I think we need an immediate investigation into the burning of the Reichstag!

Tim, you say on your blog that you wish there were a more searching moderate culture of debate. You cite yourself as a prime example of one who truly tries to understand where arguments that you don't personally agree with come from. You mention the virtues of trying to "answer to" those with "different political or social values from yourself", of treating them "presumptively as people and not as objects," of consequently making "your own positions more provisional and modest in some respects." You note that it should still be possible to have strong views and yet maintain a respectful ethos when assessing, discussing, and responding to those who don't think like you. And then, you post comments like these. When I saw your post at Easily Distracted, I thought I would take you at your word, even though I have felt at times that you have failed to live up to the standards you articulated in your post. In fact, I decided to take you at your word despite the fact that, in your prior post, you engaged in some of the partisan objectification that you claimed to be denouncing (I refer to the part when you suggest that the people responsible for the failure of civil, searching debate right now are conservatives--with no acknowledgement whatsoever that there are extraordinarily nasty attack machines operating from the right and the left). I registered the contradiction in your posts--but I let it lie, choosing, in the spirit of the principles you offered, not to call you out on your own blog. You see, I didn't want to pee in your electronic living room--which is what I regard trolling, spiteful comments made on other people's sites to be. I've instead given what you wrote a lot of thought, and have tried, in the spirit of the better self you offered in the second post, to understand where you are coming from and how it is that you can see the world as you do. Now you appear on my blog, sniping in precisely the way you lament others doing. Is it that Critical Mass is beneath you--and thus your own stated principles of mutual respect do not apply here? Or is it that you have a mean streak that gets the better of your ethics?

Hmmm.... did you really expect this:

"My reason for linking to the piece: It is, unintentionally, a remarkably revealing snapshot of the corruption governing the "letters of rec" system that plays such a central part of admission to elite institutions, particularly at the post-graduate level"

to be taken seriously? That your REASON for posting the (very very disputable, if one just reads around a bit) video about Obama's links to shady scary characters is to invite respectful dialogue on the ethics of writing rec letters for those that one has never met, or knows only superficially?

Too hard for me. If you are truly concerned that "vouching for someone that one has never met" subverts the integrity of "the system", why not direct our attention to the systematic use of such vouching in admission to service academies?

(example at http://carper.senate.gov/services/academy.cfm )

Or maybe, give a shred of evidence that there is indeed "corruption governing the "letters of rec" system that plays such a central part of admission to elite institutions, particularly at the post-graduate level." Otherwise, this is just "Obama: BOO!".

MS--Yes, in answer to your question, I really did expect it to be taken seriously. That's why I wrote it. I am *only* interested in the bit about the recommendation. That's why that's the only part of the article I quoted, and why I disclaimed the rest right up front. I did expect certain commenters not to believe me. But if I held up every time I thought a commenter would misread my intentions or my words--deliberately or not, and there have been plenty of both over the years--I wouldn't be blogging at all.

I've read Erin's blog for years. Never had a strong feeling one way or the other as to how she votes because she doesn't talk about it. In my opinion, Erin has credibility here for the reason she stated for posting this video, in a way that I, for instance, would not if I gave this reason.

Particularly since the discussions here, IIRC, have touched on AA v. legacy admits. This post is relevant to that discussion.

Thanks for managing this affair with moderation and poise during a hotly contested campaign season. Your rebuke of Tim Burke's intemperate sarcasm was a ripe teaching moment and you handled it deftly.

MS: Admission to the service academies is based on sponsorship by a Congressperson who in turn has based their sponsorship on letters of recommendation from *people who know the candidate.* What the video reveals is that a man who did not know Obama, wrote a letter purporting to know him and thus was qualified to recommend Obama to Harvard Law School. These are very different circumstances.

Thank you, Laura and JMT.

Even if Erin did expect this post to be taken seriously, MS might still be right to suspect an ulterior motive (of which Erin might not be conscious). Not so big a deal, really--we're all susceptible to both suspicions and unconscious motives. Erin herself might be forgiven for suspecting the motives of, say, an Obama partisan who linked to, say, this site, and justified the link as nothing more than an example of the scurrility poisoning the internet.

Probably contributing to MS's suspicion is the fact that Erin's basic point (that those with friends in high places can game the system) is true but trivial. (Just as trivial as the observation that the internet harbors scoundrels.)

Erin, I'm not saying such suspicion is justified, only that, as you said, it's to be expected. Ergo it might have been rhetorically more effective to use an example that would better have signaled your apolitical intent. As it is, a post that you hoped would prompt a discussion of corrupt recommendations has prompted something else entirely.

So, what are we to make of "the corruption governing the 'letters of rec' system that plays such a central part of admission to elite institutions, particularly at the post-graduate level"? What should we do about it? Nothing much, I suggest--besides expecting admissions officers to exercise a bit of common sense. We should expect admissions officers to give greater weight to the applicant's own accomplishments. At the same time, we should be realistic and remember that the alumni and foundation offices are just down the hall, and that children of alumni, children of past or potential donors, or applicants with recommendations from same, are going to get preferential treatment. And why not? An applicant who can get a letter from a heavy hitter is an applicant whose connections point to a successful future, which is to say an applicant likely to bring fame and money to the college down the road. Maybe that's "corruption," but I wouldn't realistically expect colleges to forego it.

For me, it was odd to go after Obama alone. How many Republicans have recently recommended and publically supported Palin without having met her or having barely met her? McCain himself has had little personal interaction with a person he is recommending for one of the most powerful positions in the world. Sounds like the same *ethical* issue, even if a public endorsement at a political convention is a different forum than a letter of recommendation for a law school candidate.

I also wonder what the racial context behind this story might be. Given the history of racism at America's universities, how common was it for black applicants to appeal to black leaders with connections in order to override the prejudice of the application committees?

Finally, let's not pretend that there's anything purely meritocratous (sp?) about college admissions. Where was the outrage when Bush was campaigning, a man who used family connections to get into college? (And yes, the legacy system is simply an institutionally sanctioned form of using connections.)

[Short reply: "tu quoque." Thanks for playing.]

I've made my dislike of legacy admissions clear on this site: http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/2008/02/leaving_legacie.html

Expecting "Luther Blissett" to post anything other than his usual nonsense is sure to disappoint.

He's been given his talking points, and he sticks to them.

I assume the reason she is using this example is because it is high profile.