John U. Bacon: I Had No Idea Yost Commission Existed
I'm not sure I would describe this reaction as all-caps "PISSED".
Yeah, the more I read this, the more this statement is 'I didn't know this was happening, but I've written and spoke a lot about this figure and am a professor at the university, so I better put a statement out since they cited my work'. Pretty standard I think actually. I don't think he's pissed at all.
For John U. this seems pretty pissed off language - specifically the "...could have been handled much better."
I'm not sure what this FB post was about other than to plug the book he wrote in 1996 in the 3rd paragraph. Looks like a businesses opportunity to me. He forgot to tell me where I can buy it.
That and "Hey, if you aren't happy with whatever the decision is, don't blame me, I had nothing to with the decision even though they cited my research" as a way to stay neutral when selling books is easier if some portion of the fanbase doesn't like the decision that might have come from your work.
Well, if you research something and publish it, you shouldn't be surprised if someone cites it.
I don't know if I would say that he is "pissed," but I think his underlying message is more, "Why wasn't I included in this decision?" than, "I need to post this in case people think that I had something to do with it." I don't have any inside knowledge, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. (And I'm a history professor, and this just seems like the tone/language an academic would use to express some indignation for not being consulted and, by extension, having his expertise overlooked or downplayed. That's just my read on it.)
There are many things that he seems to be saying here...
Why wasn't I on the commission?
If my work was so important as to cite, why weren't my expertise and impressions important enough for them to consult me?
Why wasn't I put in a position to accompany the release of the report with an expert opinion that would strengthen its recommendations?
Just because I agree with myself in what I wrote does not necessarily mean I agree with what people have concluded based (in part) upon what I wrote. So, please don't do like they did and imply that I have supported this decision.
They're all legitimate questions or points. It's probably the last one that is his main point, but hard to get around saying it publicly without having to say the others as well. Hopefully, there's some more specific internal/private feedback on what he means by "handled much better."
Could be that John feels disrespected since he is local and accessible. Seems only reasonable that if his work is quoted that this wonderful, virtuous commission would at least let him know that they are using it in their own work, so he could be prepared to deal with the results. This is crazy! I wonder if they thought he wouldn't agree?
He is saying “I need to CMA”
I can understand if he doesn't think Yost's name should be taken off the arena, but once you publish something, anyone can cite it. IDK what he's upset about in that regard.
My thought as well. He seems perturbed nobody knocked in his door for an interview. Why would he need to be consulted?
I think professors are very sensitive about their reputations. Not being consulted is a slight.
John is not a professor. He has a master's in Education and a bachelor's in history.
How dare a somewhat high profile "Intermittent Lecturer" in the School of Education be incorrectly referred to as a "professor". Shame!
"Professor" is a job title - one that does not always require a doctorate.
He's probably receiving a lot of angry messages and being blamed for the results of the commission that he had nothing to do with because they cited his work. I don't think "PISSED" is an accurate way to put it, but he's definitely trying to clarify the role he played in the process so any anger gets pointed in the correct direction.
Yeah, I think he's trying to deflect anger here. And I don't say that as a bad thing. That is sometimes a very necessary move!
This would be my bet, also. He mentions his phone blowing up - likely b/c the commission liberally cited him and his work, so there was probably an assumption that he was part of the commission or that they consulted with him. He is merely setting the record straight they they used his work, as was their right, but that he had no involvement whatsoever in the process.
If you read the historical analysis, he's not even cited that much, a couple times on page 2 and then a couple footnotes in the section on Yost's upbringing. It's a pretty big stretch to say the report relied on his work.
The vast majority of the citations are primary sources. The historical analysis is a pretty interesting and thorough read.
https://pacouh.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/96/2021/05/Historical-Analysis-on-Yost-Name-4-27-21.pdf
Really? From a year ago...that not even he knew took place? Yeah I’m sure people were knocking his door down. He’s bringing to light something that most of us didn’t even know existed...seems more like Bacon click bait than anything else.
I believe you're on to something here. He's probably going into defense mode because he was ambushed a bit by the report. Now, he's defending his book but letting close friends in his circle that he has nothing to do with the name change committee.
Honestly, that statement doesn't seem like he's upset at all. More like he knows people will assume he was involved since he's cited and has written/spoken a lot about Yost and is already very connected to the university. Seems like he's just trying to get ahead of things before people start saying 'Bacon said to take Yost's name off of buildings, rabble, rabble, rabble'.
OP is putting words in Bacon's mouth.
OP = drama queen.
I think he's just telling people not to call him because he had nothing to do with the report.
To be clear, I'm not offended Michigan didn't invite me to work on the committee to consider renaming Yost Ice Arena, nor that they cited my work. All fair game. But I do take issue with the impression they created that I actively contributed to their report, as many have assumed
— John U. Bacon (@Johnubacon) May 24, 2021
I read both the report closely (it's short) and the historical analysis in a skimmy way, and I have no idea where he finds the impression that the committee report suggests he actively contributed.
He's only mentioned in the text in one paragraph and it's pretty clearly part of a kind of "lit review" of "past accounts of the Yost-Ward incident." It never suggests any kind of active participation.
well, maybe bacon knows a helleva a lot more about yost and his history than likely all the members of this secret committee combined. maybe it would have been a good idea to at least invite the guy to some meetings and inquire further. hell, he's just down the damn street.
If you read the historical analysis, the committee clearly worked extensively with the archivists of the Bentley Library, which holds the university's archives, who may know even more about Yost, and certainly about the range of relevant primary documents that are available about the university in the early 20th century, than does Bacon. Given that work and access to those documents, it's not clear what having Bacon sit in the meetings would have added.
I'm not sure that he's particularly concerned about his words being "used without permission", he's saying he wrote what he wrote but he's not part of whatever the University committee is doing.
So if you hate the idea of removing Yost's name, don't @ JUB, it's not his doing.
I read and interpreted Bacon's post very differently. He did not complain or accuse Michigan's Yost panel of using his research and writing without permission. Frankly, the very concept borders on absurdity. With rare exceptions, no one needs an author's permission to cite their work.
Now the Yost panel could get itself in trouble if it said, suggested, or implied that Bacon personally endorsed or supported their conclusions. But that does not seem to be what happened here. (I have not read the Yost report, but Bacon's post does not suggest a false endorsement.)
That does not mean that Michigan or the Yost panel should not have talked to Bacon. He is the most prominent historian of Michigan football and athletic history. He likely could have contributed to the Yost panel's discussions. But they did not need to consult him to review and cite his works.
FWIW, here's the summary of the report, which is measured, well reasoned and thoughtful IMO.
It's also a pretty impressive panel, including a former dean of LS&A, former president of the Mellon Foundation, and at least one MacArthur "genius grant" winner.
https://pacouh.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/96/2021/05/Preliminary-Summary-Recommendation-on-Yost-Name-4-27-21.pdf
This is the only response from someone who didn't read the headline and instantly form an opinion.
I mean, I guess he probably needs to put out a statement since he's kind of public figure when it comes to UM sports history. Mostly I'm guessing to let people know that he didn't have anything to do with what will likely be a hot issue.
But, like, the committee didn't do anything wrong. Bacon is a researcher who published researched works and has spoken a lot on this issue. The committee doesn't have to re-do his research. They can cite his published works and have no special responsibility to inform him personally. I don't contact the authors of papers I'm citing from medical journals when I use that work in a presentation or another paper.
In my academic writing, I, and everyone else, routinely cite other authors without telling them or asking their opinion. It is how academic writing works. Some papers are citted thousands of times. Imagine the burden of having to respond to all those requests. It would be the last such paper those people had time to publish.
If they cited Bacon incorrectly or took his comments out of context then he has a complaint. But the committee was not obligated to ask his opinion. About anything. JUB is not the gatekeeper of Michigan history that he seems believe himself to be.
Right, but if one were the world's expert on a topic and the university where one taught and wrote was making a significant decision related to that topic (which was likely to upset a lot of stakeholders), one might wonder why they weren't at least told the work was a significant input into the decision..
I like Bacon... But he isn't an expert as much as a university shill.
A little bit. But I see his statement as a very neutral one. He may be implying that it would have been nice to be consulted, but he's also distancing himself--since he wasn't--from the decision. As the father of a mixed race child and believer in civil rights, I'd have been happier if he just said, "Yeah, Yost may have been a compelling figure in the development of sport, but he was also a racist, and I'm good with them changing the name of the arena." But I don't hold it against him.
Mostly this is Bacon being bacon, as ever a little too neutral and white bread. We'll look forward to the day that he sticks his neck out about anything.
I don't have strong feelings about Bacon, I was more taking issue to the notion that this was just like citing someone in a medical journal, which I don't agree with.
Yeah, this mostly sounds like Bacon is annoyed he wasn't asked to be part of this committee, not that members of a commission citing his public work did something wrong. He published the articles - he gave permission at that moment for people to read and use them.
I honestly am not looking forward to the next 6 months wherein the school looks into renaming buildings and everyone freaking out about it from all sides of the discussion.
Why would you not have JUB as a consultant to the committee at the very least?
What we have here is a failure to communicate!
Some men, you just can’t reach.
Cheers.
Because you don't necessarily need to involve every person somewhat related to an issue in a discussion like this? Bacon was cited in one paragraph over 36 pages of an historical report. He is also now able to provide comment as he likes via the portal they set up. And his citation included another historian at UM that also wasn't on the committee, yet I don't see him complaining.
I like Bacon's writing well enough but this mostly felt like a guy annoyed he wasn't consulted because that's sort of his "jam" at UM and may be getting some blowback from the belligerent part of the fanbase. Of course, that would have been th case had be been included on the committee as well.
YMMV but this read as a light infomercial for his book as much as some concern about his words being misused.
You could be right. My initial reaction was that this was JUB saying, "Don't hate me if they change the name!" And, as I said above, I think it's perfectly fine for him to say that.
I'm pretty sure I never had to notify the authors of every Harvard Business Review case study I cited when I gave presentations in school. If I did, then I never should've made it to graduation.
If someone was taking Bacon's words and claiming them as their own original thought, then I'd understand. That would be blatant plagiarism. But its my understanding that once you publish something, you are signing permission over to the general public to cite it however they deem necessary. As long as they credit you as the original author of those words and thoughts, then I don't understand the issue.
Unless he's just mad that he wasn't asked to be a part of this commission. In which case, I don't have an informed enough opinion to decide if he should've been a part of it or not.
I hear what you are saying, but on the other hand there's only one book I've ever heard of about Michigan hockey, "Blue Ice", by Bacon and he was a significant part of the Ward documentary and likely other works they consulted. I think from a PR and perhaps a substantive perspective they should have contacted him. That doesn't mean he gets a vote, but it does mean they would have gotten additional input and perhaps additional buy-in if they convinced him of the seriousness of their efforts.
To be fair, the university had no obligation to contact him or ask for his opinion. They used and cited his work as evidence, but that doesn't mean they owe him a call or hearing his opinion
True, but it's either ignorance or arrogance on their part to not include him in the discussion.