his initiatives in social policy have been rear guard actions or of very modest consequence. What we have had is some amendments in the way public sector pensions are financed, a greater liberality with the harvesting of natural resources on public lands, a different set of conditions on federal aid to education, an end to subventions of certain sorts of family planning programs, a proposal to prevent appellate judges from arbitrarily rewriting the matrimonial laws of every state in defiance of public opinion, and a certain insoucience about public sector deficits and the balance of payments. In the realm of foreign policy, the President has been innovative, but this is attributable to a historically unusual stimulus (the recent unpleasantness in lower Manhattan) and has been undertaken with the episodic support of the Democratic congressional caucus.

The administration simply cannot be described as 'extreme' with respect to public opinion, elite opinion, or the evolution of public policy over time. He might be so described if political terminology were defined by insular sectaries. (Gracing us all with a 'valuble look at a different view').

And Prof. Hedrick has no entitlement to do as he pleases on company time and nurse unmolested at the public teat (though one may suspect he fancies he does).

What is the term for seeing conspiracy where none exists? Ah, there it is - "paranoia".

Will there be room for a tin foil hat concession table there?