3 ms·

The claim was that he was a constitutional law scholar, not that he was a professor. While there are overlaps between the two groups, neither one is a subset of

by jeromec 16y ago

The claim was that he was a constitutional law scholar, not that he was a professor. While there are overlaps between the two groups, neither one is a subset of the other. You're kidding, right? Him being a scholar is an even easier proof than him being a questionable professor -- which the link I listed at FactCheck.org also asserts is true. Oxford Dictionary (First Definition): scholar (schol·ar): a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic From the UC Law School statement at FactCheck.org: "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track ... Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

anamax 16y ago
>>The claim was that he was a constitutional law scholar, not that he was a professor. While there are overlaps between the two groups, neither one is a subset of the other. >You're kidding, right? Not at all. I have reasonably high standards for scholars. For example, even though the degree is "Juris Doctor", I don't call lawyers "Dr.". (However, I will call them "Esquire".) Meanwhile, you'd call a 6th grade history teacher a "scholar" if they teach some constitution....
- jeromec 16y ago
  Not at all. I have reasonably high standards for scholars. This is not about you. It's about the definition in the dictionary. It has as a primary entry for scholar "a distinguished academic". The definition for "professor" from Wikipedia: The meaning of the word professor (Latin: professor, person who professes to be an expert in some art or science, teacher of high rank[1]) varies by country. In most English-speaking countries it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair ... etc. I don't know how you equate "Senior Lecturers regarded as professors" by a university to a 6th grade history teacher who may also be the school gym teacher filling in. That's stretching things a bit.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > In most English-speaking countries it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair Which Obama didn't.... In general, real professors have publications. Heck, so do real academic doctors. Honorary and "we're giving him an appointment to curry favor" ones don't.
    - jeromec 16y ago
      Bottom line: Point 1: You had a problem with me referring to President Obama as a scholar. Regardless of your semantic arguments, dictionaries also define scholar as simply a student or learned person. Point 2: The university statement clarifies how and why Obama was regarded as a professor -- and not just an "honorary" one. Point 3: Most academic doctors or professors with publications do not go on to become the President of the United States. Have you ever stopped to think maybe he was busy in service of the public as well as his family? Honestly, the original point was about the contrast in perspective, as far as the Constitution is concerned, between Obama and Bush. I really don't see what you are challenging.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > Most academic doctors or professors with publications do not go on to become the President of the United States. Irrelevant. Becoming president doesn't imply that he's anything else. Or, do you want to argue that he's an astronaut too? He didn't ever go into space, but that's just because he had better things to do. > Have you ever stopped to think maybe he was busy in service of the public as well as his family? It doesn't matter why he doesn't have scholarly output. If he doesn't.... FWIW, almost every other editor of the Harvard Law Review managed to crank out a paper or two during their tenure. > Honestly, the original point was about the contrast in perspective, as far as the Constitution is concerned, between Obama and Bush. I really don't see what you are challenging. You seem to think that teaching a class tells us something important. Without scholarly output, we know nothing about what he did. (I'm a lecturer at a major university....)
        16y ago

by jeromec 16y ago

anamax 16y ago

>>The claim was that he was a constitutional law scholar, not that he was a professor. While there are overlaps between the two groups, neither one is a subset of the other. >You're kidding, right? Not at all. I have reasonably high standards for scholars. For example, even though the degree is "Juris Doctor", I don't call lawyers "Dr.". (However, I will call them "Esquire".) Meanwhile, you'd call a 6th grade history teacher a "scholar" if they teach some constitution....

jeromec 16y ago
Not at all. I have reasonably high standards for scholars. This is not about you. It's about the definition in the dictionary. It has as a primary entry for scholar "a distinguished academic". The definition for "professor" from Wikipedia: The meaning of the word professor (Latin: professor, person who professes to be an expert in some art or science, teacher of high rank[1]) varies by country. In most English-speaking countries it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair ... etc. I don't know how you equate "Senior Lecturers regarded as professors" by a university to a 6th grade history teacher who may also be the school gym teacher filling in. That's stretching things a bit.
- anamax 16y ago
  > In most English-speaking countries it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair Which Obama didn't.... In general, real professors have publications. Heck, so do real academic doctors. Honorary and "we're giving him an appointment to curry favor" ones don't.
  - jeromec 16y ago
    Bottom line: Point 1: You had a problem with me referring to President Obama as a scholar. Regardless of your semantic arguments, dictionaries also define scholar as simply a student or learned person. Point 2: The university statement clarifies how and why Obama was regarded as a professor -- and not just an "honorary" one. Point 3: Most academic doctors or professors with publications do not go on to become the President of the United States. Have you ever stopped to think maybe he was busy in service of the public as well as his family? Honestly, the original point was about the contrast in perspective, as far as the Constitution is concerned, between Obama and Bush. I really don't see what you are challenging.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > Most academic doctors or professors with publications do not go on to become the President of the United States. Irrelevant. Becoming president doesn't imply that he's anything else. Or, do you want to argue that he's an astronaut too? He didn't ever go into space, but that's just because he had better things to do. > Have you ever stopped to think maybe he was busy in service of the public as well as his family? It doesn't matter why he doesn't have scholarly output. If he doesn't.... FWIW, almost every other editor of the Harvard Law Review managed to crank out a paper or two during their tenure. > Honestly, the original point was about the contrast in perspective, as far as the Constitution is concerned, between Obama and Bush. I really don't see what you are challenging. You seem to think that teaching a class tells us something important. Without scholarly output, we know nothing about what he did. (I'm a lecturer at a major university....)
      - 16y ago