Pottier and de Geyter, Rouget de Lisle, Woody Guthrie, and the Weavers have all come down from heaven on the same day:


Author: Michael O'Hare

Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, Michael O'Hare was raised in New York City and trained at Harvard as an architect and structural engineer. Diverted from an honest career designing buildings by the offer of a job in which he could think about anything he wanted to and spend his time with very smart and curious young people, he fell among economists and such like, and continues to benefit from their generosity with on-the-job social science training. He has followed the process and principles of design into "nonphysical environments" such as production processes in organizations, regulation, and information management and published a variety of research in environmental policy, government policy towards the arts, and management, with special interests in energy, facility siting, information and perceptions in public choice and work environments, and policy design. His current research is focused on transportation biofuels and their effects on global land use, food security, and international trade; regulatory policy in the face of scientific uncertainty; and, after a three-decade hiatus, on NIMBY conflicts afflicting high speed rail right-of-way and nuclear waste disposal sites. He is also a regular writer on pedagogy, especially teaching in professional education, and co-edited the "Curriculum and Case Notes" section of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Between faculty appointments at the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, he was director of policy analysis at the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. He has had visiting appointments at Università Bocconi in Milan and the National University of Singapore and teaches regularly in the Goldman School's executive (mid-career) programs. At GSPP, O'Hare has taught a studio course in Program and Policy Design, Arts and Cultural Policy, Public Management, the pedagogy course for graduate student instructors, Quantitative Methods, Environmental Policy, and the introduction to public policy for its undergraduate minor, which he supervises. Generally, he considers himself the school's resident expert in any subject in which there is no such thing as real expertise (a recent project concerned the governance and design of California county fairs), but is secure in the distinction of being the only faculty member with a metal lathe in his basement and a 4×5 Ebony view camera. At the moment, he would rather be making something with his hands than writing this blurb.

5 thoughts on “Reincarnation”

  1. Geesh I forgot to say “Right now” is because they are doing a night of Woodie Guthrie celebration it is 10:35 EST where I am on Weds 09/12

  2. O’Hare, it’s very nice to see someone on here sticking up for teachers. I am so sick of these so-called reformers, even though they probably have good intentions and aren’t *completely wrong* about almost everything *on purpose.* (Even though foundation money might be corrupting them.) And they don’t realize how incredibly sexist they seem to those of us who weren’t born yesterday.

    What these New Democrat-y types don’t realize is that we’ve never had a separate vote on Arne Duncan or Supt. Deasy. They might get a big surprise if we did. Lots of women vote Dem, as everyone under the effing sun ought to know by now. Sheesh.

  3. Teacher-baiting is a little like throwing around the word “misandry” or lamenting the fact that the fifth amendment lets criminals go free. Sure, in a perfect world the police and prosecutors would never coerce confessions out of innocent people, and women would be continually aware that patriarchy is a terrible system for men, and school administrators would have objective criteria to sanction teachers who had done a bad job despite being provided with all the resources needed to do a good one. Oh, and rich people wouldn’t stack the economic deck so they could capture a disproportionate share of income gains due to productivity increases.

Comments are closed.