Talk:KC Johnson

Untitled
Johnson was born in 1968, got his bachelor's degree in 1988, master's in 1989 and PhD in 1993, when he was 24 or 25. When, exactly, did he have time to work as a track announcer for Scarborough Downs?

Useful Links

 * The Chicago Sports Review has a good interview with Prof Johnson in their 20 February 2007 edition. CWC (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Taylor and Johnson had an op-ed in the Washington Post of 6-Sep-2007. CWC 05:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * KC, I always knew you were a right wing nut--saw right through those bow ties. BTW, I just cut a check to the Obama campaign, and am still saving my spare change for your endowed chair at Harvard.  Find some excuse to come to LA for research and come hang out with me and the kidlets (plural). Lchcheng (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)The Original Right Wing Nut, Lee Cheng

Personal Background
KC was raised in Leominster, Mass., I guess in addition to Scarborough, Maine? I don't how this info should be configured, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejo13 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Explain the nickname
There should be some explanation of the nickname "KC" as it does not obviously derive from "Robert David". --Wykypydya (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Basis for "far right" label
What is the basis for describing Johnson as "far right"? Would he self-identify as such, or do his views roughly track others' described as "far right"? He is visible in the politics of academia as a conservative voice, but it seems difficult to classify him beyond that. I think at a minimum that this description needs a cite, and it's worth considering whether this is scare language inserted by a critic to make him seem to be an extremist rather than a dissenter with opposing, albeit not shocking, views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:698E:2100:883C:230:FE19:B4D8 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag on "Tenure battle" section
This is just an awful section. It's directly quoting opinion columnists in support of the subject of the article. The position of the university is presented in such a cartoonish way that I have a hard time believing what the article presents as the true reason for his denial of tenure. The section is also way too long because it's quoting sooooo many opinion columnists, who all say basically the same thing. It's really superfluous. Mottezen (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)