On knowing, a new pillory

John_Waller_in_pillorySomeone has reinterpreted the pillory–it was only a matter of time, really. Right? It might make me an awful person, insensitive to a whole range of questions (I hear your future rants, ranters), but I am experiencing a certain schadenfreude in the very concept of this blog, Public Shaming, where certain types of social media detritus are exposed.

In all seriousness, I have become very interested in social media (like the rest of academia) and its role in the creation of knowledge. Because, clearly, this type of trending seems self-perpetuated where the volume of believers outweighs the ‘facts.’ (Not that this is new, cf belief)

I know because they know instead of I know because I checked.   This isn’t a new by any stretch of the imagination. But with the instantaneous proliferation of ‘knowing,’ is common knowledge even knowledge anymore?

Knowing is hard.


What he learned from gay sex and Eve Ensler

I’m not the biggest fan of recycling other people’s writing, but I do like to pass along things I find thought-provoking and important.  I came across this Huffington Post article by Simon Mortiz, I was absolutely floored by its scope.

Image

image credit: garybedard.blogspot.com

As a gay man, I find it thought-provoking and entirely relevant to the world we live in. But, I hope there is a lesson we can all learn from Moritz’s argument about gender and the role it plays (and how it dictates) all our lives.

I’m not interested in rehashing the last 25 years of progressive gender theory here (though who doesn’t love a good Butler read), though I am going to include this link as well, to a Ted Talk by Eve Ensler that one reader attached to the Huff Post article.


Literature hacked to death at *-Mart

I’m going to spare the rant about the quality of the book – most people have already expressed it.  I came across a great blog post this morning (as I am avoiding doing any type of grading or producing). The writer raises a fear that I’ve had for a while now. In the post  Assault on Literature through 50 Shades of Yuck, the writer laments the current phenomenon of inserting into already existing stories.

The prime example here is the phenomenon that swept the world by storm, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.   Yeah yeah, I can hear the post-modern protests already. But But But. It’s funny. But but but, it’s not hurting anyone. But but but lighten up.

book knifeI’d be less worried if I knew that everyone’s spawn actually knew works of literature. I’m disheartened on a regular basis that they do not, in fact, know much about literature at all (or care, or want to care). I fear the parody of these works (and the thriller/comedy/sex ification of them) is replacing the works themselves (insert rant on education/values/art/entertainment).

Hey, I think spoofs are funny. I think they’re only a good idea, however, when we know what they’re making fun of and why.

The decade of the reboot and the remake (not that these haven’t existed before) in such proliferation and zeal has annoyed me. I’ve enjoyed some, loathed others. But I knew the originals. Sure, some are going to argue that the reboot or remake may inspire seeing the originals. Ok, but that’s giving people a lot of credit. Yet, I’ll readily believe that people will see the original movie before they read the original book.

Flaubert spent 5 years writing Madame Bovary. Not due to laziness, but rather to an obsessive attention to words, sentences, and sounds.

I wonder how long the mommy porn author took to copy Sade’s homework before class.


Distractions

Simias-egg

Cheating on Academic Sins with an alter ego.

#priceless.

Technēpoesie.


Abracadabra

Make it so.

Or so we all heard for a good 7 years in the late 80s and early 90s. More of an imperative than an performative utterance, it gets us a little closer to the bull’s eye. Recently, a judge in France ruled the auction of Hopi masks legal, as the previous owner had obtained them legally.  That seems logical.

Image

Art Et Communication / Ho / EPA
An undated handout picture provided by Art et Communication press office in Paris, France on April 11, 2013 shows a mask entitled ‘Angwusnasomtaqa’ or ‘Tumas Crow Mother’ as part of the ‘Katsinam Masks’ auction sale at Drouot-Richelieu. care of worldnews.nbcnews.com

Yet, the complication is in the role the masks play for the Hopi, who view them as living things, sacred beings. Naturally, money and collecting are involved (un passe-temps du 19e siècle), so the dispute over the masks’–scratch that. The dispute over the legality of the sale was hauled before a judge, who subsequently ruled that since the current owner had obtained them legally, years before, the masks could be legally auctioned.

The most frightening part, I think is the power that the law wielded here and invested in others:

Before starting, the auctioneer, Gilles Néret-Minet, told the crowd that the sale had been found by a judge to be perfectly legal, and that the objects were no longer sacred but had become  “important works of art.”

The ability of language to perform is powerful indeed. Big magic. In one deft tongue maneuver, Néret-Minet changed the status of the masks from sacred beings to important objects all because of another performative utterance, the legal ruling.

The irony, perhaps, is in this line:

[Néret-Minet] added, “In France you cannot just up and seize the property of a person that is lawfully his.”

Whew, well I sure feel better now.

Suddenly, Judith Butler, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Eve Kosofsky Sedgewick surge out of the dry pages of theory and into the consequence-filled world of practice.


Internationally righting: gay rights, emerging equalities, Foreign Affairs

This needs some international attention and hopefully a vote.  Standing in my friend’s kitchen in her 4th story walk-up, I had the pleasure of meeting an engaging thinker.  Earlier in the day, I had been frolicking about with a friend when we came upon a campaign table for the President.  Naturally we shelled out some money for campaign swag and got some stickers too.  Merrily, and some what obliviously, I walked around with a campaign sticker on my shirt for the rest of the day–which as it happens was a conversation starter.

As it turns out, this engaging thinker, Mr. Pérez,  wrote an article on advancing gay rights internationally that may be featured in Foreign Affairs magazine with the help of supporters. In the era of social media, apparently even FA wants le peuple to choose its feature (which I suppose is also a creative way of foisting the decision on everyone else, thus escaping any residual messiness).  In a piece promoting his article and the vote that FA has called for, Pérez writes:

that some will question the validity of this topic being considered “the stuff of serious foreign affairs.” And judging by some of the comments made about my essay so far, I was right. It is shortsighted to assume that real foreign affairs is limited to discussions of war, territorial disputes, nuclear weapons, terrorism and the like.

We cannot forget that combating anti-gay discrimination touches upon many matters that are also of import to foreign policy: From war crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to public health concerns in Botswana, there are many foreign policy implications to antigay discrimination throughout the world that may not be evident to those who conceive of U.S. foreign policy and gay rights as distinct and unrelated concepts. For as the world becomes more diverse and complex, so [too] will foreign affairs matters become more diverse and complex.

In a time when we still haven’t grown beyond this startling word count of antigay speech, perhaps we should all give Mr. Pérez’s article a read and head over to place a vote. After all, if we don’t decide to raise our hands and say, “this is important,” who else will?  Certainly not the other tweeters scrolling on that page.

See this article from Hunter College for Mr. Pérez’s “Emerging Equality: Gay Rights as a Priority of U.S. Foreign Policy,”  and for voting instructions.


Darth Chancellor and the academic HMO?

The Board Strikes Back — Darth Chancellor weighs in on CUNY brouhaha.

Far be it for me to be so naive that I think money grows on trees and oversight is avoidable.  The Board of Trustees is a function of universities (or maybe a symptom?) that is not going anywhere.  What troubles me, however, is that the majority of boards I am familiar with are not actually staffed with academics (though, surely there is representation).  Now, before you blow the ‘play fair’ horn, I do acknowledge that there is a reason for governance that is not completely by the faculty — there is more going on at a university than education.  Yet, when the board of trustees gets to decide curricular directions I hear alarms sounding (let’s agree this is not the first time a board has asserted itself against the wishes of the faculty— everyone remembers Mitch Daniels and Purdue University, right?)

As one Purdue protester put it:

“What we see again with this appointment is a top-down, corporate driven shaping of education.”

And every American university I have stepped foot in has demonstrated this exact trend. Lamentable and destructive to the integrity of the college degree, standards are loosened, bars are lowered, whining is appeased.  I have witnessed curricula that have been adjusted for certain schools within universities who also happen to secure a plethora of funding externally. The student-as-consumer and education-as-commodity model is, quite frankly, a destructive load of hooey. The best argument I’ve heard against this is actually marvelously simple: college students do not have the knowledge to act as a consumer; rather, they are in college to gain that knowledge.  It is generally up to the educators to determine what they need to know by virtue of their extensive education. Here’s another argument against it, however.

The Rebel Professors are on Dantooine!

All of this to report that Chancellor Matthew Goldstein of the City University of New York, a consortium of many colleges throughout the five boroughs of the city, has responded to the concerns expressed by the CUNY community in regards to the flippant remarks of a Queensborough Community College administrator. (You can find her remarks here.)  The Professional Staff Congress (a cross-campus advocacy body) has voiced its condemnation of the situation. (You can find PSC president Barbara Bowen’s comments here.)  After the PSC body broadcast its condemnation loudly to the CUNY community which was simultaneously joined with an outcry at the QCC administration and the University administration with further condemnation of the Pathways Initiative,  Chancellor Goldstein has sent out an e-mail to the entire CUNY community today:

I am writing to address several issues that have arisen recently in connection with the implementation of the Pathways resolution of the Board of Trustees.

First, earlier this month, the interim vice-president for academic affairs at Queensborough Community College wrote an unfortunate letter to the College’s English Department. The author subsequently apologized for the character and tone of her communication. We should remember that while Pathways established the structure for curricular reform and its implementation, faculty are fully engaged in developing course content. Such collaboration is very much in the tradition and spirit of a great University.

Second, Dr. Terrence Martell, chair of the University Faculty Senate, and Dr. Barbara Bowen, President of the Professional Staff Congress, have sent an email to the faculty in which they erroneously state that the faculty have the power to block the implementation of Pathways. This claim misstates the core principle, embodied in state law and the bylaws and policies of the University, that the authority for the governance of the University on all matters rests with the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees has delegated a significant role to the faculty on academic matters, and the faculty have the right to exercise their professional judgment in fulfilling that role. However, the faculty are not empowered to ignore or violate a policy established by the Board of Trustees or the implementation of that policy by the Chancellor.

I hope this clarifies matters and allows us to continue to work collaboratively to implement Pathways in a manner that is in the best educational interests of our students.

The issue of curricular change joined with phrasing like “the faculty are not empowered,” are particularly piquant.  I cannot help but metaphorically reach towards the adage of the corporate bean-counter deciding what treatment physicians can give their patients, the requirement to have procedures and tests approved (you know those physicians, they just love to fire up the MRI and do spinal taps for giggles).

Now, we are told that faculty have “the right to exercise their judgement,” only not when it involves what composes the degree they’re participating in…actively.  Curricular changes forced on a community like a steam-roller (as, with an inside perspective, I can vouch that this Pathways Initiative is like some form of academic Eminent Domain), non-academics making those decisions – wow, it sounds a lot like local public education in America. Let’s have the non-educators decide who learns what and when.  After all, who needs history, literature, foreign language? (See this great post by Carceral Nation).  You can’t quantify them, therefore they must be useless.

Enjoy your degrees. Soon they’ll mean little more than “I was present for 4 years.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45 other followers