Zohran Mamdani graduated from a small (but wealthy) liberal arts school, Bowdoin College, with a degree in Africana Studies. It’s a good and reputable degree from a reputable college, so that’s nothing to complain about, but the NY Times sent a reporter to talk to professors at Bowdoin, transparently with the intent to find dirt on Mamdani’s education.
The article has been published, and as expected, it’s an exercise in slimy innuendo that tries to indict the whole educational system as leftist political propaganda. You can expect nothing else from the NY Times. Here’s the summary of what the article said.
Mr. Mamdani graduated in 2014 from Bowdoin College, in Brunswick, Maine, with a bachelor’s degree in Africana studies. And his experience there—readings of critical race theorists in the classroom and activism for left-wing causes on campus—is emblematic of the highly charged debate over what is taught in American universities.
Critics say the growth of these programs, which aim to teach about historical events from the perspective of marginalized and oppressed groups, has turned colleges into feckless workshops for leftist political orthodoxy.
Bleh. I’m not linking to the NYT, because, as I’ve been saying for over 20 years on this blog, they’re a disgrace, a he-said-she-said crapshow that advances the conservative cause with weasely evasiveness. Somehow this is the most prestigious news source in the country, probably because billionaires back it.
Far more interesting is this delightful essay in which one of Mamdani’s former professors comments on the NYT hatchet job.
“Critics say” is the tell, and does it ever go on telling. First, note that this criticism (“Majors like Africana studies, or any of its siblings such as women’s studies, these critics charge, promote a worldview that sees little to admire in American history. Some disparagingly call the entire field ‘grievance studies’”) gives to the article the whole of its contrapuntal structure of argument: these scholars and teachers say Mr. Mamdani’s education is substantial, yet critics say something else. But then note as well that this counter-position is substantiated, in its length and breadth, by: J. D. Vance and the National Association of Scholars (NAS), the former a man whose fervid anti-intellectualism needs no introduction, the latter a conservative 501(c)3 flush with money from the Olin, Bradly, and Castle Rock Foundations, and more lately affiliated with the Heritage Foundation and its delirious “Project 2025” document. The author refers to the group as “conservative-leaning,” which, ok. I guess you could say Latvia was a little antisemitic-leaning during the war.
Oh man, that “critics say” phrase is infuriating. What critics? Name them. Explain why these anonymous critics are making these accusations. It ought to be standard journalistic practice that you back up claims with details, rather than vaguely waving in the direction of the opposition while leaving them unscrutinized.
When writing to a journalist friend, I just said that it’s a bit unravelling, right now, to be on the receiving end of this kind of belated real-time education in elite metabolization. Like so many other bits of Times coverage, the whole of the piece is structured as an orchestrated encounter. Some people say this; however, others say this. It’s so offhand you can think you’re gazing through a pane of glass. Only when you stand a little closer, or when circumstances make you a little less blinkered, do you notice the fact which then becomes blinding and finally crazymaking, which is just that there is zero, less than zero, stress put on the relation between those two “sides,” or their histories, or their sponsors, or their relative evidentiary authority, or any of it. Instead, what you get is a piece making the various more or less bovine noises of studious grey-lady impartiality, with the labor of anything resembling “appraisal” surgically excised.
That’s a perfect description of the NYT’s MO.
If they start reveling the source of the “critics” they will be showing that they are not truly doing the “bothsiderism ” that they claim to be so proud of and just as suspected that they are just a mouthpiece of the those who in power.
This isn’t true anyway.
I’ve been hearing that the Universities are leftist dominated since I was an undergraduate in the 1970s.
It wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.
The Universities draw their students and faculty from our society at large and also draw their funding from our society at large. Which means they more or less reflect our society.
What the right wingnuts call leftist thought and analysis is more centrist than anything else. It only looks leftist if you are a fascist, Nazi, white racist or any other right wing extremists.
Let’s see, now, whose slogan is similar to the NYT‘s current approach?
“We report, you decide.”
The entire point of having “journalists” is that they know — or, at least, are supposed to know — enough context to be dismissive of the “facts” offered by the Flat Earth Society.† It’s been half a century (almost exactly!) since the NYT enforced that internally. That’s not to say that you don’t give any recognition at all of opposing/minority viewpoints; it is to say that when those opposing/minority viewpoints follow the other all-too-self-contradictory slogan of that other news outlet — “Empower Your Opinions With Facts,” putting the cart just about 500 meters in front of the horse — it’s a journalistic obligation to say so, and especially to say so regarding undisclosed conflicts of interest.
That’s temporarily dismissing the meme that “the world/nation revolves around Manhattan” that motivates so much of the NYT, too. It’s interesting that, for example, the rag will criticize that degree path coming from a college in Maine, but not in Queens… or at Rockefeller Center.
† This is referring to specific incidents in the NYT‘s past. Readers at this fine forum of public debate would cringe at what was going on that didn’t make much public notice. They’re all public record, but still…
Yeah, as has been noted several times above, who are these anonymous critics?
The usual right wing crackpots. Peter Boghassian, Jordan Peterson, Fox NoNews, the GOP, etc..
They don’t really hate Gender studies and Critical Race Theory.
They hate uppity women, Trans people, LGBTQs, and Black people.
I’m surprised they’re not pointing out more forcefully that Zohran Mamdani’s father, Mahmood Mamdani, is himself a respected left-wing academic who studies anthropology and political science. Indeed, the only places I’ve ever heard this fact are in the online Marxosphere, which is odd.
Just like PZ, for years we have been referring to it as the Yew Nork Slimes! With the magat billionaires now owning all the major media outlets, main stream news IS DEAD!
In somewhat good news, the Supremes declined to hear Kim Davis’s appeal to review Obergefell v Hodges. So for now, that decision stands which gives Congress and the States time to pass a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee the right to marry who you want to marry. hahahaha
Actually, I read somewhere that the Supreme Court decided not to hear the Davis appeal because they want a more general case to decide on.
@3 Jaws wrote about the fux fishwrapper media: “We report, you decide.”
I reply: In truth, with all these media, it should be “We distort, you coincide.”
This is the same line of argument they use in “Ancient Aliens”.
raven @#2:
And, really, from the point of view of the rest of the world, the U.S. doesn’t really have a left wing, at least not one anywhere within sight of power. You have two parties, one of which is centre-right wing, and the other of which has leapt headlong into neo-fascism.
To quote a Guardian headline: Europeans recognize Zohran Mamdani’s supposedly radical policies as ‘normal’.
I mean, hell, free busses aren’t even new within the U.S.… when I lived in the Seattle area back in 1988, the bus system was free within the downtown core, though you did have to pay to get in or out of the core. It was also the first place I saw that had bicycle racks on busses.
@10 Guardian headline
Well, Europeans won’t recognize it as normal for much longer…
The NATO countries are converting to war economies in preparation for (so they believe) “winning” World War 3. They plan for all that funding to come from taking apart social programs.
Hopefully we can “win” WW3 by not starting it. A well defended and united Europe should prevent that.
And we have been dismantling social programs since the eighties.
Heh.
Nah.
They are finally relinquishing the ‘peace dividend’ from the end of the Cold War, since needs must.
(Also, you do know USA is in NATO, as is Canada, right?)
—
Also, gotta love how you imagine a war economy is under 5% GDP.
(Perhaps look at what Russia and Ukraine are spending; those are actually war economies)
This reminds me of what’s called the Charm City Circulator in Baltimore. It’s basically useless for most of the people who actually rely on the bus system. It’s there for people going downtown for sports games and other events.
You think that’s bad, you should see the Washington Post editorial. “Generalissimo Mamdani”, etc. (Trash, not gonna link it.)
NYT and WaPo are shit. Some Ezra Klein bot account gifts his columns on Bluesky so I sometimes hate-read those. I actually got into a heated one sided tiff with the Ezra Klein bot account one Bluesky until I realized it wasn’t the centrist own fart huffer himself. I managed to blow off some steam.
NYT & WaPo don their blue caps to bemoan the worst excesses of the right while doing everything in their power to tear down anyone or anything that might realistically curtail the power of the right.
It is very important to point out the propaganda but I would like to see it worded for a broader public…”contrapuntal structure of argument”? “elite metabolization”? I was a bit put off by this, it sounded smug and for the in-group. Even worse if this is not intentional.
I think using this kind of language signals that the writer feels safe to keep his message within his circle and does not think it is necessary to communicate with everyone. For him, the neo-fascists are no threat.
bcpmoon1, fair enough.
I interpret ”contrapuntal structure of argument” as juxtaposing contentions (the one and the other), but I confess “elite metabolization” eludes me. Just means the writer used a novel idiom.
One could interpret it as elite institutions or actors performatively reframing dissent into into their own legitimising narrative, but perhaps it’s meaningless.
“I think using this kind of language signals that the writer feels safe to keep his message within his circle and does not think it is necessary to communicate with everyone.”
Cannot reach every one, alas. Did the writer’s message not reach you?
“For him, the neo-fascists are no threat.”
Care to show the premises and chain of inference that led you to that odd conclusion?
@John Morales:
My point it not that I could not understand the critic; although “contrapuntal” was new to me, the context made the meaning clear. I found the text well written, amusing but clearly for the choir and “we” are not the people that need to be reached. But I also understand that a piece in the “Literary Hub” will probably not be read by the other bubble and so it is a fit for that audience. I always thought that a clear no-nonsense language is important and posh language is off-putting for a lot of people.
Re “For him, the neo-fascists are no threat.”: After reading these intelligently written, amusing critiques of the NYT piece, I could just imagine how the writer sits in his salon, with a detached air of superior intellect, putting the last flourishes on his tut-tutting the “bovine noises of studious grey-lady impartiality”. I just thought that this person does not feel threatened, he is not angry, he is just annoyed.
Wouldn’t “elite metabolization” be “eat the rich” (NB I lack the context)?
That would follow after eating the rich.
What is the end result of elite metabolization?
Hemidactylus #23
Metastatic cancer
What stood out to me was “readings of critical race theorists in the classroom and activism for left-wing causes on campus”.
That first part could mean damn near anything. I read some of that article apparently and I still think the author was a scrub who had no idea what they were talking about. I also don’t know anything about their politics aside from what was apparent here.
For the second part, what “left-wing causes” are we talking about here? These aren’t opinions. He was either an activist for something or he wasn’t. So what was it? For example, stopping Trump’s idiotic tariffs is a left-wing cause because everyone not on the left-wing is supporting Trump.
@11. Disngenuous Trump helping troll : “The NATO countries are converting to war economies in preparation for (so they believe) “winning” World War 3. They plan for all that funding to come from taking apart social programs.”
Really? Wherever do you get that idea from? Putin’s propaganda? Citations & credible supporting evidence very badly needed.