Archive for October 9, 2013

The Good Old Days

October 9, 2013 Leave a comment

A.W. Tucker

A.W. Tucker

[From AMS, courtesy of Alan Tucker]

I received my copy of the latest American Mathematical Monthly today. The Monthly is a publication of the Mathematical Association of America, which describes itself as “the largest professional society that focuses on mathematics accessible at the undergraduate level.” (They complement the American Mathematical Society, whose mission is to “further the interests of mathematical research and scholarship.”)

An article in the new Monthly caught my eye, Alan Tucker’s “The History of the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics in the United States.” This is not likely to interest you as much as me, so you may not be too disappointed to learn that for non-members it sits behind a pay wall, available at JSTOR for $12. Thus you’re likely to miss out on the following paragraph:

In the early 1950s faculty at many leading research departments still saw teaching as their primary mission. Even senior administrators often taught two courses per semester. When my father, A. W. Tucker, was chair of the Princeton mathematics department in the 1950s, not only did he have the same teaching load as other senior faculty, but every other semester he was also in charge of the freshman calculus course taken by almost all students. When I questioned him years later why he took on this huge extra obligation, he responded, “The most important thing that the Princeton Mathematics Department did was teach freshman calculus and so it was obvious that as chair, I should lead that effort.”

Just as well. I wouldn’t want you to get any crazy ideas.

(It may be useful to explain that at many large research universities, including mine, the math department chair has no teaching obligations.)

Categories: Math, Teaching


October 9, 2013 Leave a comment


Ten days ago, I had a post laid out in my head on the mainstream press’s tendency toward false equivalence, but I didn’t get around to writing it. Now Tom Tomorrow’s latest cartoon makes it redundant. See especially the fourth panel. Plus, Jim Fallows has been on the beat with a steady stream of posts (latest here).

The reference to the Constitution in Tom’s fifth panel is a natural lead-in to a post by Gary Wills at the New York Review of Books today. An excerpt:

The people behind these efforts are imitating what the Confederate States did even before they formally seceded in 1861. Already they ran a parallel government, in which the laws of the national government were blatantly disregarded. They denied the right of abolitionists to voice their arguments, killing or riding out of town over three hundred of them in the years before the Civil War. They confiscated or destroyed abolitionist tracts sent to Southern states by United States mail. In the United States Congress, they instituted “gag rules” that automatically tabled (excluded from discussion) anti-slavery petitions, in flagrant abuse of the First Amendment’s right of petition.

The Southern states were able to live in such open disregard for national law because of two things. First, the states were disproportionately represented in Congress because they got three extra votes for seats in the House of Representatives for every five slaves owned in the state—giving them 98 seats instead of 73 in 1833, and similar margins up to the war. Second, the national Democratic-Republican Party needed the Southern part of its coalition so badly that it colluded with the Southern states’ violations of the Constitution. In 1835, for instance, President Andrew Jackson did not enforce the sacredness of the US mail, allowing states to refuse delivery of anti-slave mailings unless a recipient revealed his identity, requested delivery, and had his name published for vilification.

Just as the Old South compelled the national party to shelter its extremism, today’s Tea Party leaders make Republicans toe their line. Most Republicans do not think laws invalid because the president is a foreign-born Muslim with a socialist agenda. But they do not renounce, or even criticize, their partners who think that. The rare Republican who dares criticize a Rush Limbaugh is quickly made to repent and apologize. John Boehner holds the nation hostage because the Tea Party holds him hostage. The problem with modern Republicans is not fanaticism in the few but cowardice in the many, who let their fellows live in virtual secession from laws they disagree with.

Categories: Journalism, Law, Politics