Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Chicago politics???

So, one of the lessons I've learned in being an academic is to thoughtfully consider things, not to traipse down some intellectual rabbit hole like an ADD addled adolescent. After all aren't university faculty paid to think about things and not just throw unformed slop against the wall to see what sticks. Mental discipline, honed in a rigorous doctoral program, has given me a skill I lacked as a younger man, patience. This is the patience to think through the intellectual Rubik’s cube that are the challenges that life presents. Several of my colleagues have checked in with me since Corday’s post about some of the activities at the last Board of Trustees meeting, namely the scurrilous attacks on me by an unnamed party. What I discovered during the past couple of weeks was that I didn’t have any anger at being attacked. What I figured out from that was that I wasn’t really attacked. This leafleting was so poor in its construction and pitiable in its execution that the only feeling I did have was sadness. And the sadness wasn’t about me. I was sad for whatever intellectually deficient person even conceived of such a stupid idea masquerading as an ad hominem attack. The lack of cerebral depth in the originator of this pathetic idea was apparent. A slapstick attempt at best in a city where politics is blood sport was more insulting than hurtful. Part of my history, and it is no secret, is that I manage political campaigns. I know attack politics. As a tactic this was worse than bad. It was pathetic. I can’t believe I didn’t merit a better effort at personal destruction than a poorly constructed photocopied page of nonsensical questions. Is that what politics in this historic city has degenerated to, hapless amateurism?


  1. Congratulations, Phillip. To be attacked is a good thing. It means that we have drawn some blood, shaken things up a little bit. Let's keep up the good work in the year ahead.

  2. Hang in there, Phillip! Sorry to read about the "screed" and I agree with your estimation of the author's writing and critical thinking abilities. If one is to create a public document, it should not contain spelling errors, vague assertions and speculative reasoning filled with obvious invective and artless attempts at argumentation. Your response is wise.