My case in point involves ClaremontrnGraduate School, where, last spring, therntheologians gave a doctoral degree for arndissertation devoted to—of all things—rnsome ideas of mine. Only after the dissertationrnwas accepted and the doctoralrndegree granted did the young scholarrnsend his work to me for my comments.rnWhat I found was that he had completelyrnmisrepresented my ideas, whichrnhe claimed to criticize. With predictablernhumility, he announced in his prefacernthat all of my work would have to be redonernbecause of his “discovery,” But,rnalas, his entire dissertation rested on arnsimple misreading of a book of mine andrnno reading at all of several dozen othersrnon the same problem. It was a simplernmistake that he could have cleared uprnhad he asked me whether he had gottenrnmy point right. He hadn’t gotten it atrnall. But he spent some 400 pages disprovingrnwhat he (wrongly) thought I’drnsaid. His “teachers” did not notice. But,rnnot knowing the territory, cither the primaryrnsources or the scholarship on them,rnhow could the’ have noticed? Nor didrnthey ask mc to read the work while itrnwas in progress, let alone to serve on therndissertation committee (it is commonrnto inite outside experts for just that purpose).rnNow, when I considered those whornserved on the dissertation committeernand signed the document as an acceptablerncontribution to learning, I couldrnnot find the name of a single scholarrnwho publishes in the field of the dissertation.rnIndeed, I doubt that anyone onrnthe dissertation committee could readrnand accurately explain 30 or 40 consecutivernlines of the ancient document thatrnis subject to analysis; as a matter of fact,rnmost of them cannot even read the languagernin which it is written. But that didrnnot stop the university from collectingrntuition nor prevent these scholars fromrnsigning their names to the dissertation.rnWhen I wrote to the president, thernprovost, the dean of the graduate school,rnand the chairman of the dissertationrncommittee, not one of them evenrnthought it necessary to respond to myrnletters. One member of the committee,rnan old friend of mine, wrote to say,rn”I don’t know why you’re so mad,” asrnthough issues of sentiment intervened.rnBut neither he nor any other academicrnofficer of Claremont Graduate School orrnits theology faculty possessed enough respectrnfor the just indignation of a colleaguerneven to write back and say.rn”You’re wrong because. . . . The dissertationrnis sound because. …”rnWhy not? It is because reason hasrnceased to matter; professors in the humanitiesrnno longer conceive that theyrnhave to give reasons for what they endorsernas a responsible and professionalrncontribution to learning. What I deemrnto be the chadatanism at play at Claremontrndisgraces not the young doctoralrnstudent—his error was one of mere arrogancern—nor even the members of therndissertation committee, who pretentiouslyrnpassed their opinion about thingsrnof which they knew not, for this happensrnevery day in the American academy.rnBut what—other than completernindifference to the integrity of theirrnwork—can explain the silence of the collegernadministrators, who obviously don’trnthink they have to answer their mail? Ifrnthere is academic malpractice, surely thisrnqualifies: not even to defend the integrityrnof their own degrees.rn—Jacob NeusnerrnR.I.P. RICHARD NIXON—Few peoplernknow that for eight years RichardrnNixon presided over the first federal programrnusing the leverage of governmentrncontracts to open jobs for minority workers.rnIn 1953, President Eisenhower, actingrnon the advice of a task force in thernTruman administration, issued an ExecutivernOrder declaring that all governmentrncontractors must not “discriminaternagainst any employee or applicantrnfor employment because of race, creed,rncolor, or national origin” and that allrnsubcontracts must contain the samernprovision.rnThe committee created to implementrnthis pronouncement was chaired b- thernVice President. Other members includedrnAttorney General William Rogers,rnSecretary of Labor James Mitchell, AssistantrnSecretary of Defense ThomasrnPike, George Meany, Walter Reuther,rnPresident James Nabrit, Jr., of HowardrnUniversity, and other government officialsrnand prominent interested citizens.rnThe key staff members were the peoplernwho had drawn up the nondiscriminationrnplan under President Truman. I wasrnemployed as executive vice chairman inrn1956 and 1957.rnThe diverse interests of the committeernmembers proved somewhat contentious,rnbut as chairman Richard Nixon gave arnfair hearing to every voice and permittedrnno one to dominate the discussion. Havingrnalways done his homework, his leadershiprnwas surefooted.rnBecause the committee’s work was ferventlyrnopposed in some quarters, I wasrnadvised to hire a secretary in whom Irnhad absolute confidence. An associaternfrom Palos Verdes College, yvhere I hadrnbeen serving, agreed to accept the position.rnOne of her responsibilities was torntake minutes of the committee meetings.rnOn her first day in that role, Mr.rnNixon arrived after the meeting had begun.rnHe was briefed on the rather difficultrnmatter at hand, and the discussionrnresumed. He interrupted to say hernhadn’t met this lady, nodding at my secretary,rnwho was seated at a short distancernfrom the conference table. After Irnpresented her, he thanked her for acceptingrnthe job and expressed hopernthat she would find that her new workrnjustified the complications of movingrnherself and her son all the way from California.rnThis was a natural and genuine act ofrncourtesy, typical of the behavior thatrnearned him the respect and support ofrnthe staff members, including the Trumanrnappointees, who were lifelongrnDemocrats. In an echo of this kindness,rnLuci Baines Johnson recently spoke ofrnher gratitude for a note Richard Nixonrnsent her after the birth of her baby. Hernsaid he knew her father would have beenrndelighted that she had named therndaughter for his mother. This letter,rnwritten shortly before President Nixonrnresigned, was, she said, “an extraordinaryrnact of thoughtfulness from a man inrnthe midst of a terrible ordeal.”rnWhen the Government ContractrnCommittee began its work, prejudicernforeclosed a great percentage of nonmenialrnjobs to minorities. At the end ofrnthe Eisenhower administration, a vastrnchange had been wrought. Millions ofrnjobs had been opened to all citizensrnunder the Equal Job Opportunitiesrnprogram headed by Richard Nixon.rnIt should be noted that Mr. Nixonrntook no initiative to make sure the publicrnknew of his role in procuring greatrnbenefits for minority groups, just as herntook no public credit for his decision notrnto challenge the outcome of the 1960rnpresidential election, which a numberrnof seasoned observers believed mightrnhave been reversed in a recount. Inrnboth instances, Richard Nixon was anrnAmerican citizen serving his country,rnnot a politico seeking a higher ratingrnin the opinion polls. He deserves praisernJULY 1994/7rnrnrn