Not at all what I should be doing...

All the recent hoopla over the Edwards Campaign bloggers caught my eye and added a couple new blogs (like this one and this one) to my favorites folder. I haven't had the time to keep up with everything surrounding this issue, but imagine my surprise when I checked out one of my new favorites this morning and saw this.

While Marcotte's decision to resign is understandable, the acceptance of her resignation, and the silence about it at the Edwards site, is not.

Clearly Edwards, or someone on his staff, was aware enough of Marcotte's work at Pandagon to want to hire her, which means they were [should have been] aware of the nature of her work at that site. If, as a campaign, Edwards and company cannot vet their employees better than that, they do not deserve my vote. If, as a campaign, they do not have the guts to do more than issue mealy mouthed comments about their employees while waiting for the right time to let them quietly step down, they certainly do not deserve my vote. And now they've done it again, Melissa McEwan, who had also been targeted for views posted on her blog before joining the campaign, has also stepped down; and, again there is no comment from the Edwards campaign.

Okay, I didn't start this post to complain about Edwards' cowardice. There are larger issues here that need to be considered. In comments responding to Marcotte's announcement Michael Bérubé points out that we are in new political territory. His comment is worth reading in full.

Clearly, blogging involves a very different kind of
rhetorical compact with one’s readers than campaigning does. But not until last
week, so far as I know, has there ever been a demand in this country that
ordinary campaign staffers account to the candidate — and to the general public
— for everything they’ve written prior to becoming campaign staffers. If you
sincerely think that the fault lies with Amanda for not alerting the Edwards
camp to the full metal Pandagon archives, well, I think you’re being
played.

Hiring campaign bloggers is a new phenomenon. The tension created as we attempt to identify and define this new rhetorical space needs to be carefully analyzed. When bloggers choose to write, in their own spaces, about sensitive issues they blur the lines between public and private discourse on those subjects. Certainly weblogs are a form of public discourse. Unless I choose to hide an entry, I understand that once I hit the “publish” button I’m no longer in control of my rhetorical audience. Consequently, as I write I should probably construct my audience as broadly as possible, being careful and deliberate in my word choice. However, the “log” nature of this format lends itself to feeling like a private discourse, which allows for an individualist voice. My private views, expressed in my own voice, become a part of public discourse in a way that has different ramifications from speaking loudly in the local coffee shop.

Unfortunately, I’m not being as articulate as I’d like here, and I don’t have the time to really work through this right now. What I’m trying to get at is a question about how our “published” words get used in these situations. Underlying this whole situation is, I think, a rhetorical (and ethical?) issue about how personal blogs are used (for political means) within public discourse.

In service to what...

This is the upcoming post…sort of.

The Cajun Princess alerted me to this over at rateyourstudents last week. My response to her email was, “Man, and I thought we were cynical.” It made me want to post something long and optimistic about publishing, research, and teaching here, but, alas, I’ve run out of time and optimism. All I will say is that it is pretty unnerving to hear the same cynicism from individuals who seem to have been in the profession for a while.

Instead today I’d like to explore a different aspect of my experience, departmental service. As I think I’ve mentioned before Middletown University (hereafter MU) is in the middle of a hiring spree. A couple of weeks ago at lunch with a candidate I commented on the opportunities our department provides graduate students to serve on committees and hold administrative positions (particularly in my field). I presented the comment as a good thing about our department. In some ways I think it is, but I’m having some doubts.

Here are the current opportunities for graduate students within our department:
v Student representation on a graduate studies committee (2 positions)
v Student representation at portions of faculty meetings dealing with graduate student issues (2 positions ***it should be noted we only gained these positions after much lobbying this year.)
v Assistant Director of Composition (1 year long position that includes a course release and a slight stipend)
v Graduate Assistant Director of the Writing Center (1 position – changes each semester and includes course release)
v Editors of the First Year Student handbook (3 positions)
v Contributors to the FYS Handbook (varies each year)

These are all positions that provide excellent experience and will look great on a cv, and they are only the structured positions. There are tons of other opportunities for us to volunteer in some capacity. No one should leave here without some service on their cv. So, why do I doubt their benefit?

Currently I’m debating whether or not to apply to be next year’s AD of Comp. It is within my field and is sort of the goal I’ve been working towards. However, I plan to take my comprehensive exams next spring. Even with the course release, I worry that the obligations of the AD position will be too much to carry and continue to study and take my exams at the same time. “No problem,” you might say, “just wait and apply after you’ve taken your exams.” You would be right if it weren’t for two things – first, there’s no guarantee that I would get it that following year; and, second, that is the final year of my funding.

My doubts about the amount of service graduate students provide to our department stems from the fact that we are limited to four years of funding. Fifth year students may apply for assistantships, but within the past year those assistantships have become competitive and the funding attached to them has decreased. Our funding is abysmally low to begin with yet, if we must stay for a fifth year (which is very common) we loose any tuition waivers we may have had, and about two thousand dollars for the year.

Our department advertises itself as a four-year PhD program. Technically, it is possible to do it; however, it is usually the exception. Most people I know have taken five years to get through the program, especially if they’ve been involved in the department. Although the positions that truly require our time offer course releases, they still also take time from our research, class prep, etc. Yes, these positions offer us an opportunity to experience the teaching, research, and service demands that are inherent in the profession; however, I’m beginning to think it is at a cost to our ability to focus either more completely on our teaching or our research, and, to some extend, our ability to complete the program in the time allotted.

As MU moves up in the research tiers, it desperately needs to address the low stipends for its graduate students. At the same time, our department needs to address the timing of the program. Currently, it is not really truthful to advertise as a four year program.

Filler

There is a post I'm working on, but finding the time has been difficult.
However, I had to take a moment to demonstrate just how much this program has warped me. Yesterday, I got sooooo excited because these books came in the mail.

Cultural Citizenship: Cosmopolitanism, Consumerism, and Television in a Neoliberal Age
and
Otherwise Than Being: Or Beyond Essence

You should notice that neither of these books are on the required reading list to the left. Nope, these are for other projects and "fun." It just doesn't get anymore geeky than that.

Getting the Ball Rolling

Although I still have to fill out the official paperwork, the final nail dropped in my committee coffin yesterday. I got up the nerve to ask the last member to work with me; and, he agreed. When I sat down last week to start putting together the my exam lists everything still felt somehow unreal. Watching Dr. Chat create a folder with my name on it and put it in another folder titled “Exams” was like feeling the puzzle pieces lock together. Although it is nerve wracking—like that moment when the rollercoaster just begins to move slowly up the track, it also brought me a sense of calm and determination. I’m done agonizing over who to work with and ready to get to work.

About the agonizing, I’ve known who I should work with since last spring. I delayed asking people to be on my committee because I worried about personality conflicts and stories I heard from other students. My friends who are taking their exams this semester all counsel me cryptically to “choose your committee carefully,” without giving me any concrete advice about how to do that. It’s frustrating, because really I don’t have a choice about who I’m working with – our department just isn’t that big.

Unlike some of my friends, I don’t know exactly what my dissertation topic is, so I’ve constructed my comprehensive exam lists using the theories that I know I want to work with in my dissertation. That means I have to work with Dr. Belle (who will chair my committee) because she is passionate about one of my theory areas, Dr. Chat because he is the only one on the faculty who works with a particular theory, and Dr. Snarky because her work provides the intersection between the other two theories. I know there are personality conflicts between at least two of the members. I’m pretty sure that when it comes time to write for these folks I will be pulled in at least two different directions, but that is just the nature of the game. At some level, I have to believe that these people are adults who can figure out how to work together.

My concern now is that all my lists are theoretical, but that is a different post.