Piping down

It's time for me to be quiet. Not here of course, I'll always be nice and loud here. However, lately, I think I've been too vocal around the department. Really. I've just been complaining (i.e. bitching) my little heart out.

What is happening in our department is nothing that hasn't happened before other places; and, frankly, until it happens somewhere that actually pays me a salary and allows me to vote on issues, I don't care.

There is, however, something interesting about what is happening to our department. Last year, when this particular search was conducted it was because a desperation point had been reached. There was a job to do, but no one wanted to do it anymore. So, in spite of the fact, that the people who interviewed for the job were in various ways probably not the best fit. At least one of them was willing to do the job.

The problem is that very few people really knew or understood what the job really was. The job was presented as administrative when really it was more about management. This in no way implies that there weren't necessary changes to be made, there were. But, the changes needed to be gradual and they also needed to reflect an understanding of the work already done. Obviously, that hasn't really been the case; but as I said I'm done complaining about that.

None of this sounds very interesting until you think about it historically and professionally. Much of the current problem stems from an historic inability of our department to explain what does/is/should go on in the writing classroom. It was assumed that everyone not only knew, but also agreed what should be happening in the writing classroom.

Here are two examples the first of what I was taught when I first got here and the second of what the current trend is looking like.

The writing classroom is a space in which we can use the study of rhetoric to teach students how to think critically. This approach allows students to develop their own strategies for use when they are asked to produce other forms of writing. (See my post about service course.) The problem with this idea of the purpose of a writing class is that it is not very testable. In other words, there is no way to give all the students some sort of test at the end of 15 weeks that says, "Yes! They've mastered this material."

The current trend is to quantify what goes on in the writing classroom. We may still not produce an End of Subject test, but we know we will only have x amount of reading, and y amount of writing; and we will define objectives and goals until all the courses look the same. This makes sure that everyone from fellow faculty to the university at large can look at our information and think they know what goes on in a writing classroom.

The problem with the first approach is that is difficult to explain to outsiders...really to anyone. Even more importantly it's difficult to pull off well. What that means is that when you have a course taught almost exculsively by graduate students is that sometimes the course will go badly wrong. But, usually the wrongness of it all is what we learn from...both the students and the graduate instructor. The other problem with this approach that is specific to our institution is that it became insular. The running of the Composition program went back and forth between two individuals who thought that everyone else understood what they were doing.

The problem with the second approach is that although the numbers will all look pretty, there is no real way to quantify what goes on in a Writing Class. The attempt to articulate what happens in the writing class through quantifiable evidence becomes problematic when the numbers don't add up to the need. In our situation, this is also a HUGE pendulum swing. People who didn't necessarily agree with the former methods are just as outraged by the rash of changes as those who did.

The really crappy part of it all is that since those of us most affected by the changes are graduate students we are simply seen as whining, not as offering an actual critique. People think that everything will settle down when the last of us trained in the old way leave. What they don't realize is that by then, if the pendulum hasn't swung back a little, it will be too late. The Composition Program here is moving from one that thrives and is growing, to one that will stagnate and die.

This probably really isn't very interesting to anyone else. I just think it's fascinating to see the arguments of the profession, arguments that seemed sorted out and decided, play out in front of me.

Absent Faces...

Dr. Snarky and another former faculty member came into town this weekend. Last night, the Diva and I got to meet up with every for drinks. I think a great time was had by all. Dr. Snarky and I got to have a great chat about everything, including my current work paralysis. It helped me think about some of the project in new ways. I won't say it was inspirational or that I'm not still having doubts, but there is another avenue to try. Dr. Pimp was there as well. She hasn't been around the department much this semester, so it was great to see her.

It is unfathomable to me how this department could loose so many fabulous people. Well, I know what the problems are, but you think somebody would realize and fix them. That really doesn't seem to be happening.

Not Where I Should Be...

Generally I do what is required of me, but today I just can't. There are too many factors at play and I just don't feel like it. It's liberating to learn it's okay not to feel like it. Don't get me wrong, if this were a life or death situation I would absolutely be there, but it's not so I'm not.

In today's New York Times there is an article about grade expectations. It's an interesting piece. It's not cutting edge journalism or anything like that, but it's nice to see the issue get some attention.

Every semester I mean to give a speech about what it takes to get an A in my class in order to underscore to the students that it probably takes more than just showing up, but I always forget. Today, I think I'll bring in that article and talk to them about what it means to get an. Maybe, I'll make them write about it. Ooooh yeah, I'm evil.

Excuse me for the messed up formatting. I'm sick and I don't want to do this again. Also, there what ended up being a pretty big, cut and paste seciton. This is all from an article titled "The Adjunctification of English" at insidehighered.com. I saw this last week when Dr. Heidi posted it; however, I didn't read it until today. Dr. Heidi's take on this was more about the poor economy and the lack to tenure-track jobs. My take is a little different. Let's begin with the opening line....

Without anyone paying much attention, professors have substantially been replaced by part timers and those off the tenure track when it comes to teaching English and writing to undergraduates.

WTF? Are you serious? Whether or not the MLA has put out a press briefing, this is not a current issue. Anyone involved in teaching composition can tell you that. However, this is continually treated as a "new" development until well down into the article there is this quotation from Cheryl Glenn.

Cheryl Glenn, the chair and a professor of English and women’s studies at Pennsylvania State University, noted that there were many similarities between the MLA’s report and a statement adopted by the writing instructors in 1989, which lamented the “enormous academic underclass” created by the use of adjuncts to teach writing, and called for programs to rely on tenured and tenure-track professors. She said it saddened her that so little progress had been made since 1989, but that the MLA had framed the issues well.

Yes, people in composition and rhetoric have been writing about this "new" problem for years. In fact one of the reasons I continued on to my PhD program was to study this problem. Over the years, my ideas shifted, but that doesn't mean this problem was solved. Go back and read some Bill Readings and Eileen Schell.

Although I am not technically an adjunct, my "Teaching Assistantship" means I occupy a very similar place in the University. In fact, for the University, it is a better place. I do the work of an adjunct, for less, pay for credits while I do it, and they get to say they provide 'experience.' One of the reasons I do not, like many of my colleagues, seek other teaching employment is because it would mean being an "adjunct" somewhere else. Not everyone has the opportunity to eschew that position, but it is important to me to stay out of that system. Until there are jobs, there will always be a cheap labor pool. While there is a cheap labor pool, Universities will use it. Who knows, when I am done here I may have to adjunct somewhere, but there is always the option to be Dr. Barista somewhere.

I want to be clear about one thing. These are my views and only that. I am not saying no one else should ever adjunct; however, if I can avoid it, I will.

Just don't get me started on the other issue here, which is why this is all a problem now that MLA noticed it, but didn't seem to be a real issue before. That is an entirely different rant. Since, I've been told I am a closet Victorianist, I should probably keep my mouth shut about that.

Daily Illustrations

Once a few months ago I tried to explain my dissertation topic to my Mother-in-Law. I tried to explain to her that I wanted to explore the way the language the media used influenced the way we think about immigrants. She heard language and thought I was talking about the increase in Spanish language media. Eh...I tried.

Today, unwittingly she provided me with the perfect illustration of the influence/power of language. Unfortunately, it's an example I could never tell her about. She'd been talking about Sarah Palin's speech yesterday. My MiL is in love with Sarah Palin. Then she went on to say something about the Democrats. I can't remember the exact sentence because she didn't say, "The Democrats blah, blah, blah." She said, "The Enemy blah, blah, blah." Well, actually the construction was, 'Blah, blah, blah The Enemy." And, yes, there were capitals in her voice.

My MiL listens to local conservative talk radio and watches Fox News. It's a running joke in the family about how liberal I am, but it must not really occur to her what that means. I don't really think she believes I am the enemy, but it's how she's learned to think about political opposition. That bugs me for everyone involved. I don't hate Republicans or Conservatives or Libertarians. I know, and really admire, lots of people with political views that are different than mine. I'm not saying it's only Fox News that promotes this kind of language. The Media (big "M" and all inclusive) is responsible and so are we, as a nation, because we like a good fight. But, what we need to realize is that it matters.

The true lesson here, the one that I can never really tell her about, is that although I know this woman loves me, I know she "Didn't mean it that way," it still stung.

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.