So, What Is This "RESIDENT OLD CURMUDGEON" Bit?

In December 2007 I received several inquiries about the .sig file on my e-mail messages:

Gregory Holmes Singleton, Ph.D.
Professor of History, Emeritus
Northeastern Illinois University
RESIDENT OLD CURMUDGEON
In All Venues
http://www.neiu.edu/~ghsingle

It wasn't the title of Professor Emeritus that people wondered about. It is fairly well known that this is a designation given to retired faculty on the nomination of departments and ratification by university presidents. It comes for the Latin for "We don't have to put up with the old fool any more." It is a title I share with at least several hundred thousands of others across the nation, a few hundred NEIU folk, and eleven colleagues in the Department of History

What people questioned was my title, "Resident Old Curmudgeon." I glory in that title because it is, as far as I know, unique.

Yes, there is a story behind the title. If you close this window now, you can avoid it.

Over the years I have been blessed with capable, intelligent, and creative graduate students. One term, however, I had a class dominated by people who had little interest in the life of the mind. Why they thought they wanted to be in a graduate program is beyond me. They complained about the difficulty of the material and assignments. They complained about having to be introduced to subject matters, authors and concepts they had never encountered before. They complained about being required to read and produce works of analysis rather than simple narrative.

I took the first part of a 2+ hour class session to discuss these complaints. In order to make certain that the rumors sure to circulate after this class session would conform to something resembling reality, I wrote my remarks, distributed copies to my students and colleagues, and read the remarks in class as an invitation to discussion.

My colleagues expressed their appreciation for my having addressing these issues and rewarded me with the title "Resident Old Curmudgeon of the History Department." When the president of the university heard about this, the response was, "Singleton's ability and service as a curmudgeon have impacted this entire institution. He is truly the Resident Old Curmudgeon of Northeastern Illinois University." Even more gratifying, however, were the appreciative comments from our very good and hard-working graduate students who defined the considerable majority of that population.

Though protesting, "non sum dignum," I accepted the accolade.

The following are the remarks made to the class, and are presented here in defense of my continued use of the title. I have removed the number and title of the class, as well as the date in order to avoid any possible guessing games about who these students might have been. They know who they are. No one else needs to know.

COMMENTS READ AT THE START OF CLASS

Gregory Holmes Singleton
I am preparing this document because I don't want to be misquoted (and of course you are going to talk about this outside of class). Please do not interrupt me until I have completed this statement. Following these comments, there will then be plenty of opportunity for response and discussion.

I found a few comments at the last class session disturbing. Ironically, two of those who made the comments are among the students I hold in highest regard. Thus my remarks are about the comments and not about the students who made them. I don't know if the statements at issue represent generally shared sentiments in the class as a whole, but they need to be addressed because they get at the heart of the distinction between the scholarly profession of History and a general interest in the past as a leisure pass-time. There is nothing wrong with the latter, but it is not the focus of advanced study in the discipline of History. By way of illustration, I have a great interest in the opera, and know many arias by heart. As much as that enriches my life, I do not expect that to be sufficient to carry me through an advanced degree program in music, and one should not expect an interest in the past to be sufficient for a graduate program in history.

You have entered, or are contemplating entering, a program of graduate study in the discipline. The current Northeastern Illinois University Academic Catalog (p. 47) states the general nature and purpose of graduate programs:


Northeastern Illinois University, through its Graduate College and faculty, provides the resources, the facilities and the academic environment to advance learning, to foster creativity, and to nurture intellectual independence in graduate education. Graduate students pursue advanced studies and join faculty in extending knowledge through research and scholarly activities.

This general policy is specifically embodied in the following statement from the department's graduate studies brochure and home page:

The Department of History aims to provide all graduate students with (1) an understanding of history as a mode of inquiry; (2) an in-depth exposure to at least two different historical fields; (3) a grounding in historical research methods; and (4) an introduction to the art of historical interpretation. This program is designed to serve all who desire a more sophisticated understanding of history.

I assume that all who enter, or seek to enter, graduate education at this institution accept the terms under which we offer participation in advanced learning. Therefore, I was surprised and disappointed to hear comments complaining about the minutia of materials, the concentration on analysis rather than narrative, the tendency of some scholars to write for other scholars and not for a general audience, the unfamiliarity of some of the topics and authors discussed in class, and the relative difficulty of the material.

In order to leave adequate time for responses and discussion, as well as for the scheduled topic this evening (and these comments are not a bad lead-in to that topic), I will make my remarks concerning these comments brief.

1. On the matter of the minutia involved in historical research and discussion:
"Minutia" and "frivolous" are not synonyms. In what way can historical investigation be done without entering into the minutia of the evidence available? One must answer this question satisfactorily before legitimately articulating a complaint about the minutia to which one is exposed as an advanced student of history. In addition (particularly in a class of this sort) one really must distinguish between the minutia involved in doing the research and the significance of the question that drives the research.

In class, I gave an example of the sort of research and reasoning process which unavoidably plunges us into minutia. One member of the class repeated the oft-cited bit of "common knowledge" that JFK's candidacy for president received widespread opposition because he was a Roman Catholic. "Common knowledge" is the enemy of verifiable information. The "general knowledge" that the candidacy of JFK was widely opposed because he was a Roman Catholic contains an assertion that implies quantitative information, and begs for definitions. I replied that it is certain that about a dozen or so people made public statements. I raised the question: does a dozen or so satisfy the criterion of "widely opposed?" I then posed a similar problem with the election of 1928. I reported the results of a precinct by precinct study, necessarily involving immersion in minutia, which raises serious question about the facile claim that Al Smith was defeated because he was a Roman Catholic. Of course, one could argue that anti-Catholicism was widespread but not documentable. I suggest that if one advances this argument, one should study a bit of epistemology before continuing with that analysis.

2. On the matter of the concentration on analysis rather than narrative:
In the previous example, I also presented a verbal analysis of factors one would have to consider in order to assess the validity of those facile generalizations we often call "common knowledge." Indeed, one of the tasks of scholars in general, including historians, is to challenge unsupported generalizations, and to do so using both exhaustive information ("minutia") and rigorous logic (analysis). If we do not do this, there is no need to enter into graduate study. Just listen to the words of Uncle Walt, or visit the local neighborhood tap.

The only legitimate question here is whether the minutia and the rigor are being used to address an important question. Alas, not one student posited such a consideration.

3. On the matter of scholars who write for other scholars and not for a general audience:
As I mentioned in class, out of the tens of thousands of professional historians in the nation, there are some who write for other scholars, some who write for a general audience, some who write for both, and some who don't write at all. My guess is that what was behind the complaint was exposure to material that the complainer really didn't want to read, and that guess was further corroborated when I was finally able to get the student to address the real concern.

What astounds me is that anyone embarking on advanced study would not expect to read materials written primarily for scholars. I invite you all to please re-think what graduate education is about. If it is a matter of granting advanced status to a vague discussion of common knowledge rather than a rigorous and well grounded inquiry into the action, behavior and thought of our species in time dimension, then conversations with Uncle Walt and visits to the neighborhood tap are indicated.

4. On the matter of the unfamiliarity of some of the topics and authors discussed in class:
On this one, I almost throw my hands in the air and wonder if the student expects that she or he will go through a course of study for an advanced degree and not encounter topics and authors previously unknown. I really need to have someone explain to me why the complaint is not completely out of place in a graduate program.

5. On the matter of the relative difficulty of the material:
Simply change the words a bit in the previous remark, and apply it to this complaint. I again invite students to contemplate the nature of graduate education.

6. One additional remark concerning "Who the hell cares about some of this?":
This probably shocked me more than anything else said in class last week. The complete dismissal of an area as irrelevant simply because one has no immediate interest in it is something one might expect from a reader of People magazine or a viewer of "Days of Our Lives," but certainly not from someone pursuing an advanced degree.

There is probably a good deal of frustration, anxiety, and fear behind these comments. Doing honest and rigorous graduate work is not the easiest thing in the world, and grasping what scholarship is about takes some time and effort.

I am not concerned about the difficulty you may be having grasping this material. That is to be expected early in the process. I am, however, concerned about an apparent unwillingness on the part of some of the students to attempt to engage historical writing at a deeper and more sophisticated level. Apparently, some have not bothered to think about the significance of the following from the syllabus:

. . .the emphasis is not on the subject matter of the authors assigned, but on the intellectual activities apparent in their work.

or the following:

Most of the other reading assignments provide examples of the way in which historians have conceptualized their specific tasks and hints about how each of them conceptualize the historical enterprise generally.

The complaints have all dealt with substantive rather than conceptual issues, and the conceptual issues are clearly the focus of this course.

And the outbursts in class indicate that few have read the following:

If you find that you are not grasping the relationship between the lecture/discussions and the readings, see the professor as soon as possible."

No one has come to see me about this, but I have instead encountered "acting-out" questions in class.

How to make sense of this? What I perceive is a resistance to graduate education, as clearly defined by the catalog and the departmental brochure. I hope I am wrong. Even if I am not, perhaps resistance is the way some are dealing with frustration, anxiety and fear in the face of unfamiliar material and a requirement for far more rigorous thinking than you were called upon to exercise as undergraduates. I am opening up the floor for an honest discussion of the issues that emerge from the comments made last week and my remarks in reply. I do think the air needs to be cleared.