Cornell's 13th president: Elizabeth Garrett, USC

TimV
She probably won't mind the music as much as she'll mind the football.

Kyle Rose

TimV
She probably won't mind the music as much as she'll mind the football.

Maybe she can get Pete Carroll after he decides he's had enough of the NFL.

Of course, we're more likely to end up with Rich Kotite, who would still probably improve Cornell's program.

Robb

Kyle Rose

TimV
She probably won't mind the music as much as she'll mind the football.

Maybe she can get Pete Carroll after he decides he's had enough of the NFL.

Of course, we're more likely to end up with Rich Kotite, who would still probably improve Cornell's program.

Or Lane Kiffin....

David Harding
Was anyone else struck by the fact that the fourth paragraph of Cornell Chronicle article was about Garrett's husband and his position, even before telling us about her career (other than her current position)? Back in January 2006, when Skorton's appointment was announced, his wife wasn't mentioned until the 11th paragraph. Skorton's age was reported in the first paragraph, while Garrett's is not mentioned at all. What other differences do you note?

Beeeej

David Harding
Was anyone else struck by the fact that the fourth paragraph of Cornell Chronicle article was about Garrett's husband and his position, even before telling us about her career (other than her current position)? Back in January 2006, when Skorton's appointment was announced, his wife wasn't mentioned until the 11th paragraph. Skorton's age was reported in the first paragraph, while Garrett's is not mentioned at all. What other differences do you note?

I noted that the Garrett announcement was eight and a half years after the Skorton one, written by different people, and not obsessively crafted with unnecessary equivalence in mind.

ugarte

Beeeej

David Harding
Was anyone else struck by the fact that the fourth paragraph of Cornell Chronicle article was about Garrett's husband and his position, even before telling us about her career (other than her current position)? Back in January 2006, when Skorton's appointment was announced, his wife wasn't mentioned until the 11th paragraph. Skorton's age was reported in the first paragraph, while Garrett's is not mentioned at all. What other differences do you note?

I noted that the Garrett announcement was eight and a half years after the Skorton one, written by different people, and not obsessively crafted with unnecessary equivalence in mind.

I'm more interested in Harding's close read than you are, Beeeej. The passive(?) sexism of how women are treated is no small thing. Everything can be written off to coincidence or different writers or any of a million reasons* but I don't think you should hand-wave away the fact that a male President's spouse barely merits a mention but the spouse of the first female President in Cornell's history is mentioned before her full bio is given.

* I almost wrote "notably, that her husband will be joining the law and A&S faculty" but… Skorton's wife also joined the faculty of the vet and med schools.

ugarte

Beeeej

David Harding
Was anyone else struck by the fact that the fourth paragraph of Cornell Chronicle article was about Garrett's husband and his position, even before telling us about her career (other than her current position)? Back in January 2006, when Skorton's appointment was announced, his wife wasn't mentioned until the 11th paragraph. Skorton's age was reported in the first paragraph, while Garrett's is not mentioned at all. What other differences do you note?

I noted that the Garrett announcement was eight and a half years after the Skorton one, written by different people, and not obsessively crafted with unnecessary equivalence in mind.

I'm more interested in Harding's close read than you are, Beeeej. The passive(?) sexism of how women are treated is no small thing. Everything can be written off to coincidence or different writers or any of a million reasons* but I don't think you should hand-wave away the fact that a male President's spouse barely merits a mention but the spouse of the first female President in Cornell's history is mentioned before her full bio is given.

Beeeej

ugarte

Beeeej

David Harding
Was anyone else struck by the fact that the fourth paragraph of Cornell Chronicle article was about Garrett's husband and his position, even before telling us about her career (other than her current position)? Back in January 2006, when Skorton's appointment was announced, his wife wasn't mentioned until the 11th paragraph. Skorton's age was reported in the first paragraph, while Garrett's is not mentioned at all. What other differences do you note?

I noted that the Garrett announcement was eight and a half years after the Skorton one, written by different people, and not obsessively crafted with unnecessary equivalence in mind.

I'm more interested in Harding's close read than you are, Beeeej. The passive(?) sexism of how women are treated is no small thing. Everything can be written off to coincidence or different writers or any of a million reasons* but I don't think you should hand-wave away the fact that a male President's spouse barely merits a mention but the spouse of the first female President in Cornell's history is mentioned before her full bio is given.

I also think it bears some thought, but besides the existence of an untenable number of other variables, we also have an awfully small sample space. Has anybody dug up the Lehman and Rawlings announcements as well? I'm willing to bet that in 1977 and 1969, Cornell didn't feel Rosa Rhodes and Nellie Corson merited more than a last-paragraph "former Rosa Carlson and their four daughters" type of mention, but 1995 and 2002 would be more telling to me.

Josh '99

Beeeej

ugarte

Beeeej

David Harding
Was anyone else struck by the fact that the fourth paragraph of Cornell Chronicle article was about Garrett's husband and his position, even before telling us about her career (other than her current position)? Back in January 2006, when Skorton's appointment was announced, his wife wasn't mentioned until the 11th paragraph. Skorton's age was reported in the first paragraph, while Garrett's is not mentioned at all. What other differences do you note?

I noted that the Garrett announcement was eight and a half years after the Skorton one, written by different people, and not obsessively crafted with unnecessary equivalence in mind.

I'm more interested in Harding's close read than you are, Beeeej. The passive(?) sexism of how women are treated is no small thing. Everything can be written off to coincidence or different writers or any of a million reasons* but I don't think you should hand-wave away the fact that a male President's spouse barely merits a mention but the spouse of the first female President in Cornell's history is mentioned before her full bio is given.

I also think it bears some thought, but besides the existence of an untenable number of other variables, we also have an awfully small sample space. Has anybody dug up the Lehman and Rawlings announcements as well? I'm willing to bet that in 1977 and 1969, Cornell didn't feel Rosa Rhodes and Nellie Corson merited more than a last-paragraph "former Rosa Carlson and their four daughters" type of mention, but 1995 and 2002 would be more telling to me.

Easy enough in one case:

Lehman announcement, no mention of his wife, who came to Cornell at the same time as Lehman.

Unfortunately, the Chronicle's online archive appears only to go back to 1996, after Rawlings took office.

Another said that Cornell is just going through an adjustment period as it has its first presidential spouse with a career -- and that such an adjustment is a good one for the university to have gone through.

David Harding
The Ithaca Voice's seven best quotes from Garrett's inauguration speech.

EG: "Realistically, no institution can be excellent in any study. The faculty instead must focus our energy and resources strategically. We must critically assess all that we are doing and choose which studies we choose to emphasize in our quest for excellence."

"We must organize ourselves in ways that ensure our work has the greatest impact, that propel us forward to new applications and allow fruitful collaborations among faculty and students ... In this analysis we must be guided by the spirit of 'Any Study' by defining our targets with breadth ... and by an openness to new understandings of disciplines, collaborations and methods of scholarship."

Trotsky

David Harding
The Ithaca Voice's seven best quotes from Garrett's inauguration speech.

6 empty cliches, but then this:

EG: "Realistically, no institution can be excellent in any study. The faculty instead must focus our energy and resources strategically. We must critically assess all that we are doing and choose which studies we choose to emphasize in our quest for excellence."

"We must organize ourselves in ways that ensure our work has the greatest impact, that propel us forward to new applications and allow fruitful collaborations among faculty and students ... In this analysis we must be guided by the spirit of 'Any Study' by defining our targets with breadth ... and by an openness to new understandings of disciplines, collaborations and methods of scholarship."

Jesus Fuck. Why didn't she just say, "If it pulls in research dollars, we'll do it."

She came about as close as you can to completely reversing, in both intent and emphasis, the entire point of the motto (and the school). It reminds me of Harvard's old defense of not admitting Jews, because "we must concentrate on students who can go on and make the greatest impact in society."

Dear Liz,

Blow me.

Sincerely, the Liberal Arts.

Trotsky

David Harding
The Ithaca Voice's seven best quotes from Garrett's inauguration speech.

6 empty cliches, but then this:

EG: "Realistically, no institution can be excellent in any study. The faculty instead must focus our energy and resources strategically. We must critically assess all that we are doing and choose which studies we choose to emphasize in our quest for excellence."

"We must organize ourselves in ways that ensure our work has the greatest impact, that propel us forward to new applications and allow fruitful collaborations among faculty and students ... In this analysis we must be guided by the spirit of 'Any Study' by defining our targets with breadth ... and by an openness to new understandings of disciplines, collaborations and methods of scholarship."

Jesus Fuck. Why didn't she just say, "If it pulls in research dollars, we'll do it."

She came about as close as you can to completely reversing, in both intent and emphasis, the entire point of the motto (and the school). It reminds me of Harvard's old defense of not admitting Jews, because "we must concentrate on students who can go on and make the greatest impact in society."

Dear Liz,

Blow me.

Sincerely, the Liberal Arts.