If you can see i cannot do anything about the space. Theres some room on the floor. Feel free to make yourself comfortable. This is our session on public intellectuals, and i am delighted to be here for this panel. I apologize ahead of time if i have a little less energy than usual. My appendix did not quite make it to the new year so i am just recovering from surgery. This has been a big debate, ongoing debate about public intellectuals in the academy. There was an article by Nicholas Kristof which triggered a conversation. He wrote an article professors we need you are cope he argued that many people in the academy have in some ways render themselves irrelevant for various reasons using languages fall of jargon or revocation or not asking questions that were relevant to the public, and in some ways fostered a disconnect with the public that is unnecessary and is also unfortunate. He did not say this was true of all intellectuals, but he did argue that public intellectuals are in some
Christoff which triggered a conversation. Many e wrote anhe wrote an article where he said many people rendered themselves unavailable or not asking questions that were relevant to the public and in some ways fostered a disconnect with the public that is necessary. He didnt say this is true of all intellectuals but he did argue theyre a dying breed. Others said theres many good, interesting voices out there. The point of todays panel is not so much to have a debate about whether he was right or wrong nor have a debate familiar at almost every oha conversation about the role of the public intellectual or should historians be tried to do this. I think most of us in the panel given what we do start and its a good thing for those that what to do it. It has a lot of value. What i wanted to do when i put this together was bring together people who have been doing interesting work and ask them about their lives and their career and experience and give a little autobiography about how this has