That Quandary

Now my piece is definitely finished, and I do like it. Of course it could take another form but I like this form, too, and I want to publish this version, not hold it until I have something longer, or more lasting than bronze. I thought I had made a decision but my most recent advice is that it is such an indictment, I might be in danger. Do you really think? What about academic freedom?

On the Value of an Independent Faculty Senate

The rhetorical sleight of hand used in the attempt to discredit AAUP principles on academic freedom and tenure as well as to justify the marginalization of faculty senates resembles that used to discredit traditional university education and promote for-profit institutions and MOOCs. As academic blogger Undine indicates in her discussion of a promotional piece on MOOCs from the April 29 New York Times, faculty criticism of outsourced education is represented as fear of losing status. The defense of face-to-face teaching is reinterpreted as a lack of care for students “shut out” of traditional courses. The sharing of original insights based on current research is the dull practice of “writing one’s own lectures” or “one-way delivery of content,” while the use of class time to administer a commercial educational product is “student centered” and modern. These tactics, designed to sideline expertise and experience in the name of democratization and modernization so as to market and create markets for such products, as well as to “flexbilize” staffing in our increasingly corporatized educational institutions, are increasingly evident and have been much discussed. Less obvious to the casual observer may be that the same rhetoric is also used to erode academic freedom and faculty voice in governance.

On the AAUP, former University of Louisiana System President Randy Moffett suggested in his June 12, 2012 statement on AAUP censure of Northwestern State University and Southeastern Louisana University that this mainstream professional association only aspires to relevance, and that only 4% of university faculty ascribe to the professional values and standards the AAUP has been articulating and defending for nearly one hundred years. The Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, one hears, is outmoded because it was promulgated in 1940. Indeed, it serves the neoliberal paradigm well to reframe academic freedom and other rights as concerns of alien centuries, unconnected to our own. Moffett’s April, 2012 assertion that recent changes in system rules on tenure were merely appropriate updating was another instance of the rhetorical sleight of hand that presents major policy shifts as minor mechanical retooling or slow evolution:

While many of our Board rules and policies related to faculty are based on AAUP’s principles of academic freedom and tenure established in 1940, our rules have evolved over time with appropriate constituent input and approval.

In the 2012-2013 academic year I had occasion to observe the use of similarly soft language in an attempt to revise and “update” the Constitution of a Faculty Senate. The proposed changes were presented not as amendments but as “edits,” although some were more substantial. There was also discussion of possible future changes to “make the Senate a more effective body,” as one administrator put the issue. The comments I offer are based on documents distributed to Senators and relevant administrators, and on discussion at Senate meetings. As such, they are the remarks of an observer without inside information or additional context.

My intention here is not to impute motives or designs, but to call attention to a pattern of rhetoric that can be seen now in many discussions of education in business and government. This rhetoric is not neutral and does not serve us well; we should not take it as our master. Its hallmarks include a call to revise or abandon allegedly outdated practices which in fact are either (a) straw men such as the deadly “one-way” lecture or (b) principles such as academic freedom, that are time-honored because they are valuable. The composition of our Faculty Senate is structured so as to support greater institutional conservatism than might be ideal. Some of the changes proposed however, might have recreated the Senate not as a more agile body but as a more obedient one.

The discussion of possible changes to the structure of the Senate was framed in terms of increasing democracy as well as participation and effectiveness. Comments made by some administrators and Senators, and questions posed in a survey taken of Senate opinion, suggested we might (a) limit the number of Full Professors who could serve on the Senate at any given time; (b) institutionalize the number of faculty now in administrative roles who were voting as Senators and chairing Senate committees; (c) radically reduce the total size of the Senate.

Language was also proposed for the Constitution stipulating that the Executive Committee meet to plan and “design” each Senate meeting, insinuating that Senate meetings were not an entirely “regular” process in University governance:

[Senate] meetings will not determine University policy nor shall they undermine the regular processes through which the faculty has input into University affairs. The meetings shall be designed to complement the input through existing channels and to provide an exchange of ideas on broad areas of concern.

The existing Constitution (Article I) defines a clear role for the Senate and assumes a far more cooperative and collegial relationship between faculty and administration:

As the only authorized, representative body of the faculty under the administration of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, this Faculty Senate is constituted to promote and implement, consistent with the purposes of the University, maximum participation of the faculty in university governance. In this capacity, the Faculty Senate will assist . . . advise . . . communicate . . . .

Given that the role of the Senate had always been advisory, the intention of the additional language was not clear although its probable effect, especially if enacted in combination with other proposed reforms, was plain enough.

Since the President of the University is President of the Senate and all Full Professors are Senators, it was possible to use the term “patriarchal” to describe the Senate structure. The Full Professors were described more than once as “non elected members” of the Senate. To increase democracy and reduce patriarchy, it was suggested, Full Professors should stand for election and the ratio of less experienced faculty on Senate should be increased. At the same time the size of the Senate should be reduced, so that all members would be fully engaged.

Voiced was the idea that with all Full Professors eligible to vote in Senate, they as a class had a disproportionate amount of power relative to the rest of the faculty and were a force for institutional conservatism. Discussion of these possibilities displaced mention of the value institutional memory and deep professional experience might have, or classed these as negatives. The assumption that opinion would be divided by rank in broad areas of faculty concern such as research, teaching, and institutional policies affecting these was not challenged. At the same time voting in Senate as faculty by administrators also holding faculty titles was considered unproblematic, as though the administration would not be interested in a clear view from faculty currently functioning as such.

It was not lost on all that these reforms would have caused the composition of the Senate to tend toward less experienced and also more vulnerable faculty. Some still remembered that tenured faculty have a fiduciary responsibility, and not mere seniority in the institution. When it was proposed that the membership of the Executive Committee be expanded to include the chairs of all Senate committees, who are appointed by the Senate Executive Officer, it was pointed out that this measure would not in fact increase democracy.

Reflecting upon the proposals for reform it became clear that innovations like these would not only limit the already moderate powers of the Faculty Senate but also marginalize it as a body. A small group of mid-level to contingent faculty may not always be as strong or as representative of informed faculty opinion as is a large group including as many as possible of the faculty most likely to be national figures. That is, a recommendation or resolution from the latter kind of group is the most likely to carry weight. Desirable in any case is a Senate actively, not merely passively engaged in shared governance and also strong and independent enough to work directly against the death by budget cuts being inflicted on our institutions by the state.

I once took Faculty Senates and the AAUP for granted, working instead on unionization efforts and in advocacy groups on human rights issues. I never expected I would need to use my organization skills to defend something as mainstream as shared governance at universities. I am disturbed, however, when I see how high the average age is at AAUP meetings, and when I hear newer faculty voice the assumption that Faculty Senate is an empty form.

Perhaps they are right. Perhaps the neoliberal model is already so well entrenched that these modestly democratic institutions have already lost their purpose. Considering the quality of my colleagues here and elsewhere, and their embodiment of academic values, I doubt this. However, as I increasingly hear faculty refer to department heads as “bosses,” administration as “management,” and students as “customers” or even “clients,” I would like to articulate some older principles which remain true, namely that: (a) the quality of the university is still that of its faculty and library; (b) having tenure means working for the integrity of the university and its academic mission; and (c) the administration also serves this mission and supports faculty in carrying it out.

These ideas may not hold much longer, but I would urge we take a good look at them once again rather than simply let them fade. It is worth keeping firmly in mind that we are not in a period of lean budgets but of structural adjustment, and that economic shock is not the same as natural disaster. As the present governorship wanes we may be able defend our democratic, academic institutions and thrive despite permanent changes to the way we are funded. Now is not the time for faculty to disengage but to increase participation, and to stand together with colleagues in institutions state and nationwide.

Axé.

This is the sort of thing

I want to apply for an NEH Summer Stipend for 2014. I can argue that my project fits into their Bridging Cultures program, and all. It has a funding ratio of 8% and that is from among people who are actually allowed to apply, after applying to apply.

Our university can nominate two people. In the past I never applied for this stipend because I am not in one of the disciplines the University says it wants to prioritize for them. You apply to the University for permission to compete; they choose their two favorites; those are allowed to compete. Since I am already at a disadvantage because of discipline, I should probably be as politic as possible and not publish an opinion piece that criticizes another part of the university.

I am fairly ill with worry over this since I want to be able to speak. This problem, however, is why the scientists are so coldhearted. They will not say anything, will not be at all controversial, because they need the green light the Office of Research and Sponsored programs. I am more coldhearted than these scientists because I can at least think: they will stop you anyway, so you have nothing to lose by autocensura and everything to gain by publishing the piece and writing the proposal. That is, I am a truly coldhearted scientist. 

These are my least favorite things about academia: peer review is not blind, and you are constantly told and also shown it is unwise to speak freely.

Axé.

Et nunc

Epigraph: message from random faculty member in another college, re my final report to the committee I quit: “Thank you for your time and effort. I know it was not an easy task but you did it with such grace and professionalism, when many would not have.”

Now I have to practice what I will say to my colleagues, since I am about to publish something critical of certain activities here in another university’s publication. And that university is not just any university, it is our imagined oppressor and rival – and that, believe it or not, is a very serious problem. I appear to be one of the very few people willing to maintain a professional relationship with that university in an open way. Others have degrees from it, keep lovers there, and go to their football games, but I talk to them during business hours and this is the problem.

The above colleague’s message speaks right to the issue. The kinds of things I do to be professional are not courtesies everyone here even thinks of extending, and “professional” to them means something very different: obeying the Man and protecting the brand.

The difficulty with my piece is perceived disloyalty, and airing our issues abroad. To be “professional” would be not to speak up, and to allow those in power to do as they please. How can I possibly explain that the point of my piece is not to embarrass us — I do not even mention us, you would have to have inside knowledge to know I am talking about us — but to discuss a national issue, using some examples with which I am familiar? It is hard to explain because we lack the ground upon which to discuss the matter. My colleagues do not see these issues, they have a completely different background.

I would publish the piece here if there were a place for it but there is not, and there is nowhere to discuss these matters live, either. Thus I have no choice but to discuss them elsewhere. I can revamp the piece to publish somewhere truly respectable but as written it is targeted to our state, and it is in our state I would like it read first. So I have to practice, especially since one of the people whose activities my piece criticizes may become our Provost. Our Provost has the power to reduce programs, and could get me reduced (note that tenure here effectively means you get a year’s notice before dismissal, as opposed to three months).

I must say it is cumbersome to work for such an insecure organization. This is the very picture of dysfunction: insecurity on the one hand, bullying on the other, and the constant reminders, “Don’t tell anyone!”

What, then, is the best way to practice? One must not enter their game entirely. “I will be publishing this on this date, and I wanted to give you an advance copy so you will not be surprised. I am interested in entering the national conversation on shared governance in the changing institutions and this is an early piece in that work. As you will see, I mention some of the actions you may remember me disagreeing with here in AY 2012-2013. I hope you will see, as you read the piece, that its point is discussion of the broad issues, not our institution. If you have suggestions of ways for the piece to make this even clearer than it already does, I would welcome them.” Something like this. Que feriez-vous?

Axé.

Meilleur encore

I know, I am obsessed, I want this to crystallize just enough and I want to send it somewhere. I have not fully figured out where to send it, so I keep fiddling with it. I want it out.

Since I resigned from that committee I have become acutely aware of all the shock and outrage I have felt all year at the actions and attitude of the chair who had been appointed because we had an unexpected situation. I want to speak, and not speaking has made me hoarse. I would like to confront that chair but he is not sharp enough to understand me.

The first thing this chair did was ask me to stop using the abbreviations i.e., e.g., and n.b. as he was from Alabama where, he said, these abbreviations are not used, so he did not understand them. He has a Ph.D. from one of our Vichy State campuses, and he holds an endowed chair here.

On the Value of an Independent Faculty Senate

The rhetorical sleight of hand used in the attempt to discredit AAUP principles on academic freedom and tenure as well as to justify the marginalization of faculty senates resembles that used to discredit traditional university education and promote for-profit institutions and MOOCs. As academic blogger Undine indicates in her discussion of a promotional piece on MOOCs from the April 29 New York Times, faculty criticism of outsourced education is represented as fear of losing status. The defense of face-to-face teaching is reinterpreted as a lack of care for students “shut out” of traditional courses. The sharing of original insights based on current research is the dull practice of “writing one’s own lectures” or “one-way delivery of content,” while the use of class time to administer a commercial educational product is “student centered” and modern. These tactics, designed to sideline expertise and experience in the name of democratization and modernization so as to market and create markets for such products, as well as to “flexbilize” staffing in our increasingly corporatized educational institutions, are increasingly evident and have been much discussed. Less obvious to the casual observer may be that the same rhetoric is also used to erode academic freedom and faculty voice in governance.

On the AAUP, former University of Louisiana System President Randy Moffett suggested in his June 12, 2012 statement on AAUP censure of Northwestern State University and Southeastern Louisana University that this mainstream professional association only aspires to relevance, and that only 4% of university faculty ascribe to the professional values and standards the AAUP has been articulating and defending for nearly one hundred years. The Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, one hears, is outmoded because it was promulgated in 1940. Indeed, it serves the neoliberal paradigm well to reframe academic freedom and other rights as concerns of alien centuries, unconnected to our own. Moffett’s April, 2012 assertion that recent changes in system rules on tenure were merely appropriate updating was another instance of the rhetorical sleight of hand that presents major policy shifts as minor mechanical retooling or slow evolution:

While many of our Board rules and policies related to faculty are based on AAUP’s principles of academic freedom and tenure established in 1940, our rules have evolved over time with appropriate constituent input and approval.

In the 2012-2013 academic year I had occasion to observe the use of similarly soft language in an attempt to revise and “update” the Constitution of a Faculty Senate. The proposed changes were presented not as amendments but as “edits,” although some were more substantial. There was also discussion of possible future changes to “make the Senate a more effective body,” as one administrator put the issue. The comments I offer are based on documents distributed to Senators and relevant administrators, and on discussion at Senate meetings. As such, they are the remarks of an observer without inside information or additional context.

My intention here is not to impute motives or designs, but to call attention to a pattern of rhetoric that can be seen now in many discussions of education in business and government. This rhetoric is not neutral and does not serve us well; we should not take it as our master. Its hallmarks include a call to revise or abandon allegedly outdated practices which in fact are either (a) straw men such as the deadly “one-way” lecture or (b) principles such as academic freedom, that are time-honored because they are valuable.

The discussion of possible changes to the structure of the Senate was framed in terms of increasing democracy as well as participation and effectiveness. Comments made by some administrators and Senators, and questions posed in a survey taken of Senate opinion, suggested we might (a) limit the number of Full Professors who could serve on the Senate at any given time; (b) institutionalize the number of faculty now in administrative roles who were voting as Senators and chairing Senate committees; (c) radically reduce the total size of the Senate.

Language was also proposed for the Constitution stipulating that the Executive Committee meet to plan and “design” each Senate meeting, insinuating that Senate meetings were not an entirely “regular” process in University governance:

[Senate] meetings will not determine University policy nor shall they undermine the regular processes through which the faculty has input into University affairs. The meetings shall be designed to complement the input through existing channels and to provide an exchange of ideas on broad areas of concern.

The existing Constitution (Article I) defines a clear role for the Senate and assumes a far more cooperative and collegial relationship between faculty and administration:

As the only authorized, representative body of the faculty under the administration of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, this Faculty Senate is constituted to promote and implement, consistent with the purposes of the University, maximum participation of the faculty in university governance. In this capacity, the Faculty Senate will assist . . . advise . . . communicate . . . .

Given that the role of the Senate had always been advisory, the intention of the additional language was not clear although its probable effect, especially if enacted in combination with other proposed reforms, was plain enough.

Since the President of the University is President of the Senate and all Full Professors are Senators, it was possible to use the term “patriarchal” to describe the Senate structure. The Full Professors were described more than once as “non elected members” of the Senate. To increase democracy and reduce patriarchy, it was suggested, Full Professors should stand for election and the ratio of less experienced faculty on Senate should be increased. At the same time the size of the Senate should be reduced, so that all members would be fully engaged.

Voiced was the idea that with all Full Professors eligible to vote in Senate, they as a class had a disproportionate amount of power relative to the rest of the faculty. Discussion of this spectre displaced mention of any value institutional memory or deep professional experience might have. The assumption that opinion would be divided by rank on broad areas of faculty concern such as research, teaching, and institutional policies affecting these was not challenged. At the same time voting in Senate as faculty by administrators also holding faculty titles was considered unproblematic, as though the administration would not be interested in a clear view from faculty currently functioning as such.

It was not lost on all that these reforms would have caused the composition of the Senate to tend toward less experienced and also more vulnerable faculty. Some still remembered that tenured faculty have a fiduciary responsibility, and not mere seniority in the institution. When it was proposed that the membership of the Executive Committee be expanded to include the chairs of all Senate committees, who are appointed by the Senate Executive Officer, it was pointed out that this measure would not in fact increase democracy.

Reflecting upon the proposals for reform it became clear that innovations like these would not only limit the already moderate powers of the Faculty Senate but would also marginalize it as a body. A small group of mid-level to contingent faculty is not as strong or as representative of informed faculty opinion as is a large group including as many as possible of the faculty most likely to be national figures. That is, a recommendation or resolution from the latter kind of group is the most likely to carry weight. Desirable still is a Senate actively, not merely passively engaged in shared governance and also strong and independent enough to work directly against the death by budget cuts being inflicted on our institutions by the state.

I once took Faculty Senates and the AAUP for granted, working instead on unionization efforts and in advocacy groups on human rights issues. I never expected I would need to use my organization skills to defend something as mainstream as shared governance at universities. I am disturbed, however, when I see how high the average age is at AAUP meetings, and when I hear newer faculty voice the assumption that Faculty Senate is an empty form.

Perhaps they are right. Perhaps the neoliberal model is already so well entrenched that these modestly democratic institutions have already lost their purpose. Considering the quality of my colleagues here and elsewhere, though, and their embodiment of academic values, I doubt this. However, in an atmosphere where I increasingly hear faculty refer to department heads as “bosses,” administration as “management,” and students as “customers” or even “clients,” I would like to articulate some older principles which remain true, namely that: (a) the quality of the university is still that of its faculty and library; (b) having tenure means working for the integrity of the university and its academic mission; and (c) the administration also serves this mission and supports faculty in carrying it out.

As the present governorship wanes we can defend our democratic, academic institutions and thrive. Now is not the time for faculty to disengage but to increase participation, and to stand together with colleagues in institutions state and nationwide.

Axé.

In which I have to stop working on this

Considering various comments on drafts, material has been added and also cut from this text. The title has been changed to embrace broader issues, and changed back. I am tired of working on it now and I notice that additional material I am not sure it is useful or wise to publish it in the venue that solicited it, or that I have time or energy to expand it into a more broadly useful piece.

It was solicited for the activist Faculty Senate newsletter of a neighboring institution. I doubt our own Faculty Senate newsletter would publish it but I am not comfortable publishing it at another institution without also publishing it here. I could also simply send it to the local mailing list. My colleagues suggest Academe, the CHE, IHE, and the main state newspaper as appropriate venues.

I want to do something with it but I want what I do to be constructive in some way.

On the Value of an Independent Faculty Senate

The rhetorical sleight of hand used in the attempt to discredit AAUP principles on academic freedom and tenure as well as to justify the marginalization of faculty senates resembles that used to discredit traditional university education and promote for-profit institutions and MOOCs. As academic blogger Undine indicates in her discussion of a promotional piece on MOOCs from the April 29 New York Times, faculty criticism of outsourced education is represented as fear of losing status. The defense of face-to-face teaching is reinterpreted as a lack of care for students “shut out” of traditional courses. The sharing of original insights based on current research is the dull practice of “writing one’s own lectures” or “one-way delivery of content,” while the use of class time to administer a commercial educational product is “student centered” and modern. These tactics, designed to sideline expertise and experience in the name of democratization and modernization so as to market and create markets for such products, as well as to “flexbilize” staffing in our increasingly corporatized educational institutions, are increasingly evident and have been much discussed. Less obvious to the casual observer may be that the same rhetoric is also used to erode academic freedom and faculty voice in governance.

On the AAUP, former University of Louisiana System President Randy Moffett suggested in his June 12, 2012 statement on AAUP censure of Northwestern State University and Southeastern Louisana University that this mainstream professional association only aspires to relevance, and that only 4% of university faculty ascribe to the professional values and standards the AAUP has been articulating and defending for nearly one hundred years. The Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, one hears, is outmoded because it was promulgated in 1940. Indeed, it serves the neoliberal paradigm well to reframe academic freedom and other rights as concerns of alien centuries, unconnected to our own. Moffett’s April, 2012 assertion that recent changes in system rules on tenure were merely appropriate updating was another instance of the rhetorical sleight of hand that presents major policy shifts as minor mechanical retooling or slow evolution:

While many of our Board rules and policies related to faculty are based on AAUP’s principles of academic freedom and tenure established in 1940, our rules have evolved over time with appropriate constituent input and approval.

In the 2012-2013 academic year I had occasion to observe the use of similarly soft language in an attempt to revise and “update” the Constitution of a Faculty Senate. The proposed changes were presented not as amendments but as “edits,” although some were more substantial. There was also discussion of possible future changes to “make the Senate a more effective body,” as one administrator put the issue. The comments I offer are based on documents distributed to Senators and relevant administrators, and on discussion at Senate meetings. As such, they are the remarks of an observer without inside information or additional context.

My intention here is not to impute motives or designs, but to call attention to a pattern of rhetoric that can be seen now in many discussions of education in business and government. This rhetoric is not neutral and does not serve us well; we should not take it as our master. Its hallmarks include a call to revise or abandon allegedly outdated practices which in fact are either (a) straw men such as the deadly “one-way” lecture or (b) principles such as academic freedom, that are time-honored because they are valuable.

The discussion of possible changes to the structure of the Senate was framed in terms of increasing democracy as well as participation and effectiveness. Comments made by some administrators and Senators, and questions posed in a survey taken of Senate opinion, suggested we might (a) limit the number of Full Professors who could serve on the Senate at any given time; (b) institutionalize the number of faculty now in administrative roles who were voting as Senators and chairing Senate committees; (c) radically reduce the total size of the Senate.

Language was also proposed for the Constitution stipulating that the Executive Committee meet to plan and “design” each Senate meeting, insinuating that Senate meetings were not an entirely “regular” process in University governance:

[Senate] meetings will not determine University policy nor shall they undermine the regular processes through which the faculty has input into University affairs. The meetings shall be designed to complement the input through existing channels and to provide an exchange of ideas on broad areas of concern.

The existing Constitution (Article I) defines a clear role for the Senate and assumes a far more cooperative and collegial relationship between faculty and administration:

As the only authorized, representative body of the faculty under the administration of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, this Faculty Senate is constituted to promote and implement, consistent with the purposes of the University, maximum participation of the faculty in university governance. In this capacity, the Faculty Senate will assist . . . advise . . . communicate . . . .

Given that the role of the Senate had always been advisory, the intention of the additional language was not clear although its probable effect, especially if enacted in combination with other proposed reforms, was plain enough.

Since the President of the University is President of the Senate and all Full Professors are Senators, it was possible to use the term “patriarchal” to describe the Senate structure. The Full Professors were described more than once as “non elected members” of the Senate. To increase democracy and reduce patriarchy, it was suggested, Full Professors should stand for election and the ratio of less experienced faculty on Senate should be increased. At the same time the size of the Senate should be reduced, so that all members would be fully engaged.

Voiced was the idea that with all Full Professors eligible to vote in Senate, they as a class had a disproportionate amount of power relative to the rest of the faculty. Unmentioned was the way in which the weight of Senate opinion could be reduced if the views of the most established faculty were marginalized. Noticeable was the assumption that opinion would be divided by rank on broad areas of faculty concern such as research, teaching, and institutional policies affecting these. At the same time voting in Senate as faculty by administrators also holding faculty titles was thought unproblematic, as though the administration would not be interested in a clear view from faculty currently functioning as such.

It was not lost on all that these reforms would have caused the composition of the Senate to tend toward less experienced and also more vulnerable faculty. Some still remembered that tenured faculty have a fiduciary responsibility, and not mere seniority in the institution. When it was proposed that the membership of the Executive Committee be expanded to include the chairs of all Senate committees, who are appointed by the Senate Executive Officer, it was pointed out that this measure would not in fact increase democracy.

Reflecting upon the proposals for reform it became clear that innovations like these would not only limit the already moderate powers of the Faculty Senate but would also marginalize it as a body. A small group of mid-level to contingent faculty is not as strong or as representative of informed faculty opinion as is a large group including as many as possible of the faculty most likely to be national figures. That is, a recommendation or resolution from the latter kind of group is the most likely to carry weight. Desirable still is a Senate actively, not merely passively engaged in shared governance and also strong and independent enough to work directly against the death by budget cuts being inflicted on our institutions by the state.

I once took Faculty Senates and the AAUP for granted, working instead on unionization efforts and in advocacy groups on human rights issues. I never expected I would need to use my organization skills to defend something as mainstream as shared governance at universities. I am disturbed, however, when I see how high the average age is at AAUP meetings, and when I hear newer faculty voice the assumption that Faculty Senate is an empty form.

Perhaps they are right. Perhaps the neoliberal model is already so well entrenched that these modestly democratic institutions have already lost their purpose. Considering the quality of my colleagues here and elsewhere, though, and their embodiment of academic values, I doubt this. However, in an atmosphere where I increasingly hear faculty refer to department heads as “bosses,” administration as “management,” and students as “customers” or even “clients,” I would like to articulate some older principles which remain true, namely that: (a) the quality of the university is still that of its faculty and library; (b) having tenure means working for the integrity of the university and its academic mission; and (c) the administration also serves this mission and supports faculty in carrying it out.

As the present governorship wanes we can defend our democratic, academic institutions and thrive. Now is not the time for faculty to disengage but to increase participation, and to stand together with colleagues in institutions state and nationwide.

Axé.

Sobre la autenticidad

This may be one of those essays that seem more intelligent than they are because the stiltedness of the non-native Spanish becomes poetic. Still, I liked it.

It begins by talking about the value given to originality and authenticity in art. The idea of authenticity leads to a consideration of origins and originality, says my student, because authentic objects are faithful copies of an original one. That is already interesting, but then we get the sentence I would like to use in a poem:

Las cosas cuando no son auténticas ¿cómo se llaman?

Axé.

Notes for still further revision

I am too tired to have the prose come to me easily, but the recollections and connections do not stop coming to me. If I keep working on this text it will become a substantial piece. Venues for it besides the CHE could be Academe, IHE, Baton Rouge Advocate, maybe Profession. I am convinced these things are really important, I can so see it. Anyone with any kind of institutional memory or memory of the profession as it was is to be kept away from the decision making process.

Meanwhile, what else do I have to do in life? Study for the LSAT. Consider LASA 2014, not just IILI; LASA comes first. I could go to Chicago, where LASA is, on the train (the train they call the City of New Orleans, going north: Hammond, Louisiana; Greenwood, Mississippi; Memphis, Tennessee; in the great state of Illinois Carbondale; Champaign, Kankakee, then Union Station and walk). I could fly from there to the D.F., in four hours for $300. I could stay on after IILI, coming home two months later on the bus: San Luis Potosí, Monterrey, Houston, Maringouin. And I could send my Gayarré article to PMLA.

On the Value of an Independent Faculty Senate

The rhetorical sleight of hand used in the attempt to discredit AAUP principles on academic freedom and tenure as well as to justify the marginalization of faculty senates resembles that used to discredit traditional university education and promote for-profit institutions and MOOCs. As academic blogger Undine indicates in her discussion of a promotional piece on MOOCs from the April 29 New York Times, faculty criticism of outsourced education is represented as fear of losing status. The defense of face-to-face teaching is reinterpreted as a lack of care for students “shut out” of traditional courses. The sharing of original insights based on current research is the dull practice of “writing one’s own lectures” or “one-way delivery of content,” while the use of class time to administer a commercial educational product is “student centered” and modern. [The framing of the sidelining of expertise and experience as modernizing and democratic in the interest of getting rid of personnel and selling more product is transparent to many members of the general public who have children in school. Less obvious to the casual observer may be some other ways in which the same justification -- modernization, democratization -- is used to erode academic freedom and faculty voice in governance.]

On the AAUP, former University of Louisiana System President Randy Moffett suggested in his June 12, 2012 statement on AAUP censure of Northwestern State University and Southeastern Louisiana University that this mainstream professional association only aspires to relevance, and that only 4% of university faculty ascribe to the professional values and standards the AAUP has been articulating and defending for nearly one hundred years. The Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, one hears, is outmoded because it was promulgated in 1940. Indeed, it serves the neoliberal paradigm well to reframe academic freedom and other rights as concerns of alien centuries, unconnected to our own. Moffett’s April, 2012 assertion that recent changes in system rules on tenure were merely appropriate updating was another instance of the rhetorical sleight of hand that presents major policy shifts as minor mechanical retooling or slow evolution:

While many of our Board rules and policies related to faculty are based on AAUP’s principles of academic freedom and tenure established in 1940, our rules have evolved over time with appropriate constituent input and approval.

In the 2012-2013 academic year I had occasion to observe the use of similarly soft language in an attempt to revise and “update” the Constitution of a Faculty Senate. The proposed changes were presented not as amendments but as “edits,” although some were more substantial. There was also discussion of possible future changes to “make the Senate a more effective body,” as one administrator put the issue. The comments I offer are based on documents distributed to Senators and relevant administrators, and on discussion at Senate meetings. As such, they are the remarks of an observer without inside information or additional context.

My intention here is not to impute motives or designs, but to call attention to a pattern of rhetoric that can be seen now in many discussions of education in business and government. This rhetoric is not neutral and does not serve us well; we should not take it as our master. Its hallmarks include a call to revise or abandon allegedly outdated practices which in fact are either (a) straw men such as the deadly “one-way” lecture or (b) principles such as academic freedom, that are time-honored because they are valuable.

The discussion of possible changes to the structure of the Senate was framed in terms of increasing democracy as well as participation and effectiveness. Comments made by some administrators and Senators, and questions posed in a survey taken of Senate opinion, suggested we might (a) limit the number of Full Professors who could serve on the Senate at any given time; (b) institutionalize the number of faculty now in administrative roles who were voting as Senators and chairing Senate committees; (c) radically reduce the total size of the Senate.

Language was also proposed for the Constitution stipulating that the Executive Committee meet to plan and “design” each Senate meeting, insinuating that Senate meetings were not an entirely “regular” process in University governance:

[Senate] meetings will not determine University policy nor shall they undermine the regular processes through which the faculty has input into University affairs. The meetings shall be designed to complement the input through existing channels and to provide an exchange of ideas on broad areas of concern.

The existing Constitution (Article I) defines a clear role for the Senate and assumes a far more cooperative and collegial relationship between faculty and administration:

As the only authorized, representative body of the faculty under the administration of the University, this Faculty Senate is constituted to promote and implement, consistent with the purposes of the University, maximum participation of the faculty in university governance. In this capacity, the Faculty Senate will assist . . . advise . . . communicate . . . .

Given that the role of the Senate had always been advisory, the intention of the additional language was not clear although its probable effect, especially if enacted in combination with other proposed reforms, was plain enough.

Since the President of the University is President of the Senate and all Full Professors are Senators, it was possible to use the term “patriarchal” to describe the Senate structure. The Full Professors were described more than once as “non elected members” of the Senate. To increase democracy and reduce patriarchy, it was suggested, Full Professors should stand for election and the ratio of less experienced faculty on Senate should be increased. At the same time the size of the Senate should be reduced, so that all members would be fully engaged.

Voiced was the idea that with all Full Professors eligible to vote in Senate, they as a class had a disproportionate amount of power relative to the rest of the faculty. Unmentioned was the way in which the weight of Senate opinion could be reduced if the views of the most established faculty were marginalized. Noticeable was the assumption that opinion would be divided by rank on broad areas of faculty concern such as research, teaching, and institutional policies affecting these. At the same time voting in Senate as faculty by administrators also holding faculty titles was considered unproblematic, as though the administration would not be interested in a clear view from faculty currently functioning as such.

It was not lost on all that these reforms would have caused the composition of the Senate to tend toward less experienced and also more vulnerable faculty. Some faculty still remembered that a Full Professor has a fiduciary role and responsibility, and not mere seniority in the institution. When it was proposed that the membership of the Executive Committee be expanded to include the chairs of all Senate committees, who are appointed by the Senate Executive Officer, it was pointed out that this measure would not in fact increase democracy.

[During these discussions the Committee on Ways and Means was asked to survey the constitutions of other Faculty Senates to see how they were composed so as, perhaps, to choose models to emulate. Looking at a variety of these documents it was evident that the changes being suggested to us had already been enacted in many institutions.] Reflecting upon the proposals for reform it became clear that innovations like these would not only limit the already moderate powers of the Faculty Senate but would also marginalize it as a body. A small group of mid-level to contingent faculty is not as strong or as representative of informed faculty opinion as is a large group including as many as possible of the faculty most likely to be national figures. The specter of the Full professor oppressing associate professors, or of those on the tenure track oppressing the instructors, may be as insubstantial as that of the deadly “one way” lecture that would nonetheless be interesting and useful if recorded and placed on a website. What is more, the dissemination of these images may serve same agenda of privatization and outsourcing.

I once took Faculty Senates and the AAUP for granted, working instead on unionization efforts and in advocacy groups on human rights issues. I never expected I would need to use my organization skills to defend something as mainstream as shared governance at universities. I am disturbed, however, when I see how high the average age is at AAUP meetings, and when I hear newer faculty voice the assumption that Faculty Senate is an empty form.

Perhaps they are right. Perhaps the neoliberal model is already so well entrenched that these modestly democratic institutions have already lost their purpose. Considering the quality of my colleagues here and elsewhere, though, and their embodiment of academic values, I doubt this. However, in an atmosphere where I increasingly hear faculty refer to department heads as “bosses,” administration as “management,” and students as “customers” or even “clients,” I would like to articulate some older principles which remain true, namely that: (a) the quality of the university is still that of its faculty and library; (b) having tenure means working for the integrity of the university and its academic mission; and (c) the administration also serves this mission and supports faculty in carrying it out.

[I write these lines to urge faculty to notice this erosion of the very definition of what faculty is and fight back; as I write I know the response will be that I just want to hold onto my position; I answer that if you do not know what kinds of knowledge and expertise faculty have, you have no business opining about school. We are coming to a new heights of the deconstruction of faculty work (Lombardi) and we ignore these things not to our own peril but to that of coming generations of students, researchers and scholars!]

As the present governorship wanes we can defend our democratic, academic institutions and thrive. Now is not the time for faculty to disengage but to increase participation, and to stand together with colleagues in institutions state and nationwide.

Axé.  

What I have been writing. Revised. I should perhaps use it as an opinion piece for the CHE. Do you think?

On the Value of an Independent Faculty Senate

The rhetorical sleight of hand used in the attempt to discredit AAUP principles on academic freedom and tenure as well as to justify the marginalization of faculty senates resembles that used to discredit traditional university education and promote for-profit institutions and MOOCs. As academic blogger Undine indicates in her discussion of a promotional piece on MOOCs from the April 29 New York Times, faculty criticism of outsourced education is represented as fear of losing status. The defense of face-to-face teaching is reinterpreted as a lack of care for students “shut out” of traditional courses. The sharing of original insights based on current research is the dull practice of “writing one’s own lectures” or “one-way delivery of content,” while the use of class time to administer a commercial educational product is “student centered” and modern. In a recent meeting on teaching, the presenters enacted the format they were advocating against.

On the AAUP, former University of Louisiana System President Randy Moffett suggested in his June 12, 2012 statement on AAUP censure of Northwestern State University and Southeastern Louisiana University that this mainstream professional association only aspires to relevance, and that only 4% of university faculty ascribe to the professional values and standards the AAUP has been articulating and defending for nearly one hundred years. The Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, one hears, is outmoded because it was promulgated in 1940. Indeed, it serves the neoliberal paradigm well to reframe academic freedom and other rights as concerns of alien centuries, unconnected to our own. Moffett’s April, 2012 assertion that recent changes in system rules on tenure were merely appropriate updating was another instance of the rhetorical sleight of hand that presents major policy shifts as minor mechanical retooling or slow evolution:

While many of our Board rules and policies related to faculty are based on AAUP’s principles of academic freedom and tenure established in 1940, our rules have evolved over time with appropriate constituent input and approval.

In the 2012-2013 academic year I had occasion to observe the use of similarly soft language in an attempt to revise and “update” the Constitution of a Faculty Senate. The proposed changes were presented not as amendments but as “edits,” although some were more substantial. There was also discussion of possible future changes to “make the Senate a more effective body,” as one administrator put the issue. The comments I offer are based on documents distributed to Senators and relevant administrators, and on discussion at Senate meetings. As such, they are the remarks of an observer without inside information or additional context.

My intention here is not to impute motives or designs, but to call attention to a pattern of rhetoric that can be seen now in many discussions of education in business and government. This rhetoric is not neutral and does not serve us well; we should not take it as our master. Its hallmarks include a call to revise or abandon allegedly outdated practices which in fact are either (a) straw men such as the deadly “one-way” lecture or (b) principles such as academic freedom, that are time-honored because they are valuable.

The discussion of possible changes to the structure of the Senate was framed in terms of increasing democracy as well as participation and effectiveness. Comments made by some administrators and Senators, and questions posed in a survey taken of Senate opinion, suggested we might (a) limit the number of Full Professors who could serve on the Senate at any given time; (b) institutionalize the number of faculty now in administrative roles who were voting as Senators and chairing Senate committees; (c) radically reduce the total size of the Senate.

Language was also proposed for the Constitution stipulating that the Executive Committee meet to plan and “design” each Senate meeting, insinuating that Senate meetings were not an entirely “regular” process in University governance:

[Senate] meetings will not determine University policy nor shall they undermine the regular processes through which the faculty has input into University affairs. The meetings shall be designed to complement the input through existing channels and to provide an exchange of ideas on broad areas of concern.

The existing Constitution (Article I) defines a clear advisory role for the Senate and assumes a far more cooperative and collegial relationship between faculty and administration:

As the only authorized, representative body of the faculty under the administration of the Vichy State University, this Faculty Senate is constituted to promote and implement, consistent with the purposes of the University, maximum participation of the faculty in university governance. In this capacity, the Faculty Senate will assist . . . advise . . . communicate . . . .

Given that the role of the Senate had always been advisory, the intention of the additional language was not clear although its probable effect, especially if enacted in combination with other proposed reforms, was plain enough.

Since the President of the University is President of the Senate and all Full Professors are Senators, it was possible to use the term “patriarchal” to describe the Senate structure. The Full Professors were described more than once as “non elected members” of the Senate. To increase democracy and reduce patriarchy, it was suggested, Full Professors should stand for election and the ratio of less experienced faculty on Senate should be increased. At the same time the size of the Senate should be reduced, so that all members would be fully engaged.

Voiced was the idea that with all Full Professors eligible to vote in Senate, they as a class had a disproportionate amount of power relative to the rest of the faculty. Unmentioned was the way in which the weight of Senate opinion could be reduced if the views of the most established faculty were marginalized. Noticeable was the assumption that opinion would be divided by rank on broad areas of faculty concern such as research, teaching, and institutional policies affecting these. At the same time voting in Senate as faculty by administrators also holding faculty titles was considered unproblematic, as though the administration would not be interested in a clear view from faculty currently functioning as such.

It was not lost on all that these reforms would have caused the composition of the Senate to tend toward less experienced and also more vulnerable faculty. Some faculty still remembered that a Full Professor has a fiduciary role and responsibility, and not mere seniority in the institution. When it was proposed that the membership of the Executive Committee be expanded to include the chairs of all Senate committees, who are appointed by the Senate Executive Officer, it was pointed out that this measure would not in fact increase democracy.

Reflecting upon the proposals for reform it became clear that innovations like these would not only limit the already moderate powers of the Faculty Senate but would also marginalize it as a body. A small group of mid-level to contingent faculty is not as strong or as representative of informed faculty opinion as is a large group including as many as possible of the faculty most likely to be national figures. The specter of the Full professor oppressing associate professors, or of those on the tenure track oppressing the instructors, may be as insubstantial as that of the deadly “one way” lecture that would nonetheless be interesting and useful if recorded and placed on a website. What is more, the dissemination of these images may serve same agenda of privatizing and outsourcing.

I once took Faculty Senates and the AAUP for granted, working instead on unionization efforts and in advocacy groups on human rights issues. I never expected I would need to use my organization skills to defend something as mainstream as shared governance at universities. I am disturbed, however, when I see how high the average age is at AAUP meetings, and when I hear newer faculty voice the assumption that Faculty Senate is an empty form.

Perhaps they are right. Perhaps the neoliberal model is already so well entrenched that these modestly democratic institutions have already lost their purpose. Considering the quality of my colleagues here and elsewhere, though, and their embodiment of academic values, I doubt this. However, in an atmosphere where I increasingly hear faculty refer to department heads as “bosses,” administration as “management,” and students as “customers” or even “clients,” I would like to articulate some older principles which remain true, namely that: (a) the quality of the university is still that of its faculty and library; (b) having tenure means working for the integrity of the university and its academic mission; and (c) the administration also serves this mission and supports faculty in carrying it out.

As the present governorship wanes we can defend our democratic, academic institutions and thrive. Now is not the time for faculty to disengage but to increase participation, and to stand together with colleagues in institutions state and nationwide.

Axé.

Un diálogo importantísimo entre expertas

Coldhearted Scientist: “Free writing” is just stewing and will only ruin your thought process unless you have already decided what you are doing. Until such time as your first line comes to you unannounced, and you know what the content of your last paragraph is going to be, you are much better off just meditating as far as I am concerned.

Undine: The whole freewriting thing sounds good (write down whatever until you discover your topic), but, like you, I feel as though each sentence somehow casts the course of the next one and requires huge amounts of time to write. If I go down the wrong path by freewriting, my thoughts have gone in an entirely different direction, too, and they might not get back to my original track again.

Dame Eleanor Hull:  This tendency in my students makes me absolutely crazy: they develop an argument, and then find citations that will support it. This is the biggest problem I have with teaching the close reading, which does not even require the sort of research that means going to the library, only that they LOOK at what is in front of them. But instead of reading, they cherry-pick bits. Sometimes I convince some of them this is not how to do it, but I have had one student for two courses this year and he still doesn’t grasp the principle.

I think students just aren’t taught to do research any more. We would do them a huge favor if we taught that. As usual, the question is time and energy. I did it very successfully with a class of fewer than 10 this spring, but I am really not sure I could do it for 30, not on our mainly non-residential campus where most students are working and many have children (i.e., it is difficult to find time for individual conferences outside of class time).

Axé.

On the origins of the “free writing” cult

As we know, I am against free writing. I favor recreational or nonacademic writing, not free writing, for practice, and research notes and abstracts, not rambling “prewriting” to gather my thoughts. I became aware of free writing as a requirement too late, and I have never learned to use it — I find it exhausting and distracting, and it leads me to dead ends. I do free write in blog comments, however, and it helps me think.

In a comment years ago, I theorized the origin of free writing. It might come from freshman composition and specifically, from those rhetoric and composition experts who do not think freshmen should write on literature, yet are comfortable assigning them to write, say, an ethnography (as though they were trained ethnographers themselves). Students allegedly write in a number of disciplines and genres but since neither they nor their teachers have specific expertise in these, what they are actually writing all semester is as a set of personal essays.

Now, free writing works well to start personal essays. Good personal essays are hard to write and the students may not have a lot of material that is obvious to them as such, so free writing must be assigned to get them started.

To give free writing a shape, a lot of editing is needed; that is where the peer review process comes in. Most beginning undergraduates are not ready to peer-edit research-based papers, but all can respond to a piece of free writing about a life, find interesting passages, make suggestions on where to cut and thicken, and develop strategies of argumentation.

So a formula arises: freshman writing taught on this model fairly requires free writing. It follows from there that free writing is necessary for all writing. I notice what my students have been taught in their English classes: develop an argument, and then find citations that will support it. I have difficulty convincing them that this is not actually research, but I convince them.

As I wrote that last paragraph I realized that this was how I was told I should write my dissertation. I did not understand it — I was teaching sophomore, not freshman courses by then, and I did not know about this new, non-research writing model.

Axé.