Spareink

1) If Graeber was on sabbatical, he wouldn't have had any obigations to the university that his activism would have interfered with (and certainly isn't the first or only academic to mix activism and professional activities).

2) While many may disagree with his political leanings, Graeber's work is very well-regarded in the discipline.

3) Linguistics isn't all that far removed from anthropology -- few anthropologists would feel uncomfortable with including Chomsky's work in the mix. Linguistics is, after all, one of the four fields...

4) Some self-destruction -- Graeber could have the pick of positions just about anywhere right now, and has a record that would virtually guarantee tenure in the fullness of time.

5) The issue at Yale isn't tenure -- as I recall, Graeber is not on a tenure-track at Yale. The issue is the premature cancellation of his contract. The question is whether Graeber was doing what he was hired to do -- and most sources say he was.

uh. one of chomsky's big beefs is people saying 'ooh, how can u talk about that, you're not qualified'. Well. His point is that you do not need to be trained to be educated in something and comments like yours are used to delegitimise arguments without having any merit in the criticsm,

If Chomsky is talking about academic prejudice. He's qualified.

Besides which, anthropology is a study of people, of the interaction of people, of culture. Participating/ Observing, with inteligence and academic background, being trusted as a compatriot, in the centre of such a growing, new and dynamic field of human interaction...

that sounds like dynamite anthropology,

The issue is NOT whether people speaking outside of their areas of expertise is a good thing or not (clearly, this is a good thing if done with an open mind: being an amateur is powerful and important); the issue, rather, is whether Chomsky was speaking on Graeber's behalf because of the overlapping of their linguistic academic research, or because of Chomsky's political sympathies for him.

Specifically: people talking outside of their areas of expertise is a key component of creativity, and democracy is even government by the amateurs. I am an outspoken amateur psychologist; does this, mean that my support of a particular psychologist for getting tenure at an Ivy League university should have any significance? That would be a bit ridiculous, with as much relevance as Barbara Streisand's views on the war in Iraq!

Furthermore, these days Chomsky is known more for his political rantings than his linguistic research--which he was known for decades ago, when he had his innovative linguistic insights.

Therefore, based on both points (Chomsky's recent dedication to politics, not linguistics; and amateur's views having less relevance in tenure decisions than those of professionals) the conclusion that makes the most sense to me is that Chomsky spoke on Graeber's behalf because of his political views, not his academic views.

It would be an odd coincidence (and a fact not mentioned anywhere) if Graeber were working on Deep Structures or otherwise building on Chomsky's linguistic research.

You seem to have a good argument for why Yale might not want to give tenure to Graeber when you say that his scholarship suffers from his other activities. However, I am not convinced that tenure ought to be awarded solely on the basis of published scholarship. Universities are supposed to be more than shelters for thinkers who wish to publish their own thoughts. They are supposed to be places where students come to learn, and in this respect, a potential professor's worth must be judged not only in his ability to produce brilliant thought, but his ability to inspire such thought in others.

I think there is a reasonably good argument to be made that Graeber's sabbatical experience puts him more in touch with his students, and that armed with a better perspective of the people he is trying to teach, he can communicate with them more effectively. I am not claiming that this was Graeber's motive... only that the secondary effects are more likely to be helpful than harmful.

On a final note, and this is a huge discussion in and of itself, the best theory (both philosophical and theological) says that practice is the essence of understanding. For religion, it is salvation through works. For philosophy, it is making the contemplative life an active one. As much as I despise social activists who speak loudly instead of speaking well, I abhor intellectuals who believe that they understand without doing.