Search News


Browse Archives

News

Raised Eyebrows over Keynote Choice

November 26, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

At the American Anthropological Association’s massive annual meeting last week, a few attendees passed out fliers for a smaller, regional conference – which will feature one of the most controversial figures in anthropology as keynote speaker.

The president of the Southwestern Anthropological Association invited Montgomery McFate to give the keynote address at the association’s spring conference in Las Vegas. As an architect of and senior social scientist for the Human Terrain System, an initiative that embeds social scientists with U.S. Army units in Afghanistan and Iraq to help them better understand local cultures and populations, McFate’s scholarly reputation is hitched to an initiative that has been formally opposed by the AAA’s executive board. In a statement issued last year, the board determined that HTS raises concerns on such fundamental ethical issues as voluntary informed consent and the protection from harm of populations being studied.

Few anthropologists would question the value of inviting McFate to speak -- or the importance of having free speech and scholarly engagement on such controversial topics. In fact, many were critical of her failure to appear at a scheduled speaking engagement Saturday at the AAA conference.

Some at the Southwestern Anthropological Association (known as SWAA), however, are facing questions about the particularities of the platform they’re giving her, and a perception that the keynote speaking slot implies an honor -- distinct from the panel where she was to have appeared at the AAA, alongside her critics.

“I have encountered opposition from people who don’t want to give Mitzi McFate a platform and they see this as a kind of honor that she doesn’t deserve. And I simply disagree,” said Liam D. Murphy, an associate professor of anthropology at California State University at Sacramento and president of SWAA. Per an organizational tradition leaving discretion over annual conference matters to the president, Murphy alone selected McFate as the keynote speaker. SWAA is not affiliated with AAA, although there is cross-membership between the two associations.

“This is what we do as academics. We provide opportunities for people to speak, among other things, and we provide venues for them to write, and we do not shut down alternative perspectives,” said Murphy -- who has done some teaching for HTS.

“When Liam told us he was going to invite Montgomery McFate, a number of us were quite startled,” Kathleen Zaretsky, SWAA’s treasurer, said of the executive board’s reaction. “I believe the people on the board feel the way I do, which is, ‘It’s the academic world; it’s important to hear all sides,' ” said Zaretsky, a lecturer at San Jose State University.

It being a small, laid-back association – and “not something which is highly sensitive to prestige issues” -- she hadn't considered the implications of the word "keynote" until confronted by a student at the AAA conference "who was really angry about what she saw as the honoring of McFate," she said.

"Of course, it does carry an implication of an honor,” Zaretsky said. “We on the board are going to have to confront that and perhaps even say something about it, because I think the majority of us on the board feel quite strongly that we don’t want to honor her and that it was quite naive of us not to see this earlier.”

In explaining his choice, Murphy cited a number of reasons, including his personal friendship with McFate (they went to graduate school together), a desire to stimulate conversation on this controversial but relevant topic (the conference theme centers on relevancies and public anthropology), and a hope that the selection will increase interest in the conference and, in particular, the banquet during which McFate is scheduled to speak (participants will have to pay extra for banquet tickets). “I see this as something of a coup, actually, that she would come and speak to a small, regional organization like this,” said Murphy.

He added of any associated prestige or honor: “SWAA exists at a different level of operations in a sense than the AAA, and while we use the term ‘keynote speaker,’ we might as well use the term ‘after-dinner speaker’ or ‘invited speaker.’ ”

"It really is a question of the president working his or her personal networks. That's pretty much what it comes down to," Murphy said.

Fearing hostility from fellow anthropologists, however, Murphy did not want to discuss his own personal connections with the Human Terrain System, for which he has done part-time instruction domestically. Asked how frequently he’s taught for HTS, he said, “I don’t do it often; let’s put it that way.” He added that he has not been on a team or been overseas with the program, but said little more about what he has done. He hopes to edit a book on HTS, including positive and negative perspectives.

“I’m a supporter of the general ambition of the program to humanize the military…and to save lives,” said Murphy. (He added that there are problems that need to be addressed, as HTS is still in its "infancy.")

“I wouldn’t expect that anybody who didn’t share some of the same ethics, or some of the same beliefs about the purpose of the program, would invite Montgomery McFate to be the keynote speaker. I don’t believe that Hugh Gusterson would do that,” Murphy said, in reference to one of the most visible leaders of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, which has opposed anthropologists’ participation in counterinsurgency efforts.

For Gusterson’s part, “I think it would be unfortunate if her critics put her in a position of trying to prevent her from speaking,” he said. “I always think the solution to bad speech is good speech.”

However, added Gusterson, a professor at George Mason University, “When you invite someone to keynote, you are conveying that message that they have something special to say to the whole membership."

“When someone is the architect of a program that’s been officially condemned by the AAA executive board and you then invite them to be your keynote speaker, there is something awry there.”

But is being asked to give the keynote (or, depending on your terminology, “after-dinner”) address an honor being conferred here on McFate?

“An honor has become kind of a vague term,” said Bill Fairbanks, the SWAA board chair. As chair, he oversees association operations while Murphy devotes himself to the conference.

“I guess anytime you’re invited to speak, you may consider it an honor. For example, I recently retired; I taught at Cuesta College [a two-year institution in California]. About a month before I retired, the president called me in and asked me to do the graduation speech, and I did. And I think I was supposed to consider that an honor and I guess I did, but at the same time I was trying to wind up my teaching, I was trying to clean out my office, and it was a lot of extra work.”

Fairbanks, who was at the AAA meeting where McFate canceled her appearance, said he was looking forward to hearing her talk this spring. Several interviewed mentioned lingering concerns over whether McFate, who can be called overseas, will fulfill her commitment to speak at SWAA. (McFate did not return a message seeking comment for this story.)

"On the positive side, I have to say that whether Montgomery McFate herself shows up or not, the very act of inviting her may encourage people to attend and engage in these debates. Even without her, there may be a lot of very good panel discussions, as well as informal discussions, on a wider range of issues, including the ones represented by her ideas or her professional activities,” said Hilarie Kelly, a SWAA executive board member and lecturer at California State University at Long Beach.

As for attendance, “A good number for us would be topping 200,” Murphy said. “This is a small conference, but I think that this year hopefully we’ll get more. Not so much because of our keynote speaker, but because it’s in Las Vegas.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Raised Eyebrows over Keynote Choice

  • Posted by Sean Eddy , Anthropology Undergrad at George Mason University on November 26, 2008 at 1:10pm EST
  • I attended a meeting to hear Montgomery McFate speak at George Mason University in 2007. There were under 40 people present at the session. Overall I found it informative. I value the fact that I have learned more about HTS from Montgomery McFate herself then from media sources.

    In all the debate about who should get to say what, where, and what might the underlying messages be - lets not forget that once upon a time the purpose of listening to someone speak was to find out what they had to say, what information they have to share.

    As academics we should do a better job of keeping speculation from turning into gossip and the media becoming part of the academy.

  • Posted by Bob Avakian , Luxury on November 26, 2008 at 2:20pm EST
  • Those who are not on the battlefield have the luxury of debating ethics in the abstract. However, if the presence of an anthropologist or social scientist can save lives of soldiers and indigenous residents then, I submit, ethics demands scientists participate. As instructor of several students now mobilized to combat areas, I would hope this analysis of the ethics involved will prevail.

    Kinda clears things up when it gets personal.

  • The Article about McFate
  • Posted by Dennis Porter , Law Enforcement Retired on November 26, 2008 at 2:35pm EST
  • I read the artilce and don't see what all the "heartburn" is about. Finally the military has found some common sense and is bringing in Anthroplogist into the fray, so as not to destroy and step all over unique cultures and sub cultures. An Anthropologist can only be an asset to help military commanders understand the customs of the people they are dealing with.
    This has got to be a first for an invading army. If the Spanish had done that when they first came to the new world, we would not have had the whole sale slaughter of so many Native Americans.

    Those that oppose McFate's efforts are genocidal morons.
    Bottom line 1st amendment, freedom of speech,which is becoming a priveldge not a right.

    Dennis Porter

  • shame
  • Posted by Steven S. Clark on November 26, 2008 at 5:15pm EST
  • Shame on the SWAA dissenters who want to politicize topics they personally don't like. How is this different from a Catholic who personally opposes abortion trying to inflict this personal value on every else?

    Unfortunately, this type of "my way or the highway" attitude among professional academic societies is not limited to anthropologists, as poli sci profs recently had a similar tizzy in San Diego.

    Remember, if you can squelch ideas of which you disapprove, it can happen to you too. Big Bro' comes in both conservative AND liberal flavors.

    So, lighten up and return to the fair exchange of ideas and respectful debate. Please resist this troubling trend of stifling ideas other than your own.

    Someone ought to do an anthropological study on the anthropologists.

    Steven S. Clark, PhD

    http://stevensclark.typepad.com/bioscience_biz/

  • Would I invite Montgomery McFate to speak?
  • Posted by Hugh Gusterson , Professor at GMU on November 26, 2008 at 5:40pm EST
  • Liam Murphy should check his facts. He says he doubts I would invite McFate to speak -- but I did invite her to speak at my department at George Mason, despite the fact that she insisted I not be allowed to serve as discussant as her condition for speaking. (This might give some sense who really favors free speech here).

    But I do think there's a difference between inviting someone to speak and giving them the honor of the keynote position. And, having served on the AES board, I can say that a good president consults his board when picking a keynote speaker rather than blindsiding them.

    One more issue: was Liam Murphy paid for his teaching for HTS? If so, then there is the appearance of a quid pro quo here.

  • Invitations
  • Posted by Liam Murphy , Associate Professor at CSU Sacramento on November 26, 2008 at 7:35pm EST
  • Hello all -- Yes, Professor Gusterson is quite right to be miffed at my thoughtless comment, and I have apologized to him for my thoughtlessness. I also commend him for extending the invitation to Dr. McFate.

    I am indeed compensated by the army for any work that I do. But this is not a case of quid pro quo. Dr. McFate is an old friend -- that, and not any HTS connection -- is what drove me to invite her to speak.

    As I'm quoted as saying in the article above, in SWAA the presidents do tend to work their personal networks. I simply believe that McFate will make for an interesting speaker, and that her participation will be a draw for our conference (which is, after all, my responsibility as 2008-09 SWAA president).

    Wishing you all a happy Thanksgiving!

    Liam Murphy

  • small correction
  • Posted by Liam Murphy , Associate Professor at CSU Sacramento on November 26, 2008 at 7:35pm EST
  • Hello again,

    Prof. Gusterson incorrectly states that the SWAA board as a whole was "blindsided." In fact, many on the board knew for some time of my intention to invite McFate, and I certainly made no secret of it in the months leading up to the beginning of my tenure as president. We do have several new board members who came on AFTER that decision was reached -- they might have been surprised, but not because the decision was part of a hidden agenda.

    Also, with all due respect to Prof. Gusterson, my primary responsibility as SWAA president is to generate excitement for our annual conference. On this level, at least, it would seem that I have to date been successful.

    Again, with all my best regards,

    Liam Murphy

  • Posted by L.J, SWAA Member on November 27, 2008 at 12:25pm EST
  • If Liam Murphy likes to "generate excitement" then he should be happy about all the excitement he's going to generate at the next SWAA meeting when the membership demands that his disclose what his financial dealings with Mrs. McFate's Human Terrain Systems program have been. He should also like the excitement that will follow me and my fellow SWAA member's outrage when McFate refuses to answer questions about how she helped design a program that included features leading to the latest Human Terrain Murder trial of Mr. Ayala.

    Bring on McFtae, but here must be NO LIMITS to the questions we SWAA members get to ask her. We MUST be allowed to ask our questions and if she does not answer, then we will generate some real excitement for McFate and Liam Murphy!

  • Response to Liam Murphy
  • Posted by Hugh Gusterson , professor at GMU on November 27, 2008 at 12:25pm EST
  • I appreciate Liam Murphy's apology for assuming I wouldn't invite McFate to speak when I had, in fact, done so. As for the involvement (or not) of the board in this decision, Liam Murphy is obviously in the best position to know what happened, so his explanation supersedes claims in the Inside Higher Ed article and a claim made publicly by a board member at AAA that the board was not consulted. I appreciate his clarification.

    If and when McFate does go ahead with her talk at SWAA, I hope people in the audience will take the opportunity to press her on questions she would have been asked had she not cancelled her appearance at AAA:
    1) Why does she continue to recruit anthropologists for a program (the Human Terrain System) that has been officially condemned by the AAA?
    2) Given that 2 terrain team social scientists have been killed, a third burned over most of her body, and that another human terrain team member is facing criiminal charges for illegally excuting a prisoner, how well are these people being trained?
    3) What is McFate's response to evidence uncovered by David Price that unattributed passages from the writing of others (including Victor Turner and Anthony Giddens) appears in the chapter of the Counterinsurgency Manual that McFate took the lead on authoring?
    4) What is McFate's response to allegations in Mother Jones that she was involved in a family business that infiltrated gun control and animal rights groups in order to spy on them?
    5) Why is her PhD dissertation not publicly available?
    6) How does she respond to allegations of corruption and mismanagement in the Human terrain system put forward in a series of articles by the independent journalist John STanton?

  • Speaker
  • Posted by Liam Murphy , Associate Professr at CSUS on November 27, 2008 at 6:40pm EST
  • Hello all,

    I'm very grateful to all contributors to this message space! In and of itself, it has provided a nice opportunity to exchange some perspectives and clarify some aspects of what is going on.

    Just to make sure everything is understood. I have no intention of curbing questions for Dr. McFate in terms of their scope. She, of course, will be free to answer as she sees fit. Again, I should point out that anyone who wants to hear her will have to attend the banquet. I welcome you all, and bon appetite! :-)

    On the point of compensation that has been raised, whenever I have taught for HTS, I have earned a good "consulting" fee, but it is hardly out of step with what exists in the corporate world. I do not intend to disclose this figure online, but should you attend the banquet, you can ask that question and be assured of an answer (from me, at least...I cannot speak for Dr. McFate).You are sure to be disappointed, for if you look into standard consulting fees in the business world for PhD-level employees, you'll find it's not all that exciting.

    The only thing I cannot and will not abide will be open hostility in the context of what is intended as a celebration of our association's 80th anniversary. I expect the same decorum and restraint exercised at the recent AAA sessions. Even strong opponents of HTS were very gracious toward the panel of invitees, and we on the Executive Committee expect no less from the SWAA membership.

    With all my best wishes for a great Thanksgiving!

    Liam Murphy

  • ethics?
  • Posted by Larry on November 27, 2008 at 10:40pm EST
  • Mr. Avakian,

    The presence of a battlefield doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t debate the ethics of something. Now, I am not rendering a conclusion on the underlying issue, but this is not a case where an anthropoligst had to make a snap judgment, but where a group of anthropologists have put a lot of thought and concluded that their course of conduct is, indeed, ethical (and others disagree.)

    But, let’s take it one step further. None of your students were forced to go to war. They could have made the decision to not enlist stateside. They could have debated this with all the luxury of the US. But they did not. So, now, because of your students’ failure to reach a conclusion that war is indeed ethical, you think that future debate on the means of prosecuting a war is unethical?

    Again, I don’t have an opinion on the underlying issue.

  • Posted by Beth on November 27, 2008 at 10:45pm EST
  • Liam Murphy and Montgomery McFate are opportunists selling out anthropology to cash in with Human Terrain's lies. That Murphy would be allowed to bring in a business partner who has greased him palm for contributing to the already discredited, disgraced and condemned Human Terrain program is outrageous. Murphy and McFate have a lot of explaining to do. McFate won't answer our questions, and if she knows there will be questions, she won't show up--heck, her lawyer won't let her answer questions about her role on the Human Terrain Murder, so I don't see what the point of asking questions is?

  • Posted by JJ on November 28, 2008 at 9:55am EST
  • Because those military anthropologists at the AAA meetings all made it a point to say they are not Montgomery McFate and they don't do Human Terrain type of work, they might be good critics to bring to SWAA, they seemed to hate her and what she's done. The only anthropologists left who seem to not despise her and Human Terrain are those like Liam Murphy who are on her pay role.

  • McFate
  • Posted by Ethnographer on November 29, 2008 at 3:35pm EST
  • Academia needs to assure that McFate is allowed to speak if it is to uphold its stance on academic freedom.

    However, those in academia who work for HTS are not and should not be excused from their work and their de facto support of disastrous U.S. policies. Additionally, HTS puts us academics in harms way every time we present at conferences in the U.S. and abroad because now, and rightly so, many countries will be suspect of academics and look at us as potential spies...

    The British, Belgians, French during their colonial years used anthropological/ethnographic methods to exploit the countries they were conquering to extract as much resources as possible. The Rwanda Genocide is just one example of what happens when a colonizing government/military exploit/create cultural differences...

    Again, HTS folks should be able to present at AAA and other academic venues but they should also be ready to take "flak"...

  • Correction
  • Posted by Liam Murphy , Associate Professor at CSU Sacramento on November 30, 2008 at 6:20am EST
  • Greetings all,

    Just wanted to offer a correction to something I wrote in an earlier post. I had said that only those who attended the banquet would be able to hear Dr. McFate speak. A colleague in SWAA has since reminded me that this is not the arrangement that has been made previously. Usually, for the after-dinner dinner, the doors have been opened and additional chairs set up around the salon's perimeter for other to hear the talk. This, of course, is perfectly appropriate, and my apologies for the earlier mistake.

    With all best wishes,
    Liam Murphy

  • Politicized Science
  • Posted by Old Country Boy , Research Engineer at Retired on December 2, 2008 at 10:20am EST
  • It never ceases to amaze me the extent the liberal left (even those in the relatively hard sciences) will go to stiffle opposing views. The Human Terrain program's primary purposes were to save civilian lives, further the mission of the Americn Military on the ground, and provide some ameliorating insight for the American forces not to demonize the local population with "gook", "kraut", "raghead", etc.

    I would think an anthropologist that was willing to do this would be held up to the highest accolades. However, the wrong person was President and therefore the politicized academics will stiffle any opinions that might bring praise for a good program. I suspect they would recommend the Nobel Prize for this if the President was a recognized socialist/liberas like Obama.

    As a retired research engineer from a prestigeous institution, I have been in the US Army and have worked with the military for years to enhance their abilities on the battlefield to both promote their mission and save lives, which generally are the same thing.

  • Posted by Emjay on December 2, 2008 at 10:45am EST
  • First, the military really isn't in need of "humanization". This is the most humane military in the history of mankind. There are countless examples of soldiers accepting greater risk, and even laying down their lives, to avoid civilian casualties. Some would boggle your mind, such as laying on top of a grenade, or soldiers sending out the message that they would slow down their convoys and make themselves easier targets, if insurgents would only trigger IEDs without children nearby.

    In fact, I'd be willing to bet academics faced with such circumstances would not do better in terms of courage, ethical reaction, or ultimate humanity and self-sacrifice, that our soldiers fulfill every day.

    Moreover, the counterinsurgency process that human terrain specialists try to inform has at it's core one abiding goal: the protection of the civilian population. This is where that input comes into play. How do you secure a village or a province from terrorist predations, so as to AVOID war and killing? Anthropology can play a part here, or shrug off this ethical imperative and retreat to it's ivory tower.

    That said, these strategies are employed to fight off threats that do not respect the sanctity of the ivory tower, and often target academics, professors and intellectuals first, wherever it roots.

    If a society decides to send it's military into battle, it must be girded for unexpected and unfortunate civilian casualties. If the society finds it cannot stomach the inevitable effects inherent in all war, it should simply not send it's forces into any battle at any time for any purpose. The protests registered here against the use of human terrain are objections to war writ large, not specifically the Iraq war. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that America simply should not use it's military abroad for any reason.

    Presumably, this would hold true under a Commander in Chief called Barrack Obama who might, for example, decide to send in troops to fight off attacks on food convoys in Darfur, or force the intervention of aid past a recalcitrant and uncooperative Burmese junta after an earthquake. If this non-use of force is "humane", and the military that would risk it all to defend these shipments to the starving is the one in need of "humanization", than things are indeed upside down in this brave new world.

    I also have no patience for the pious preening on moral or ethical terms of a group or individual who poses as superior. The sanctimony is quite insufferable in the face of real-world, non-academic, and non-abstracts threats to this country.

    Moreover, this military invited not only anthropologists but human rights organizations into the process of formulating counterinsurgency and the means by which civilian populations are secured. The whole drive toward this soft power was in fact made possible by those with the means for the hardest power imaginable.

    Why do we study the past at all? What is to be gained, that would further mankind and uplift and enlighten civilization to learn about different peoples and cultures? To sit in a book nobody reads?

    For some, applying anthropological knowledge in the real world, to benefit real people, might seem to sully it's academic purity. If so, then the entire anthropological community is irrelevant, and produces nothing of value.

  • Re McFate
  • Posted by Willard Phelps on December 2, 2008 at 12:31pm EST
  • The final arbiter of the research he is conducting is the quality of peer reviewed publicatins resulting. Politics should not enter the equation.

  • Posted by emjay on December 3, 2008 at 10:20am EST
  • Politics most definitely shouldn't enter into the equation when the anthropological community is critiquing and judging how it's work is employed. Reality and human suffering, however, should very much enter into it.

  • academic isolation or participation
  • Posted by Kurt E Müller on December 5, 2008 at 8:05am EST
  • American higher education has a record of independence in assessing its support or opposition to the nation’s wars that is well documented for both WW2 and Vietnam. Within institutions, perspectives on issues that favored or opposed participation differed across departments and between departments and central administration. During WW2, for example, institutional interests were to preserve and enhance enrollments by arguing to the War and Navy Departments (predecessors of today’s Department of Defense) that expanding its leadership required an expansion of higher education. There were of course individual faculty who opposed the war, its conduct, and results, but the tide of public support washed over campus life as well. After the war, individual disciplines through their learned societies, such as the Modern Language Assn, documented the contributions of their personnel to the war effort. AAA’s postwar memory was similarly supportive, though the discipline has a long record of debating its members’ support of government policy. On his website, anthropologist David Price notes that the AAA censured Franz Boas for decrying the use of professional credentials in anthropology during WW1 as a cover for espionage activity. Vietnam was of course very different, with campus life in the forefront of opposition to the war and faculty antagonism focused on the conduct of the war (jus in bello issues) or derived from simple pacifism, not primarily from disagreement with its ostensible aims.

    Not everyone has the luxury of choosing pacifism. Wars as diverse as the Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Rwanda, the Liberian civil wars, the dissolution of Yugoslav society, and its predecessor of forced ethnic recruiting in earlier Balkan wars show the ease with which noncombatants are forced to flee or take sides. “What if they gave a war and nobody came” makes for a good slogan but fails a reality test.

    Academics can usually opt out, but the result of isolation from policy development and execution belies a major purpose of education: to offer perspectives on life’s activities that provide a basis for good choices. If we who oppose bad policy simply opt out of influencing others, are we not complicit in their behavior? The critics of HTS imply that their opposition to collaboration establishes their concern for the culture in the war zone. That position is reminiscent of German intelligentsia during WW2 who opted for “innere Emigration,” a non-participation in events that kept them safe from collegial criticism, or so they thought.

    Our government has certainly made mistakes in the current conflicts, some directly attributable to a complete disregard of both principles and specifics of international treaty obligations. But do we not improve the situation by engagement rather than isolation? If the academy fails to influence policy, it fails to serve the society that supports it. Where were the learned societies and representatives of culture-based constituencies before the invasion of Iraq to pressure the White House to protect cultural patrimony (as they did during WW2)? Particularly in the face of an obstinate leadership, political pressure is essential to support alternative approaches to flawed policy.

    I have spent most of my professional life arguing for competence in languages and international affairs so that Americans better understand the world around them and make better choices. The biggest frustration in this effort has been that the military has been far more receptive than the education sector. This receptivity is not new. In compiling members’ contributions to WW2, MLA Executive Secretary Percy Long cited one member who noted that the military “had both a broader curriculum in modern languages than any small college of which I know and more students enrolled ...” He could have added that the larger universities were able to develop their offerings in less commonly taught languages largely because military students provided a market. Today’s expansive enrollment in Arabic stands in chiaroscuro to the enrollment in Vietnamese during the 1960s-70s. Language enrollment was one symptom of academe’s isolationism at the time. In cutting ROTC programs, American higher education made the military rely on its own officer candidate schools rather than college-educated personnel. The result was that officers like LT William Calley, of My Lai ignominy, were the norm rather than an American T.E. Lawrence.

  • correction
  • Posted by Hugh Gusterson , Prof. on January 30, 2009 at 1:40pm EST
  • In an earlier post I said that Montgomery McFate's PhD thesis was not publicly available. My thanks to Laleh Khalili for letting me know that it is in fact available, but under a different authorial name: Montgomery Carlough. The thesis, "Pax Britannica: British Counterinsurgency in Norther Ireland, 1969-1982," can be accessed through Proquest.

    Hugh Gusterson

  • Follow-up Story Needed
  • Posted by Memory Doctor on May 5, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • McFate did indeed give her keynote speech but it was a disaster. She must have thought she was briefing a group of Department of Defense yesmen, and not a room full of intellectuals. She spoke from a list of old talking points for a few minutes, the room got restless, the talked a little more and then took a couple of questions, but suddenly cut the questions short after just a few questionswhen she saw how many critics were in the room and she suddenly left.

    My advice to McFate''s critics is, invite her to speak at your event, she's her own worst enemy. I went to this event with an open mind and came away concluding that her critics are right, she's created a disaster for anthropology.

  • Dr. McFate's Talk
  • Posted by Liam Murphy , Associate Professor, Anthropology at CSU Sacramento on May 10, 2009 at 6:30am EDT
  • Why, one might almost conclude that Memory Doctor didn't enjoy his or herself! Which would be unfortunate, because everyone else I spoke to had a capital time! I must, of course, demur from the previous entry -- which I find astounding; amusing even! Whatever else, it certainly doesn't represent the lion's share of opinion at the conference. I must have had at least two dozen, non-partisan people approach me immediately following Dr. McFate's talk to tell me how impressed they were (besides the numerous people who did so at other times over the course of the weekend, to thank me in advance for bringing her in).

    One point in the above posting transcends opinion and approaches playing fast and loose with the truth (to be charitable). After speaking for close to an hour, Dr. McFate took five or six questions, all of which she answered quite straighforwardly. The only question which I myself thought might have merited further discussion what related to consultation with the AAA: why had it not been done before the setting up of HTS, etc? Dr. McFate admits that this would perhaps have been desirable. As for question moderation, Memory Doctor is in need of a little memory work him or herself. Either that or they were simply clueless about how these things work. Our moderator, Bill Fairbanks, is Chairman of the Board of SWAA and has no "horse in this race" that I'm aware of. If he restricted the time of any individual's question, it was to make room for subsequent questions. After the question period, Dr. McFate made herself available for at least ten minutes to anyone who wished to speak with her, but I guess Memory Doctor had a previous engagement.

    I have little doubt there were restless people -- they had every right to be, as McFate calmly employed a bevy of examples to undo some of their most cherished criticisms. So yes, invite away -- problem is, Dr. McFate hardly enjoys being a pin cushion, and her appearance was, as I have said elswhere, something of a favor to me personally. I don't think she much cares about academic anthropology per se anymore, but hopes to sway non-academic anthropologists and fence-sitters. Consider -- the same hubris and barbs laced throughout the previous post might (and doubtless has) been directed with disdain at many the practitioner of non-academic, "non-intellectual" anthropology. On another note altogether, nobody in her audience appeared to want to ask many of the questions proposed in previous posts above, much less ask about salary issues, etc (which I, for my part, was perfectly willing to discuss). It seems neither Memory Doctor nor, L.J. (who raged several months ago on a post above and claimed to be attending the conference) hadn't anything like the courage of her convictions. There was nary a peep that I could detect outside of a session devoted to such issues. Setting aside all the critical views about Dr. McFate and HTS, one could hardly conclude this appearance represented any kind of "victory" of reason against HTS...again, I am chuckling at this. Last November's AAA meetings were far more serious in this regard. But I do indeed thank Memory Doctor, L.J. and any other "public" critics for coming out to Las Vegas anyway. Our numbers were such as to make for a wonderful conference, and we have our rank-and-file to thank!

    With best regards,

    Liam Murphy

    Past-President, SWAA

  • Follow Up Story...Good Idea!
  • Posted by Liam Murphy , Associate Professor at CSU Sacramento on May 10, 2009 at 6:30am EDT
  • Forgot to mention earlier that I think this would be an excellent idea...provided it's rooted in the perspectives of those who attended the banquet (who would, naturally enough, have to go on the record with their own names). Those who weren't present obviously have little to contribute to a post-conference discussion of the President's Speaker's address.

    Kind regards,

    Liam Murphy

  • ack!
  • Posted by Liam Murphy , Associate Professor, Anthropology at CSU Sacramento on May 10, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • Please forgive my faulty grammar in the post above...it was late, I was tired, etc., etc.

    Liam