John W. Dahmus

Comments -

• Until I heard that some of the audience found Professor Zemskyıs address yesterday at least somewhat pleasing, I had not planned to convey my opinions to the committee. Since I found his speech seriously flawed, however, I now think it advisable to make my opinions known.
• First, I found his talk extraordinarily short on substance. I remember looking at my watch at 12:20 and thinking that he still had not said anything worth remembering. Although his performance improved somewhat after that, he still said little that was worth recording.
• Second, he was vague in both analysis and prescription. A major point was his contrast between ³perimeter² and ³core.² He never defined ³perimeter,² even by giving examples. The fact that I cannot even remember his prescriptions for the ails of the university either shows that he said nothing memorable on that issue or indicates that by that time I had decided that his analysis was so imperfect that I could reasonably ignore his prescriptions.
• That brings me to the third and most important point. He claims that at the perimeter of the educational establishment he and others are thriving and that the core must wake up to its mortal danger. I rather feel that he and his ilk are parasites on the educational establishment, consuming its energy like a cancer and producing little of real value or substance for either university or society (though I must admit that he did not tell us what work he and these others are actually doing on the perimeter of the university).
• Why would any business want to give him or his kind financial support except for the fact that he is connected to the university system? Remove that umbilical cord, and his enterprise will disappear. He talked about new educational enterprises appearing every six weeks (although again he did not describe these new enterprises)‹should he not better have said fads? How long will the business community tolerate lack of substance? He chided Dr. Szafran for confusing ³perimeter² with ³periphery²; if that was a slip on Dr. Szafranıs part, it was a telling description of Dr. Zemskyıs position‹on the periphery, or, as Dr. Zemsky put the matter, unimportant.
• I was surprised to discover, at least based on the short vita that your committee sent, how little teaching experience he has had. He has not written a book in his chosen field of history since 1971, and he must never have held a permanent university teaching position, much less tenure, since the vita lists only two visiting professorships. Failure to gain a teaching position in the economically troubled 1970s should not be held against Professor Zemsky, but his lack of teaching experience does make one suspicious of the value of his advice.
• The truly frightening aspect of his speech, however, is his claim that he has the ear of university presidents. The vita also lists ties with the federal government and the Pew Higher Education Roundtable. I only hope that this is one of those cases where the community cannot endure sound doctrine and has gone aside, temporarily, to people who tickle their fancy.
• It ill behooves us to take Dr. Zemskyıs analysis seriously. If there are problems in American higher education like its cost, we will not solve them by an ³outlet mall² approach nor by cutting the substance out of a university education.
• I am looking forward to the other two speakers for the wisdom and substance which Dr. Zemsky failed to deliver.
• Thank you for the opportunity to provide my opinions on your important enterprise.
• Sincerely,
• John Dahmus
• Professor of History