Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
I have interacted with thousands and thousands of student loan debtors, and have spoken to hundreds of them by phone. We all know that a majority of people who have college degrees, professional degrees, etc., etc. are stuck with a great deal of student loan debt. It's likely that most of these student loan debtors will never pay off their debt. The student loan debt clock is now at $907 billion. With the passing of each minute, that number increases dramatically. That provides us with some pretty concrete evidence that there are millions of student debtors (not to mention their co-signers).
I only know of a few people who have paid off their student loans. One person is the President of the U.S. He has admitted that he would still owe student loans if he hadn't written two successful books. The other person is also an author, but that's not how he paid off his debt! Nope. He had to get a movie deal to do that. So, a successful book ain't gonna cut it. You'll need that successful book to be turned into a movie. Then you'll be able to pay off your debt.
Since this site is dedicated to research on the student lending crisis and sharing testimonials from student debtors, I would like to hear from those of you who have paid off your loans. If you are willing to share, I'd like you to answer the following questions:
(a) How much debt did you owe?
(b) What sort of loans did you have? Federal? Private? Both?
(c) How would you describe your economic background?
(d) Where did you go to school? (If you went to more than one, please list all the schools you attended)?
(e) Are you the first person in your family to graduate?
(f) What did you major in?
(g) What professional degree(s) did you obtain (if applicable)?
(h) When did you graduate?
(i) What were the interest rates on your loan(s)?
(j) How were you able to pay off your loans, i.e., did you inherit money, did your family help you, etc., etc.?
(k) What advice would you give to someone asking you about paying off their student loans?
Friday, April 29, 2011
The Only Good Professor Is A Dead Professor: Or, Is The Decline Of Academic Labor A Health Risk?
When was the last time you stopped grading, writing, reading or writing up committee reports and went to the gym? In "Performance Pressure," published this week in the Canadian academic journal Academic Matters, Megan A. Kirk and Ryan E. Rhodes are betting you didn't do it lately. In "Performance Pressure" they argue that assistant professors are particularly at risk. "Being a professor is a profession that has been shown to have the longest work hours, heaviest work demands, highest psychological stress, and lowest occupational energy expenditure compared to other professional occupations," they write. Hence, among all professional workers, new faculty are most likely to become mentally run-down and unhealthy for lack of exercise:
For many, the allure of becoming a professor is the promise of a career that involves freedom of choice, national funding, opportunities for promotion, secured tenure-track advancement, and a flexible work schedule. It is no secret, however, that the path to becoming an established professor requires years of grueling, all-consuming service to prove oneself as worthy.
Assistant professors, those who have recently entered the academic profession, aim to reach tenure by spending countless hours teaching, marking, grant writing, publishing, reading, analyzing, recruiting, and presenting. Most of these “rookies” are also juggling relationships, families, and other personal goals. The reward is that once tenure status is granted, life as a professor can be absolutely wonderful. Or so we think. What if the pressure, expectations, and stress endured while trying to obtain a tenure-track position had devastating consequences on your long-term physical and emotional health?
In a sample of 267 assistant professors who had been hired in the last five years, Kirk and Rhodes found that only 30.7% were meeting a minimum level of physical activity necessary to maintain good adult health. This compares to 50% of young Canadian professionals who are meeting this basic standard. "The declining trend in physical activity was not independent of certain socio-demographic profiles," they note. "Those who indicated they were married, and worked 70-plus hours of work per week reported sharper decreases in physical activity across the transition compared to those who were single and working fewer than 70 hours." Having children was also a co-factor, which will not surprise those of you out there who are parents.
One recent preoccupation of this blog and a great many other publications has been the great difficulties of life as an adjunct or contract faculty member. But here's a question: although there are tremendous differences in salary, security and work conditions between ladder track faculty and others, are labor conditions that have marginalized some also putting increasing pressure on those who seem to be succeeding in this narrowing labor market? One of the things we all know implicitly is that the tremendous pressure to achieve tenure occurs in part because to not get tenure has a great likelihood of being a career-ending moment. That is a psychological stressor, including an inducement to work harder -- even at things that will never be noticed in a review. One thing I have suspected for a while is that there is simply more work to do than there was twenty years ago, even putting aside raised expectations for scholarly production in the social sciences and the humanities. Colleges and universities are accepting more students; many of the students we accept are more difficult to teach for a variety of reasons; the increased demand for measurable outcomes; and the drop in full-time teaching staff who can be expected to undertake and be responsible for these tasks makes them more time-consuming.
For many, the allure of becoming a professor is the promise of a career that involves freedom of choice, national funding, opportunities for promotion, secured tenure-track advancement, and a flexible work schedule. It is no secret, however, that the path to becoming an established professor requires years of grueling, all-consuming service to prove oneself as worthy.
Assistant professors, those who have recently entered the academic profession, aim to reach tenure by spending countless hours teaching, marking, grant writing, publishing, reading, analyzing, recruiting, and presenting. Most of these “rookies” are also juggling relationships, families, and other personal goals. The reward is that once tenure status is granted, life as a professor can be absolutely wonderful. Or so we think. What if the pressure, expectations, and stress endured while trying to obtain a tenure-track position had devastating consequences on your long-term physical and emotional health?
In a sample of 267 assistant professors who had been hired in the last five years, Kirk and Rhodes found that only 30.7% were meeting a minimum level of physical activity necessary to maintain good adult health. This compares to 50% of young Canadian professionals who are meeting this basic standard. "The declining trend in physical activity was not independent of certain socio-demographic profiles," they note. "Those who indicated they were married, and worked 70-plus hours of work per week reported sharper decreases in physical activity across the transition compared to those who were single and working fewer than 70 hours." Having children was also a co-factor, which will not surprise those of you out there who are parents.
One recent preoccupation of this blog and a great many other publications has been the great difficulties of life as an adjunct or contract faculty member. But here's a question: although there are tremendous differences in salary, security and work conditions between ladder track faculty and others, are labor conditions that have marginalized some also putting increasing pressure on those who seem to be succeeding in this narrowing labor market? One of the things we all know implicitly is that the tremendous pressure to achieve tenure occurs in part because to not get tenure has a great likelihood of being a career-ending moment. That is a psychological stressor, including an inducement to work harder -- even at things that will never be noticed in a review. One thing I have suspected for a while is that there is simply more work to do than there was twenty years ago, even putting aside raised expectations for scholarly production in the social sciences and the humanities. Colleges and universities are accepting more students; many of the students we accept are more difficult to teach for a variety of reasons; the increased demand for measurable outcomes; and the drop in full-time teaching staff who can be expected to undertake and be responsible for these tasks makes them more time-consuming.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
For-Profit Funding: Rep. George Miller Wins The Shameful Prize - He's The Recipient Of Over $110K
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
Who's receiving money from the for-profit industry? Lookie here. Shame on all of them. The damned Democrats have received more money from this disgusting industry than the Republicans. And these politicians wonder why people are disgusted and angry? Really? It's all about: Money, Money, Money. F--k the students. F--k the citizens.
Source: For-Profit Colleges Mount Unprecedented Battle For Influence in Washington


Who's receiving money from the for-profit industry? Lookie here. Shame on all of them. The damned Democrats have received more money from this disgusting industry than the Republicans. And these politicians wonder why people are disgusted and angry? Really? It's all about: Money, Money, Money. F--k the students. F--k the citizens.
Source: For-Profit Colleges Mount Unprecedented Battle For Influence in Washington


[UPDATE] Dean James Thelen from Thomas M. Cooley Law School Responds With A Threatening Letter
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
Dean James Thelen, Associate Dean for Legal Affairs and General Counsel at the Thomas M Cooley School of Law, sent me a threatening letter about an hour ago. At his request, I have posted his letter in its entirety. However, I refuse to take down my previous posts (and that is what he is demanding). I have a right to raise these questions, and nothing about my posts are defamatory. They have no right preventing me from sharing this information. The public can reach its own conclusion. I hung up this response on advise of counsel, and will not be threatened by the implied slap shot suit that Dean Thelen mentions.
April 28, 2011
Ms. Johannsen:
I write to address your April 27, 2011 blog posting on http://alleducationmatters.blogspot.com. I note that you have just updated your posting today.
Your report regarding Thomas M. Cooley Law School is, at best, false and misleading; at worst, it is defamatory and actionable. A simple Google search would have demonstrated that the defamatory material passed off as truth – admittedly by your own “hunch” – is nothing but a regurgitated Internet rumor circulated and discredited months ago. (I’ve reviewed too your Twitter feed regarding these allegations, which is stated as fact and is thus defamatory as well.)
Thomas M. Cooley Law School is not, and never has been, under any investigation for its Title IV student loan programs or any other reason. Thomas M. Cooley Law School is a Michigan non-profit private educational corporation—not a for-profit entity that you assert to be the subject of a rumored government “crackdown.”
You should immediately remove these defamatory postings from your “All Education Matters” blog page, as well as from your Twitter feed and any other site that you control. I also expect that you will post an appropriate statement of the reason for your retractions.
Thomas M. Cooley Law School is accredited by the American Bar Association and the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. We have in place a Program Participation Agreement with the United States Department of Education, as required by the Higher Education Authority Act and its implementing regulations, and we dutifully meet our obligations under federal and state law, as well as our PPA agreement, to maintain the integrity of our Title IV program and funding. There have not been, to the best of our knowledge and information, any complaints of inappropriate activity regarding our Title IV programs to the DOE’s Office of Inspector General.
We at Thomas M. Cooley Law School are proud of our mission to provide one of the most affordable and accessible private legal educations in the country.
(You have my permission to post this statement, but only on the condition that it is posted in its entirety.)
**************************
James B. Thelen, Esq.
Associate Dean for Legal Affairs and General Counsel
Thomas M. Cooley Law School
300 S. Capitol Avenue
P.O. Box 13038
Lansing, MI 48901
(517) 371-5140 ext. 2003
fax: (517) 334-5752
Dean James Thelen, Associate Dean for Legal Affairs and General Counsel at the Thomas M Cooley School of Law, sent me a threatening letter about an hour ago. At his request, I have posted his letter in its entirety. However, I refuse to take down my previous posts (and that is what he is demanding). I have a right to raise these questions, and nothing about my posts are defamatory. They have no right preventing me from sharing this information. The public can reach its own conclusion. I hung up this response on advise of counsel, and will not be threatened by the implied slap shot suit that Dean Thelen mentions.
April 28, 2011
Ms. Johannsen:
I write to address your April 27, 2011 blog posting on http://alleducationmatters.blogspot.com. I note that you have just updated your posting today.
Your report regarding Thomas M. Cooley Law School is, at best, false and misleading; at worst, it is defamatory and actionable. A simple Google search would have demonstrated that the defamatory material passed off as truth – admittedly by your own “hunch” – is nothing but a regurgitated Internet rumor circulated and discredited months ago. (I’ve reviewed too your Twitter feed regarding these allegations, which is stated as fact and is thus defamatory as well.)
Thomas M. Cooley Law School is not, and never has been, under any investigation for its Title IV student loan programs or any other reason. Thomas M. Cooley Law School is a Michigan non-profit private educational corporation—not a for-profit entity that you assert to be the subject of a rumored government “crackdown.”
You should immediately remove these defamatory postings from your “All Education Matters” blog page, as well as from your Twitter feed and any other site that you control. I also expect that you will post an appropriate statement of the reason for your retractions.
Thomas M. Cooley Law School is accredited by the American Bar Association and the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. We have in place a Program Participation Agreement with the United States Department of Education, as required by the Higher Education Authority Act and its implementing regulations, and we dutifully meet our obligations under federal and state law, as well as our PPA agreement, to maintain the integrity of our Title IV program and funding. There have not been, to the best of our knowledge and information, any complaints of inappropriate activity regarding our Title IV programs to the DOE’s Office of Inspector General.
We at Thomas M. Cooley Law School are proud of our mission to provide one of the most affordable and accessible private legal educations in the country.
(You have my permission to post this statement, but only on the condition that it is posted in its entirety.)
**************************
James B. Thelen, Esq.
Associate Dean for Legal Affairs and General Counsel
Thomas M. Cooley Law School
300 S. Capitol Avenue
P.O. Box 13038
Lansing, MI 48901
(517) 371-5140 ext. 2003
fax: (517) 334-5752
Part II: Thomas M Cooley Law School
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
Yesterday I quoted a 'little bird' who claims that things are more than just sordid at the Thomas M Cooley Law School. As much as I would like to investigate the claim and confirm that there is an investigation underway, I do not have the resources to do so. Therefore I sent the post to some contacts at IHE, Education Sector, the Department of Education (if even put a call into a contact there), etc., etc. to see if they might be interested in pursuing the assertion or confirming it. Moreover, and as I stated on the updated version of that post, a scamblogger received the same 'tip' a few months ago. It might very well be a hoax.
I have written a piece based upon evidence from a whistleblower in the past. But in that case I learned the identity of the individual, and posted their real name (we also spoke by phone). That story was about Kaplan's sordid relationship to WAPO. It's a shame that this piece didn't spark more outrage, because it really shows what a mess things are, especially when it comes to the way in which these institutions are entangled. In addition, there is no doubt that the lenders have, for lack of a better term, infiltrated the Department of Education. This allows them to influence policy and the flow of money. As we all know, money is never directly distributed to students. It is tightly controlled by the lenders, the universities, etc. There are a number of individuals who go back and forth from working for the lenders and the Department. But that is the case with all the departments, and that is why these bureaucracies have been sullied. On a political note, that is what President Obama promised to clean up. And as we know, that really isn't going so well, but I digress.
If this individual does not provide me with a specific name, this story is over for the time being. I am happy to keep their identity confidential, but I will not engage with someone who does not tell me (a) who they are and (b) what they do.
My sources are trustworthy and I know who they are - that matters, particularly when you're talking about corruption on these levels. My work is based upon solid research and evidence, and that will not change.
That said, if anything does come up about Thomas M. Cooley Law School, I'll be the first to post the reporter's news story about it.
Yesterday I quoted a 'little bird' who claims that things are more than just sordid at the Thomas M Cooley Law School. As much as I would like to investigate the claim and confirm that there is an investigation underway, I do not have the resources to do so. Therefore I sent the post to some contacts at IHE, Education Sector, the Department of Education (if even put a call into a contact there), etc., etc. to see if they might be interested in pursuing the assertion or confirming it. Moreover, and as I stated on the updated version of that post, a scamblogger received the same 'tip' a few months ago. It might very well be a hoax.
I have written a piece based upon evidence from a whistleblower in the past. But in that case I learned the identity of the individual, and posted their real name (we also spoke by phone). That story was about Kaplan's sordid relationship to WAPO. It's a shame that this piece didn't spark more outrage, because it really shows what a mess things are, especially when it comes to the way in which these institutions are entangled. In addition, there is no doubt that the lenders have, for lack of a better term, infiltrated the Department of Education. This allows them to influence policy and the flow of money. As we all know, money is never directly distributed to students. It is tightly controlled by the lenders, the universities, etc. There are a number of individuals who go back and forth from working for the lenders and the Department. But that is the case with all the departments, and that is why these bureaucracies have been sullied. On a political note, that is what President Obama promised to clean up. And as we know, that really isn't going so well, but I digress.
If this individual does not provide me with a specific name, this story is over for the time being. I am happy to keep their identity confidential, but I will not engage with someone who does not tell me (a) who they are and (b) what they do.
My sources are trustworthy and I know who they are - that matters, particularly when you're talking about corruption on these levels. My work is based upon solid research and evidence, and that will not change.
That said, if anything does come up about Thomas M. Cooley Law School, I'll be the first to post the reporter's news story about it.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
[UPDATED] MUST READ: Thomas M Cooley Law School Under Investigation For Serious Title IV Violations
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
UPDATED: This 'tipster' got in touch with one of the scambloggers a few months ago, claiming the same thing about Thomas M. Cooley Law School. So it might be a hoax.
Is it true? Where are the documents to back up this claim?
A little bird wrote to me today and said:
I've been searching for about an hour or more for news pieces on this investigation. So far, nothing is showing up. Stay tuned.
UPDATED: This 'tipster' got in touch with one of the scambloggers a few months ago, claiming the same thing about Thomas M. Cooley Law School. So it might be a hoax.
Is it true? Where are the documents to back up this claim?
A little bird wrote to me today and said:
Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Michigan is under investigation for serious Title IV violations and helping student loan companies bilk students, taxpayers, and the government out of billions of dollars.
According to a person involved in the multi-agency investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the probe is part of the Dept of Ed's for profit crackdown and the feds crackdown on the 9.5 percent student loan scheme that's causing graduates student loan debt to double and triple to astronomical rates. Cooley has been secretly operating their state’s student secondary market program and helping lenders grow their 9.5 percent loan portfolios. Investigators discovered that the school has been purchasing the college loans of their incoming students then using their students' personal information to execute federal consolidation loans for the loans they purchased and the federal loans the students' take out to pay Cooley’s tuition. Cooley, then changes those students' graduation date to match the maturity date on the fraudulent consolidation loan. The fraudulent loans are packaged as 9.5 percent eligible student loan revenue bonds and sold as Student Loan Auction Rate Securities. Once the SLARS are sold, swapped, or traded on the muni bond market, those students’ whose loans were sold etc are either ‘dismissed’ for academic reasons, 'honor code violations' or diagnosed with a ‘learning disability.'
Investigators also discovered that a good portion of Cooley's 'Administrators' and 'Executive Officers' are really employees/officers at banks, investment firms, private equity firms and securities dealers [my emphasis].
I've been searching for about an hour or more for news pieces on this investigation. So far, nothing is showing up. Stay tuned.
Briefcase Brigade
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
Get organized and get out there! NO ONE IS LISTENING. Join the Briefcase Brigade today!
We want to be a part of this country. We want our future back.
Get organized and get out there! NO ONE IS LISTENING. Join the Briefcase Brigade today!
We want to be a part of this country. We want our future back.
Love, Literature, and The Art Of Making A Life In Priscilla Gilman's "The Anti-Romantic Child"
Priscilla Gilman's new memoir, The Anti-Romantic Child: A Story of Unexpected Joy (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), is this week's recommended reading. It is mostly about Gilman's struggle to help her son Benjamin overcome a set of developmental disabilities that make him sound quite charming and interesting -- as well as a challenging child who gives intricate meaning to that imprecise phrase "special needs." While she gestures at specific diagnoses, she resists the comprehensive and categorical workup with which so many of my students arrive at college. She also refuses medication, which seems to be the go-to solution for the vast majority of kids who see a neurologist nowadays, as it seems to affect Benj’s brain chemistry in dramatic and unhelpful ways. Intensive therapy, however, helps, and that story is going to be very instructive and encouraging for parents who are finding their way with similarly challenging children. As the book argues implicitly, it matters less what is "wrong" with Benj than it matters to cultivate his talents and strengths as an individual, give him access and connection to a world of feeling, and give him a way to live in the world as a creative and unique person.
Benj is high end (fill in the blank -- any neurological diagnosis is a menu nowadays) which means that, with a lot of hard work on the part of his parents and therapists, a child who is clearly brilliant by any standard but lacks the capacity to interact empathetically, receive affection in recognizable ways, or function in a standard social or learning environment learns to do so by the end of the book. The larger, and very compelling, theme of The Anti-Romantic Child, however, surpasses the particularities of Benj and his upbringing: it is about the romance that everyone needs to have to imagine a life. It is about what it takes to hold onto that romance and also grapple with the realities that clash with it. Gilman positions herself as a particularly romantic person (she becomes a Wordsworth scholar), but also creates a compelling perspective on that for the reader. The romances we develop about childhood, she proposes, are a healthy mechanism for choosing the parts of our upbringing that we want to honor and reproduce, while vowing not to pass on our own parents' shortcomings. And while the family romance in particular sets the stage for disappointment -- since, after all, people are dealt children quite randomly, and fully able children are bound to simply be themselves rather than made-to-order progeny -- Gilman learns that romance is also really about joy. As she watches Benj learn to live for himself, overcome simple difficulties that can be paralyzing for him, and actualize his humanity, she discovers in herself a whole new capacity for experiencing joy.
Perhaps it is no accident that Gilman has to recalibrate her romance about herself at the same time: her marriage ends, tested by circumstance and the deepening knowledge that two adults can acquire about the nature of intimacy. A second theme in the book is her path into, and out of, academia. For a variety of reasons, Gilman's career as a literary scholar had seemed pre-ordained. She gives birth to Benj while still in graduate school and, incredibly, is able to leverage a tenure-track job at Vassar as well as a part-time job for her husband. Particularly because they have a special needs child, being near family and friends, as well as avoiding a commuter marriage, seems to be the miracle they need. Increasingly, however, as she struggles with launching Benj, she also grapples with the knowledge that she has taken a wrong turn even as she has lived out a cherished romance about herself:
Vassar was a wonderful college, but my doubts, my dissatisfactions with academia remained. I would find myself warning my students against my path; I couldn't in all good conscience encourage them to go to graduate school when they said they wanted to read great books all the time and teach great students like I did. They were so idealistic; they had starry eyes and great hopes. I wished one of my professors had been more honest and blunt with me early on; I wish I'd known what I was getting into, that being an English major bore little or no relation to being an English professor. I was reading much less literature, especially world literature, now that I was a professor. I had to read endless scholarly articles, book reviews, and student papers. I had to immerse myself in the minor writers of my period. And, of course, there were virtually no jobs; my career was an aberration, not a model that could be easily replicated.
Love for literature did not necessarily a career as a teacher-scholar make. While having a developmentally disabled child was a huge challenge to that career, and to ordinary life, it may have also allowed her to speak the things to herself that many people feel but do not act on.
I would sit in interminable department or all-college faculty meetings where minutiae would be debated for hours, people got up in arms about the smallest matters, and both the bickering and the venom bore no relation to what was really at stake....Once I got to Vassar, I no longer had the anxiety about the unknown, but a new problem emerged; I realized that I had been so fixated on the elusive brass ring of a tenure-track job that I hadn't faced the fact that I wasn't truly suited to scholarship.....I knew what I had to do to get tenure, but I couldn't bring myself to do it.
So she chucks it, moving to New York to have another literary life:
...it felt good to write to the head of the Vassar English Department and tell him I'd decided to leave academia after the coming year's teaching responsibilities were over; the father of a special needs child himself, he accepted my decision with great graciousness and understanding. Stepping off that tenure track felt like an enormous liberation, and I looked forward to beginning at the literary agency the following summer.
Gilman's book is a must-read for anyone interested in disability studies, and a thoughtful, third wave feminist meditation on mothering, work, and the work of mothering. But it is also worthwhile for those who have made academic careers, and are beginning to wake up in the middle of the night and wonder how they got there; those on the path to a scholarly career who may or may not have come to grips with the realities of why they want it; and those who cherish the reality of scholarly life in all its parts but have found the path to a tenure-track job frustratingly foreclosed by the poor job market. Under what circumstances is it OK to change your mind? Under what circumstances is it possible to live out your dream in another way? While a special needs child might force those choices, or clarify such decisions, for any one individual, they are good questions for all of us to ask ourselves as we do the ongoing work of making a life.
Benj is high end (fill in the blank -- any neurological diagnosis is a menu nowadays) which means that, with a lot of hard work on the part of his parents and therapists, a child who is clearly brilliant by any standard but lacks the capacity to interact empathetically, receive affection in recognizable ways, or function in a standard social or learning environment learns to do so by the end of the book. The larger, and very compelling, theme of The Anti-Romantic Child, however, surpasses the particularities of Benj and his upbringing: it is about the romance that everyone needs to have to imagine a life. It is about what it takes to hold onto that romance and also grapple with the realities that clash with it. Gilman positions herself as a particularly romantic person (she becomes a Wordsworth scholar), but also creates a compelling perspective on that for the reader. The romances we develop about childhood, she proposes, are a healthy mechanism for choosing the parts of our upbringing that we want to honor and reproduce, while vowing not to pass on our own parents' shortcomings. And while the family romance in particular sets the stage for disappointment -- since, after all, people are dealt children quite randomly, and fully able children are bound to simply be themselves rather than made-to-order progeny -- Gilman learns that romance is also really about joy. As she watches Benj learn to live for himself, overcome simple difficulties that can be paralyzing for him, and actualize his humanity, she discovers in herself a whole new capacity for experiencing joy.
Perhaps it is no accident that Gilman has to recalibrate her romance about herself at the same time: her marriage ends, tested by circumstance and the deepening knowledge that two adults can acquire about the nature of intimacy. A second theme in the book is her path into, and out of, academia. For a variety of reasons, Gilman's career as a literary scholar had seemed pre-ordained. She gives birth to Benj while still in graduate school and, incredibly, is able to leverage a tenure-track job at Vassar as well as a part-time job for her husband. Particularly because they have a special needs child, being near family and friends, as well as avoiding a commuter marriage, seems to be the miracle they need. Increasingly, however, as she struggles with launching Benj, she also grapples with the knowledge that she has taken a wrong turn even as she has lived out a cherished romance about herself:
Vassar was a wonderful college, but my doubts, my dissatisfactions with academia remained. I would find myself warning my students against my path; I couldn't in all good conscience encourage them to go to graduate school when they said they wanted to read great books all the time and teach great students like I did. They were so idealistic; they had starry eyes and great hopes. I wished one of my professors had been more honest and blunt with me early on; I wish I'd known what I was getting into, that being an English major bore little or no relation to being an English professor. I was reading much less literature, especially world literature, now that I was a professor. I had to read endless scholarly articles, book reviews, and student papers. I had to immerse myself in the minor writers of my period. And, of course, there were virtually no jobs; my career was an aberration, not a model that could be easily replicated.
Love for literature did not necessarily a career as a teacher-scholar make. While having a developmentally disabled child was a huge challenge to that career, and to ordinary life, it may have also allowed her to speak the things to herself that many people feel but do not act on.
I would sit in interminable department or all-college faculty meetings where minutiae would be debated for hours, people got up in arms about the smallest matters, and both the bickering and the venom bore no relation to what was really at stake....Once I got to Vassar, I no longer had the anxiety about the unknown, but a new problem emerged; I realized that I had been so fixated on the elusive brass ring of a tenure-track job that I hadn't faced the fact that I wasn't truly suited to scholarship.....I knew what I had to do to get tenure, but I couldn't bring myself to do it.
So she chucks it, moving to New York to have another literary life:
...it felt good to write to the head of the Vassar English Department and tell him I'd decided to leave academia after the coming year's teaching responsibilities were over; the father of a special needs child himself, he accepted my decision with great graciousness and understanding. Stepping off that tenure track felt like an enormous liberation, and I looked forward to beginning at the literary agency the following summer.
Gilman's book is a must-read for anyone interested in disability studies, and a thoughtful, third wave feminist meditation on mothering, work, and the work of mothering. But it is also worthwhile for those who have made academic careers, and are beginning to wake up in the middle of the night and wonder how they got there; those on the path to a scholarly career who may or may not have come to grips with the realities of why they want it; and those who cherish the reality of scholarly life in all its parts but have found the path to a tenure-track job frustratingly foreclosed by the poor job market. Under what circumstances is it OK to change your mind? Under what circumstances is it possible to live out your dream in another way? While a special needs child might force those choices, or clarify such decisions, for any one individual, they are good questions for all of us to ask ourselves as we do the ongoing work of making a life.
Monday, April 25, 2011
People Who Directly Benefit From Indentured Educated Citizens: Mr. Jonathan Clark and Mr. John F. (Jack) Remondi
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
Who are these folks?
(a) Mr. Jonathan Clark is the Executive Vice President and CFO for Sallie Mae. He certainly learned a lot about the ethics behind usury at Ha-vad, didn't he?
(b) Mr. John F. (Jack) Remondi has been appointed as President and Chief Operating Officer for the wonderful and ethical, upstanding and moral company that we all have come to love so much.
I'd like to know how Mr. Clark and Mr. Remondi sleep at night. I bet they sleep well, because their children aren't part of the indentured educated class. So, let's thank Mr. Clark and Mr. Remondi from benefiting financially from the millions of people they have turned into indentured educated citizens. Thanks, guys!
A recent article about SLM's stocks states, "The company has acquired $27 billion of securitized federal student loans and related assets from The Student Loan Corporation which would add 1.3 million customers to its customer base. Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Albert Lord received a 2010 compensation of $5.45 million."
Isn't that awesome? They are creating 1.3 million more indentured educated students! I'm also delighted to hear that Lord received $5.45 million in 2010. That money was all earned from hard, hard work. Great job, Al! You're doing wonderful work, too. Keep it up, my friend. (I think I ought to send him Dante's Inferno, so that he'll learn about where he'll be in hell, the usurious bastard. I'll have to drop by when I'm on my religious pilgrimage - Marx will be my Virgil - and ask him how it feels to be smashed inside a coin purse).
Who are these folks?
(a) Mr. Jonathan Clark is the Executive Vice President and CFO for Sallie Mae. He certainly learned a lot about the ethics behind usury at Ha-vad, didn't he?
(b) Mr. John F. (Jack) Remondi has been appointed as President and Chief Operating Officer for the wonderful and ethical, upstanding and moral company that we all have come to love so much.
I'd like to know how Mr. Clark and Mr. Remondi sleep at night. I bet they sleep well, because their children aren't part of the indentured educated class. So, let's thank Mr. Clark and Mr. Remondi from benefiting financially from the millions of people they have turned into indentured educated citizens. Thanks, guys!
A recent article about SLM's stocks states, "The company has acquired $27 billion of securitized federal student loans and related assets from The Student Loan Corporation which would add 1.3 million customers to its customer base. Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Albert Lord received a 2010 compensation of $5.45 million."
Isn't that awesome? They are creating 1.3 million more indentured educated students! I'm also delighted to hear that Lord received $5.45 million in 2010. That money was all earned from hard, hard work. Great job, Al! You're doing wonderful work, too. Keep it up, my friend. (I think I ought to send him Dante's Inferno, so that he'll learn about where he'll be in hell, the usurious bastard. I'll have to drop by when I'm on my religious pilgrimage - Marx will be my Virgil - and ask him how it feels to be smashed inside a coin purse).
Mr. Jonathan Clark
Mr. John F. (Jack) Remondi
Related Links
These links show how politicians - on both sides of the aisle - are bought and sold by SLM.
Wars Abroad, Wars at Home
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
[Warning: Graphic Image Below]
While we continue to wage three wars, kill innocent civilians with our Nobel Peace Drones, and commit a host of other evil deeds (pathetically, the muzzled media asks ridiculous questions like this about their role as journalists), the student loan debt crisis worsens. There is a direct relationship here with the Empire's interests. Its interests are not to help citizens, but rather to fight wars both here and abroad. We will continue to incarcerate our youth as we increase military spending, and build machinery that murders people here and at home. If our youth are not incarcerated, they are being led down a path to indentured servitude. Who is just as pissed off that our futures are being stolen from us? Would it be possible to try and seize what rightfully belongs to us, and demand, like they did in Egypt, that we be allowed to play a role in what is happening to our world?
[Warning: Graphic Image Below]
While we continue to wage three wars, kill innocent civilians with our Nobel Peace Drones, and commit a host of other evil deeds (pathetically, the muzzled media asks ridiculous questions like this about their role as journalists), the student loan debt crisis worsens. There is a direct relationship here with the Empire's interests. Its interests are not to help citizens, but rather to fight wars both here and abroad. We will continue to incarcerate our youth as we increase military spending, and build machinery that murders people here and at home. If our youth are not incarcerated, they are being led down a path to indentured servitude. Who is just as pissed off that our futures are being stolen from us? Would it be possible to try and seize what rightfully belongs to us, and demand, like they did in Egypt, that we be allowed to play a role in what is happening to our world?
Dead Afghan Children
Sunday, April 24, 2011
From Bathrooms To Board Rooms: Is Being Transgender A Promotion Problem?
Faculty at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, a public university in Durant, OK, think it has been, and in an act of solidarity are helping a trans colleague grieve her tenure case.
Rachel Tudor, who teaches American and Native American Literature, Modernity and Theory, Humanities, Composition, and Philosophy in the English, Humanities and Languages Department has, according to our informant, "been denied tenure at our university and informed that her employment will be terminated effective May 31, 2011." Tudor is said to have had overwhelming support from faculty colleagues at every stage of the process because of her outstanding record as a scholar, teacher and colleague. The tenure case has been turned back by the dean and the Vice President for academic affairs. To support the appeal sign the petition here.
Professor Tudor's supporters say that they
have compelling evidence that this denial and dismissal are due to discrimination against her for being transgender. In a mess that has gone on for nearly two years, the administration at our university has repeatedly and egregiously violated established policies and procedures. The Faculty Appeals Committee has found in favor of Rachel twice, and the Faculty Senate has passed a resolution in support of her. Meanwhile, the VP for Academic Affairs and the President arbitrarily re-wrote the Academic Policies and Procedures manual in the midst of the process, in order to allow the VP for Business Affairs (!) to overrule the decision of the Faculty Appeals Committee.
A press release sent by Tudor's supporters tells the following story, with assertions of trans discrimination highlighted in blue:
After transitioning, Dr. Tudor was instructed by SOSU’s human resource department to only use a single-stall handicap bathroom on a different floor than where her office is located. She presumes the direction came from Dr. Douglas McMillan, the vice president of academic affairs, who reportedly had also inquired whether Dr. Tudor could be terminated because her lifestyle “offends his Baptist beliefs.” Human resources denied his request to terminate her but did direct Dr. Tudor to use the separate bathroom facility.
Assistant professors at SOSU are given seven years in which to obtain tenure, with the initial probationary period ending after five years. It is not uncommon at SOSU for applicants to pursue more than one application before being granted tenure. Dr. Tudor knows of two examples of active professors at SOSU who pursued multiple applications before obtaining tenure including the current chair of the Faculty Senate’s Personnel Policy Committee.
Applications for tenure are considered and voted on by a faculty committee. When Dr. Tudor applied for tenure in 2009 she was recommended by the Tenure Review Committee by a vote of 4-1, subsequently her department chair also recommended her for tenure and promotion. However, the dean and the vice president of academic affairs disregarded the committee’s recommendation and denied tenure, but refused to provide any explanation for the denial. The dean regularly refers to Dr. Tudor by the incorrect pronoun (i.e. “him”) although the dean is well aware that Dr. Tudor is female. Dr. Tudor filed an appeal with the Faculty Appellate Committee claiming that the dean’s and Dr. McMillan’s office did not provide her due process in explaining why tenure was denied. The Faculty Appellate Committee found in favor of Dr. Tudor, and directed the administration to provide Dr. Tudor with the reason(s) for its denial of tenure. SOSU’s administration determined that the appellate committee’s ruling was merely a recommendation and was not required to comply.
Dr. Tudor planned to re-apply for tenure in the 2010. However, before the application period began she received a memo from Dr. Doug McMillan stating that she would not be permitted to apply for tenure, alleging that Dr. Tudor’s application would “inflame the relationship between the administration and the faculty.” However, the timing of the memo immediately after SOSU was informed that Dr. Tudor had filed a discrimination complaint with the US Dept of Education suggests retaliation was the true cause of the administration’s action. Dr. Tudor is not aware of any other case in which an otherwise eligible professor has been forbidden to reapply for tenure. Dr. Tudor filed another grievance with the Faculty Appellate Committee, which again found in her favor. The decision was presented to the president’s designee, Mr. Ross Walkup. The president’s designee did not concur with the Faculty Appellate Committee’s decision, and Dr. Tudor appealed to the president of the university, Dr. Larry Minks. At the time of the filing of Dr. Tudor’s grievance the policy of SOSU provided that the Faculty Appellate Committee’s recommendation be given to the president’s designee who would in turn relay the recommendation directly to the president. However, the president’s designee, Ross Walkup, an employee in the university’s business office, refused to affirm the recommendation of the Faculty Appellate Committee. The administration amended the grievance policies to permit the president’s designee to issue his own separate recommendation to the president. Meanwhile, the Faculty Senate passed a resolution, without a single opposing vote, calling on the president to allow Dr. Tudor to apply for tenure. Eventually, the president issued a letter to Dr. Tudor denying her appeal citing, inter alia, a supposed lack of precedence for professors reapplying for tenure after denial (a fact readily regarded as untrue).
Dr. Tudor has exhausted her remedies at the university level. There is no other appellate process or avenue to pursue her grievance. Complaints are pending with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission.
Tudor's own account of her path to termination can be found here. She is currently appealing her case to the State Board of Regents
While no outsider can speak with authority on a tenure process occurring elsewhere, such dissonance between faculty support for a colleague and administrative disdain for that same colleague is pretty compelling. Furthermore, transphobia aside, if this account is accurate, the university has violated its own policies to rid itself of a single professor, which is clearly illegal. As in many cases, administrators are probably betting on it that she will run out of resources before they do.
What can you do to help Professor Tudor? Meg Cotter-Lynch, Associate Professor of English asks you to:
1) Write a letter to the Oklahoma State Board of Regents asking them to direct President Minks to respect the decision of the Faculty Appellate Committee and the resolution of the Faculty Senate, renewing Rachel's contract and allowing her tenure case a fair, unbiased hearing. Their contact information is on Rachel's blog, linked above.
2) Spread word about this to interested colleagues and contacts, and ask them to write, as well. We are hopeful that public outcry may influence the Regents to reconsider President Minks' decision.
3) We would be particularly grateful for any contacts in the media and/or legal profession who might be willing to help.
Supporters take note: Professor Tudor's tenure case is surely not unconnected to other retractions, and standing limitations, of civil rights in Oklahoma. Is it any accident that Oklahoma is also way out front on eliminating a woman's right choose by banning all abortions after 20 weeks, and making it illegal for private insurers to cover "elective" abortion? That the Oklahoma House just voted to put an affirmative action ban on the 2012 ballot? That Oklahoma is one of four states to still list homosexuality as a criminal offense? I think not. So if you don't think trans issues are your issues, think again.
A final note: I and a great many of my friends who are trans-identified are very political people, and are very dedicated to social justice issues. But the vast majority of transpeople have many fewer resources than professional people do, may not have radical commitments and may simply want to live unremarkable lives. The kinds of humiliations, harassment and prejudice visited on one college professor are reproduced over and over again in places where human rights violations get significantly less attention than they will in any university, no matter how conservative it is. Trans kids spend whole days in pain because trips to the bathroom at school are so traumatic, and trans people are routinely discriminated against when trying to access housing, employment and the right to govern their own lives. So the next time you think it is "enough" progress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) without full protections for transpeople, think about this:
The path to Professor Tudor's dismissal began by barring her from the women's bathroom.
Rachel Tudor, who teaches American and Native American Literature, Modernity and Theory, Humanities, Composition, and Philosophy in the English, Humanities and Languages Department has, according to our informant, "been denied tenure at our university and informed that her employment will be terminated effective May 31, 2011." Tudor is said to have had overwhelming support from faculty colleagues at every stage of the process because of her outstanding record as a scholar, teacher and colleague. The tenure case has been turned back by the dean and the Vice President for academic affairs. To support the appeal sign the petition here.
Professor Tudor's supporters say that they
have compelling evidence that this denial and dismissal are due to discrimination against her for being transgender. In a mess that has gone on for nearly two years, the administration at our university has repeatedly and egregiously violated established policies and procedures. The Faculty Appeals Committee has found in favor of Rachel twice, and the Faculty Senate has passed a resolution in support of her. Meanwhile, the VP for Academic Affairs and the President arbitrarily re-wrote the Academic Policies and Procedures manual in the midst of the process, in order to allow the VP for Business Affairs (!) to overrule the decision of the Faculty Appeals Committee.
A press release sent by Tudor's supporters tells the following story, with assertions of trans discrimination highlighted in blue:
After transitioning, Dr. Tudor was instructed by SOSU’s human resource department to only use a single-stall handicap bathroom on a different floor than where her office is located. She presumes the direction came from Dr. Douglas McMillan, the vice president of academic affairs, who reportedly had also inquired whether Dr. Tudor could be terminated because her lifestyle “offends his Baptist beliefs.” Human resources denied his request to terminate her but did direct Dr. Tudor to use the separate bathroom facility.
Assistant professors at SOSU are given seven years in which to obtain tenure, with the initial probationary period ending after five years. It is not uncommon at SOSU for applicants to pursue more than one application before being granted tenure. Dr. Tudor knows of two examples of active professors at SOSU who pursued multiple applications before obtaining tenure including the current chair of the Faculty Senate’s Personnel Policy Committee.
Applications for tenure are considered and voted on by a faculty committee. When Dr. Tudor applied for tenure in 2009 she was recommended by the Tenure Review Committee by a vote of 4-1, subsequently her department chair also recommended her for tenure and promotion. However, the dean and the vice president of academic affairs disregarded the committee’s recommendation and denied tenure, but refused to provide any explanation for the denial. The dean regularly refers to Dr. Tudor by the incorrect pronoun (i.e. “him”) although the dean is well aware that Dr. Tudor is female. Dr. Tudor filed an appeal with the Faculty Appellate Committee claiming that the dean’s and Dr. McMillan’s office did not provide her due process in explaining why tenure was denied. The Faculty Appellate Committee found in favor of Dr. Tudor, and directed the administration to provide Dr. Tudor with the reason(s) for its denial of tenure. SOSU’s administration determined that the appellate committee’s ruling was merely a recommendation and was not required to comply.
Dr. Tudor planned to re-apply for tenure in the 2010. However, before the application period began she received a memo from Dr. Doug McMillan stating that she would not be permitted to apply for tenure, alleging that Dr. Tudor’s application would “inflame the relationship between the administration and the faculty.” However, the timing of the memo immediately after SOSU was informed that Dr. Tudor had filed a discrimination complaint with the US Dept of Education suggests retaliation was the true cause of the administration’s action. Dr. Tudor is not aware of any other case in which an otherwise eligible professor has been forbidden to reapply for tenure. Dr. Tudor filed another grievance with the Faculty Appellate Committee, which again found in her favor. The decision was presented to the president’s designee, Mr. Ross Walkup. The president’s designee did not concur with the Faculty Appellate Committee’s decision, and Dr. Tudor appealed to the president of the university, Dr. Larry Minks. At the time of the filing of Dr. Tudor’s grievance the policy of SOSU provided that the Faculty Appellate Committee’s recommendation be given to the president’s designee who would in turn relay the recommendation directly to the president. However, the president’s designee, Ross Walkup, an employee in the university’s business office, refused to affirm the recommendation of the Faculty Appellate Committee. The administration amended the grievance policies to permit the president’s designee to issue his own separate recommendation to the president. Meanwhile, the Faculty Senate passed a resolution, without a single opposing vote, calling on the president to allow Dr. Tudor to apply for tenure. Eventually, the president issued a letter to Dr. Tudor denying her appeal citing, inter alia, a supposed lack of precedence for professors reapplying for tenure after denial (a fact readily regarded as untrue).
Dr. Tudor has exhausted her remedies at the university level. There is no other appellate process or avenue to pursue her grievance. Complaints are pending with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission.
Tudor's own account of her path to termination can be found here. She is currently appealing her case to the State Board of Regents
While no outsider can speak with authority on a tenure process occurring elsewhere, such dissonance between faculty support for a colleague and administrative disdain for that same colleague is pretty compelling. Furthermore, transphobia aside, if this account is accurate, the university has violated its own policies to rid itself of a single professor, which is clearly illegal. As in many cases, administrators are probably betting on it that she will run out of resources before they do.
What can you do to help Professor Tudor? Meg Cotter-Lynch, Associate Professor of English asks you to:
1) Write a letter to the Oklahoma State Board of Regents asking them to direct President Minks to respect the decision of the Faculty Appellate Committee and the resolution of the Faculty Senate, renewing Rachel's contract and allowing her tenure case a fair, unbiased hearing. Their contact information is on Rachel's blog, linked above.
2) Spread word about this to interested colleagues and contacts, and ask them to write, as well. We are hopeful that public outcry may influence the Regents to reconsider President Minks' decision.
3) We would be particularly grateful for any contacts in the media and/or legal profession who might be willing to help.
Supporters take note: Professor Tudor's tenure case is surely not unconnected to other retractions, and standing limitations, of civil rights in Oklahoma. Is it any accident that Oklahoma is also way out front on eliminating a woman's right choose by banning all abortions after 20 weeks, and making it illegal for private insurers to cover "elective" abortion? That the Oklahoma House just voted to put an affirmative action ban on the 2012 ballot? That Oklahoma is one of four states to still list homosexuality as a criminal offense? I think not. So if you don't think trans issues are your issues, think again.
A final note: I and a great many of my friends who are trans-identified are very political people, and are very dedicated to social justice issues. But the vast majority of transpeople have many fewer resources than professional people do, may not have radical commitments and may simply want to live unremarkable lives. The kinds of humiliations, harassment and prejudice visited on one college professor are reproduced over and over again in places where human rights violations get significantly less attention than they will in any university, no matter how conservative it is. Trans kids spend whole days in pain because trips to the bathroom at school are so traumatic, and trans people are routinely discriminated against when trying to access housing, employment and the right to govern their own lives. So the next time you think it is "enough" progress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) without full protections for transpeople, think about this:
The path to Professor Tudor's dismissal began by barring her from the women's bathroom.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
I'm OK, You're (Really Not) OK: Memories of "An American Family"
Tonight HBO rolls out "Cinema Vérité,"a movie, starring Tim Robbins and Diane Lane, about the making of the TV series "An American Family" (go here for a trailer.) My students can't imagine a world without reality TV, endless channels where you can test the authenticity of your own life and emotions against the appalling things that other people say and do. However, they probably also can't imagine being fifteen in the winter of 1973, as the Vietnam war was coming to its grisly end, and having the Loud family combust live, every Sunday night, on PBS. This is how one archive describes the series:
In 1971 filmmakers Alan and Susan Raymond spent seven months documenting the day-to-day lives of the Loud family of Santa Barbara, CA, including parents William C. “Bill” and Pat Loud and their children Lance, Kevin, Grant, Delilah, and Michele. The resulting 12-hour documentary, "An American Family," debuted on PBS-TV in early 1973. The show captivated millions of viewers worldwide with its then-unconventional depiction of middle class American family life that encompassed the "real-life drama" of marital tensions and subsequent divorce, a son's openly gay life, and the effects of the changing concepts of the American family structure. Breaking apart from the traditional American family model of harmony and ideality portrayed in fictional television sitcoms of the early 1970s like "The Brady Bunch," the novelty and innovation of "An American Family" not only pioneered reality television, but also set the tone for the more complex family models exhibited in later shows such as "Roseanne" and "The Simpsons."
There was really nothing like it, I swear.
Nowadays, few people would ask, "Why would they do such a thing? Allow a film crew to follow them around for months?" Back then, that was part of the fascination. In the suburbs of Philadelphia the answer was arrived at quickly: the Louds lived in Santa Barbara, and people in southern California do all kinds of crazy $hit. Everyone knew that. But part of what was amazing about it to a teenager was the intimate glimpse of adult lives spinning out of control in exactly the way you knew they were spinning out of control down the street, or upstairs, but that no one was ever allowed to talk about. This was a moment in history where feminism was changing everything, but suburban women did not actually quite dig feminism. The sexual revolution and its attendant changes showed up a different way. Instead of doing consciousness raising, or succumbing to quiet despair, women had extra-marital sex with the tennis pro (male or female), drank a lot, and maybe left their marriages when their husband's drinking and screwing around finally got to them.
In the 1970s, women sometimes just left without telling anyone. I knew the parents of one friend were getting divorced, but one day, around the swimming pool I heard one mother whisper to another about the event that tipped the scales: "I've never heard of anything like it. She took off her shoes, walked down the beach with the lifeguard, and never came back." The image has stayed with me forever. Similarly, a college friend described her mother's departure from the family home: "Mom said she was going out to mail a letter," my friend said, after a few beers. "When we located her a month later, she was living with my social studies teacher."
On "An American Family" we got to watch things that were not unheard of, but were talked about in whispers if at all. They were things like: a son coming out as gay to his parents, heading off to live at the Chelsea Hotel and hang with Andy Warhol (wow! dude!); Pat Loud talking to her friends and to the camera crew about finding evidence of her husband Bill's affairs, since she was the book keeper for his business and paid credit card bills for trips he went on with, ahem, "Mrs. Loud;" the kids getting stoned; and Pat telling Bill, in front of a national audience, that she knew about his affairs, she was filing for divorce, and she was kicking him out of the house right now.
So needless to say, what surprised me about "An American Family" was not that these things happened, but that my parents let my sister and I watch them happen. Here is an important factoid about the 1960s and 1970s, a period in which culture was in terrible flux, and parents could say they didn't "approve" of The Rolling Stones and more or less enforce it: if it was on public television, it was OK. Seriously. Anything on public television was inherently safe to watch, whatever it was, even in Republican houses (which, by the way, ours was.)
But there was nothing safe about the Louds: nothing. That was why it was so cool, and I hope that "Cinema Vérité"captures that. For any number of uptight suburban kids it was our weird little Stonewall, the moment when we realized that not conforming, shucking the school uniform, was an option.
In 1971 filmmakers Alan and Susan Raymond spent seven months documenting the day-to-day lives of the Loud family of Santa Barbara, CA, including parents William C. “Bill” and Pat Loud and their children Lance, Kevin, Grant, Delilah, and Michele. The resulting 12-hour documentary, "An American Family," debuted on PBS-TV in early 1973. The show captivated millions of viewers worldwide with its then-unconventional depiction of middle class American family life that encompassed the "real-life drama" of marital tensions and subsequent divorce, a son's openly gay life, and the effects of the changing concepts of the American family structure. Breaking apart from the traditional American family model of harmony and ideality portrayed in fictional television sitcoms of the early 1970s like "The Brady Bunch," the novelty and innovation of "An American Family" not only pioneered reality television, but also set the tone for the more complex family models exhibited in later shows such as "Roseanne" and "The Simpsons."
There was really nothing like it, I swear.
Nowadays, few people would ask, "Why would they do such a thing? Allow a film crew to follow them around for months?" Back then, that was part of the fascination. In the suburbs of Philadelphia the answer was arrived at quickly: the Louds lived in Santa Barbara, and people in southern California do all kinds of crazy $hit. Everyone knew that. But part of what was amazing about it to a teenager was the intimate glimpse of adult lives spinning out of control in exactly the way you knew they were spinning out of control down the street, or upstairs, but that no one was ever allowed to talk about. This was a moment in history where feminism was changing everything, but suburban women did not actually quite dig feminism. The sexual revolution and its attendant changes showed up a different way. Instead of doing consciousness raising, or succumbing to quiet despair, women had extra-marital sex with the tennis pro (male or female), drank a lot, and maybe left their marriages when their husband's drinking and screwing around finally got to them.
In the 1970s, women sometimes just left without telling anyone. I knew the parents of one friend were getting divorced, but one day, around the swimming pool I heard one mother whisper to another about the event that tipped the scales: "I've never heard of anything like it. She took off her shoes, walked down the beach with the lifeguard, and never came back." The image has stayed with me forever. Similarly, a college friend described her mother's departure from the family home: "Mom said she was going out to mail a letter," my friend said, after a few beers. "When we located her a month later, she was living with my social studies teacher."
On "An American Family" we got to watch things that were not unheard of, but were talked about in whispers if at all. They were things like: a son coming out as gay to his parents, heading off to live at the Chelsea Hotel and hang with Andy Warhol (wow! dude!); Pat Loud talking to her friends and to the camera crew about finding evidence of her husband Bill's affairs, since she was the book keeper for his business and paid credit card bills for trips he went on with, ahem, "Mrs. Loud;" the kids getting stoned; and Pat telling Bill, in front of a national audience, that she knew about his affairs, she was filing for divorce, and she was kicking him out of the house right now.
So needless to say, what surprised me about "An American Family" was not that these things happened, but that my parents let my sister and I watch them happen. Here is an important factoid about the 1960s and 1970s, a period in which culture was in terrible flux, and parents could say they didn't "approve" of The Rolling Stones and more or less enforce it: if it was on public television, it was OK. Seriously. Anything on public television was inherently safe to watch, whatever it was, even in Republican houses (which, by the way, ours was.)
But there was nothing safe about the Louds: nothing. That was why it was so cool, and I hope that "Cinema Vérité"captures that. For any number of uptight suburban kids it was our weird little Stonewall, the moment when we realized that not conforming, shucking the school uniform, was an option.
Friday, April 22, 2011
It Takes Dos Testiculos To Rule The Known World: A Brief Comment On "The Borgias"
![]() |
Jeremy Irons as il papa: Don't touch his junk, hear? |
A: Take advantage of the screen in the confessional and stab him in the eye with a stiletto.
History fans will be pleased to know that the producers of The Tudors have debuted a series on late fifteenth century Italian politics, religion and family governance issues that make your problems look ridiculous. The Borgias stars Jeremy Irons as Rodrigo Borgia, or Pope Alexander VI, father of Cesare (pronounced CHAY-za-ray) and Lucrezia, reputed to have been incestuous lovers. Certainly the series has strongly hinted at incest: how many grown-up brothers stroke and kiss a sister on her wedding night? I ask you.
So far, it is 1492 or so, and we have met Niccolo Machiavelli, who is working for the King of Florence; an anonymous Native American snatched by Christopher Columbus; the serial killer son of the dotty and deaf King of Naples (this happy princeling displays corpses in his own little rotting Last Supper tableau); too many scheming cardinals to name; and Savanarola, a Dominican friar who looks like Uncle Fester. You don't even have to look it up on Wikipedia to know that this latter fellow is heading for a heresy trial and worse. However, if you do click on that link you will find that Savanarola was not only excommunicated and tried, but racked mercilessly and then burned into bits too tiny to be used as relics, which served him right because he may also have been responsible for the first act of institutional homophobia. In true Foucauldian fashion, prior to burning him, "the torturers spar[ed] only Savonarola’s right arm in order that he might be able to sign his confession." Brilliant. I wish I had thought of it myself. They knew how to keep order in the fifteenth century.
The success of such shows is part of an interesting phenomenon: the rise of religion on TV. In a recent post about Friday Night Lights, another one of my favorite shows, Flavia writes about unusual it is to watch a television show about modern life that takes Christianity for granted. "All of the characters appear to be nondenominational Protestants and some of their churches are clearly megachurches," she notes; "but nothing about their religiosity is depicted snidely or ironically or played for laughs. At the same time, the church-goers aren't romanticized or presented as unusually good people. They're just people: flawed, complicated people, trying to live up to their professed pieties. And as realistic as all that sounds, I'm pretty sure I've never seen anything like it on t.v."
That might be right, and may say something about the ways in which subcultural Christian media are going mainstream. Army Wives certainly has its moments where it is clear that God is lurking in the background; and Big Love has introduced a popular audience to the intricacies of the Church of Latter Day Saints. But shows like The Tudors and The Borgias go one step further and teach a lesson about what religion, and the political struggles that revolved around the evolution of Catholicism and Protestant dissent actually have to do with how world history unfolded. A keen watcher of The Tudors, for example, would think about how one lived from day to day in a culture that was framed by the mandatory celebration of key moments in the life of Christ. No sooner was Christmas over than one began prepping for Lent; following Easter, the various days of obligation and days of ascension never stopped until a good Christian was getting ready for Advent and gearing up for Christmas again. As the series progressed, moreover, a non-specialist understood that casting doubt on the deference of Kings to the Pope pretty much put every other fixed principle in play, particularly the "natural order" of gender that would ultimately result in England getting her first Queens and the eventual rule of commoners over both church and crown.
So far the most interesting thing I have learned from The Borgias, other than how to kill people with whatever tools the fifteenth century made available, was that back then the Pope had to be examined after the election to make sure he was actually a man. This had to be one of the worst jobs in Rome: crouching under a cleric's icky business to make sure he had, as the examiner announced,"Dos testiculos" (this was how they put it on Episode One) or "two balls, and they are well-hung," as I have found it described on several web sites. There is some disagreement as to whether this ritual actually happened or not: apparently this had to do with Pope John VIII, a superb intellect elected in 855, who turned out to be Pope Joan. Rumour has it she was discovered after she gave birth in the street during a papal procession and was executed, with her lover, on the spot. (I know: scholars who really know this field are going to ask me why I would go to a website called Papal Trivia: Fun Facts About the Popes for my information.)
Like The Tudors, The Borgias is also about how political structures and organized crime are more or less interchangeable forms of domination. The latter show is particularly striking in this regard, as the actors keep dropping family names that we are actually familiar with from The Sopranos. In other ways, The Borgias is just another juiced up soap opera that makes it clear how difficult it is to run a family when you are responsible for the spiritual and political fate of the known world. This responsibility requires dropping several bodies in every episode. In episode four, we see a garroting ("you use a cheese cutter," the assassin explains to Cesare, who has never seen someone dispatched this way), a stabbing, a snapped neck, and a poisoning gone wrong that has to be finished off with an inexpert smothering. These things must be done, there is no question, lest the Church fall into the grip of folks like, say, the Medecis, who in 1492 were still running a bank in Florence and biding their sweet time.
One of the show's signature moments, used in all the ads, has Rodrigo staring into the camera (this is early in the first episode, right after Cardinal Borgia has given Cesare his marching orders for how to buy the papacy) and murmuring intensely: "I will not forgive failure!" This sums it up: what responsible father of successful children would forgive failure?
Truthout.org: Interview with Henry Giroux
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
My interview with Henry Giroux is now available on Truthout.org.
My interview with Henry Giroux is now available on Truthout.org.
Are Phones That Anachronistic? - Bill Collectors Are On Facebook Too, And Hunting You Down While You Play Farmville!
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
Some of my readers have already alerted me to the fact that bill collectors are, as a recent MSNBC article states, "trolling" Facebook and other social network sites. I am connected to a number of people on Facebook, but am extremely careful when accepting friend requests. This is one of the reasons for that. If people do not send me specific reasons for why they wish to friend me, or have a number of valid connections, then I refuse to connect with them.
I am curious about this newish trend. Have any of you have been tracked down by one of your student lenders via Facebook?
Some of my readers have already alerted me to the fact that bill collectors are, as a recent MSNBC article states, "trolling" Facebook and other social network sites. I am connected to a number of people on Facebook, but am extremely careful when accepting friend requests. This is one of the reasons for that. If people do not send me specific reasons for why they wish to friend me, or have a number of valid connections, then I refuse to connect with them.
I am curious about this newish trend. Have any of you have been tracked down by one of your student lenders via Facebook?
Related Links
"Abusive Phone Calls Wanted! Looking For The Worst Stories," AEM, April 19, 2011
"Debt Collectors Must Tread Lightly On Social Media," Orlando Sentinel, April 17, 2011
"In Your Words: A grandson's anguish," AEM, June 4, 2010
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Please Don't Flame The Students: Or, How (Not) To Interact With Young Conservatives
Ellen Lewin, Professor of anthropology and gender studies at the University of Iowa, has become the object of unwelcome attention in the past several days. After having received numerous emails from the Iowa College Republicans advertising various liberal-needling events, Lewin snapped. The author and co-editor of numerous valuable books and anthologies in lesbian and gay studies replied: "F**CK YOU, REPUBLICANS!"
Oh, the emails we wish we could take back. Read about it in the Des Moines Register, and view the original emails here.
What is OK -- and not OK -- to say to students? Let me speak from experience, having never sent a written message to a student or group of students that was as elegant in its simplicity as Lewin's. Last fall I did write a much longer email to one of the students responsible for the "affirmative action bake sale" held at Zenith on October 29 2010. This was a cynical event that -- in the name of anti-racism -- articulated all students of color as unworthy of having been admitted to the school under the high standards set by we white folks.
Following an inspiring meeting organized by students of color, I wrote one of the leaders of the group that sponsored the "bake sale" about why I was critical of it. She passed the email on to numerous conservative websites which reprinted it with accompanying derisive commentary. One described it as a "rant" despite an accurate reprinting of the original message. (Interestingly, some conservative commenters on the same website disagreed, describing my email as respectful and reasonable.) At National Review Online, my message to the student was characterized as "logically bankrupt" and "obviously an attempt at intimidation." The name of the student was redacted in this article, presumably to protect her from others like me on the Zenith faculty, although if you Google "Cardinal Conservatives" her name is perfectly available. The idea, of course, was to portray this student as a helpless victim of my excessive, unregulated power. The narrative goes this way: conservative students are brave for confronting liberal faculty on their candya$$ views; liberal faculty are not entitled to disagree with conservative students because it is inherently abusive for faculty to disagree with students about politics.
This is all to say that redacting the young woman's name was strategic on the part of the author, Mytheos Holt, a former Zenith student who specialized in baiting people for publicity when he was an undergrad and now writes for NRO Online and other conservative sites. Holt is, perhaps, best remembered by the Zenith faculty for having used the phrase "Arbeit Macht Frei" in a campus newspaper article about the Obama victory and having to admit afterward that he hadn't been aware that this was the famous phrase over the gate at Auschwitz (so much for a liberal arts education.) The original article that contained these words also included an attempt to explain the depth of Mytheos's pain at John McCain's loss with the following simile: "my response to this election is probably quite similar to the response of the death row inmate who finally finds himself obliged to sit in the electric chair: no matter how long you have expected something unpleasant, it still hurts when it happens."
Having a private email, however dignified, reprinted multiple times taught me an important lesson that Professor Lewin has learned as well. It is a common strategy for conservative student groups to make every possible effort to get in the faces of faculty in order to provoke a response that will "expose" our inherent desire to oppress them and limit the expression of their ideas. Hence, when faced with such opportunities, however compelling, it is often best not to respond at all. The kind of emails Professor Lewin got about such things as "The Animal Rights Barbecue" ought to go straight to Trash, and to the Spam file if you are computer-savvy enough organize it. Looking back on it, I would still publicly support the students of color who organized against the "affirmative action bake sale." They did a great job, and they deserved to know that faculty had their backs on an important social justice issue. But if I had it to do over again I would not write an email expressing my views to that conservative student, nor will I ever do so again outside of an exchange related to academics.
This is not because it caused me any official trouble, or because in retrospect I believe that writing a student about an action I disapproved of was actually abusive. I didn't mind that the email exceeded its audience, although I did think it was dishonorable of the student to distribute it without my permission. I always like a little extra publicity from the NRO (it spices things up chez Radicale) or any other publication that chooses to link me. No -- I would not write this email because it was a waste of time to accept an invitation to dialogue with conservative students when, in fact, all these groups want is more ammunition to pursue an endless culture war while the world burns down around all of us and Citibank turns our pockets inside out.
The student was not interested in generating a dialogue that did not privilege her point of view, with me or with anyone else. Similarly, Professor Lewin's students did not genuinely want her to attend their event or talk to her about their opposition to animal rights. Of course, "F**K YOU REPUBLICANS" can, by no stretch of the imagination, be viewed as an invitation to dialogue either, but I think what Professor Lewin meant was "Please take me off your mailing list." Activist conservatives, particularly young ones who are trained by skilled organizers, view themselves as crusaders, not as citizens working to build democratic alliances. They are only interested in generating publicity, not in working out solutions to common problems. Part of that crusade is to provoke liberal faculty into what can then be publicized as intolerance and discrimination which, in turn, "reveals" them as hypocrites and liars. So the next time you get one of these emails, imagine this voice booming over a loudspeaker: "Sir, move away from the computer. Now, sir....please.... step away from the computer......"
And if you can't seem to do that, at least pry the "F" key off your keyboard.
Oh, the emails we wish we could take back. Read about it in the Des Moines Register, and view the original emails here.
What is OK -- and not OK -- to say to students? Let me speak from experience, having never sent a written message to a student or group of students that was as elegant in its simplicity as Lewin's. Last fall I did write a much longer email to one of the students responsible for the "affirmative action bake sale" held at Zenith on October 29 2010. This was a cynical event that -- in the name of anti-racism -- articulated all students of color as unworthy of having been admitted to the school under the high standards set by we white folks.
Following an inspiring meeting organized by students of color, I wrote one of the leaders of the group that sponsored the "bake sale" about why I was critical of it. She passed the email on to numerous conservative websites which reprinted it with accompanying derisive commentary. One described it as a "rant" despite an accurate reprinting of the original message. (Interestingly, some conservative commenters on the same website disagreed, describing my email as respectful and reasonable.) At National Review Online, my message to the student was characterized as "logically bankrupt" and "obviously an attempt at intimidation." The name of the student was redacted in this article, presumably to protect her from others like me on the Zenith faculty, although if you Google "Cardinal Conservatives" her name is perfectly available. The idea, of course, was to portray this student as a helpless victim of my excessive, unregulated power. The narrative goes this way: conservative students are brave for confronting liberal faculty on their candya$$ views; liberal faculty are not entitled to disagree with conservative students because it is inherently abusive for faculty to disagree with students about politics.
This is all to say that redacting the young woman's name was strategic on the part of the author, Mytheos Holt, a former Zenith student who specialized in baiting people for publicity when he was an undergrad and now writes for NRO Online and other conservative sites. Holt is, perhaps, best remembered by the Zenith faculty for having used the phrase "Arbeit Macht Frei" in a campus newspaper article about the Obama victory and having to admit afterward that he hadn't been aware that this was the famous phrase over the gate at Auschwitz (so much for a liberal arts education.) The original article that contained these words also included an attempt to explain the depth of Mytheos's pain at John McCain's loss with the following simile: "my response to this election is probably quite similar to the response of the death row inmate who finally finds himself obliged to sit in the electric chair: no matter how long you have expected something unpleasant, it still hurts when it happens."
Having a private email, however dignified, reprinted multiple times taught me an important lesson that Professor Lewin has learned as well. It is a common strategy for conservative student groups to make every possible effort to get in the faces of faculty in order to provoke a response that will "expose" our inherent desire to oppress them and limit the expression of their ideas. Hence, when faced with such opportunities, however compelling, it is often best not to respond at all. The kind of emails Professor Lewin got about such things as "The Animal Rights Barbecue" ought to go straight to Trash, and to the Spam file if you are computer-savvy enough organize it. Looking back on it, I would still publicly support the students of color who organized against the "affirmative action bake sale." They did a great job, and they deserved to know that faculty had their backs on an important social justice issue. But if I had it to do over again I would not write an email expressing my views to that conservative student, nor will I ever do so again outside of an exchange related to academics.
This is not because it caused me any official trouble, or because in retrospect I believe that writing a student about an action I disapproved of was actually abusive. I didn't mind that the email exceeded its audience, although I did think it was dishonorable of the student to distribute it without my permission. I always like a little extra publicity from the NRO (it spices things up chez Radicale) or any other publication that chooses to link me. No -- I would not write this email because it was a waste of time to accept an invitation to dialogue with conservative students when, in fact, all these groups want is more ammunition to pursue an endless culture war while the world burns down around all of us and Citibank turns our pockets inside out.
The student was not interested in generating a dialogue that did not privilege her point of view, with me or with anyone else. Similarly, Professor Lewin's students did not genuinely want her to attend their event or talk to her about their opposition to animal rights. Of course, "F**K YOU REPUBLICANS" can, by no stretch of the imagination, be viewed as an invitation to dialogue either, but I think what Professor Lewin meant was "Please take me off your mailing list." Activist conservatives, particularly young ones who are trained by skilled organizers, view themselves as crusaders, not as citizens working to build democratic alliances. They are only interested in generating publicity, not in working out solutions to common problems. Part of that crusade is to provoke liberal faculty into what can then be publicized as intolerance and discrimination which, in turn, "reveals" them as hypocrites and liars. So the next time you get one of these emails, imagine this voice booming over a loudspeaker: "Sir, move away from the computer. Now, sir....please.... step away from the computer......"
And if you can't seem to do that, at least pry the "F" key off your keyboard.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Quick Post: Implementation of Regulatory Requirements Related to Gainful Employment Programs
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
The Department of Education has formally sent out a letter about gainful employment to institutions preparing students for specified fields of work.
The Department of Education has formally sent out a letter about gainful employment to institutions preparing students for specified fields of work.
Wednesday Writing Fun With Mary Beth Norton: How To Write A Trilogy
At the newly redesigned History News Network, Cornell Historian Mary Beth Norton gives great advice on "How To Write A Trilogy Without Really Trying." What's her secret? Don't tell anyone that you're doing it. After publishing your prize-winning first book, jump into a new field (in Norton's case, women's history) that's raising a lot of important questions, then publish a second book that turns Early American history on its head. Realize that you aren't done, and over the course of the next thirty years turn out volumes two and three (in reverse order, no less!), as well as numerous other books, articles and a widely-used textbook. Easy-peasy!
As usual, Norton has chosen a great title for a great blog past that actually explains how an entire intellectual career has unfolded up to this point. Why is it a great title, other than the obvious allusion? Because no one who knows her would ever accuse Mary Beth Norton of "not really trying." Ever. At anything. You heard it here first.
Along this journey, Norton enriched her analysis by folding in new intellectual developments that were changing history as a field: she mastered the histories of gender and sexuality, as well as Atlantic Studies. She brought the trilogy to a crescendo (a?) this month with Separated by Their Sex: Women In Public And Private In the Colonial Atlantic World (Cornell, 2011). "And so my unintended trilogy on the theme of gender and political power in early America is complete," she concludes. "Research for it led me in each iteration in so many unexpected directions that I do not know what to anticipate as I embark on a new project, that long-postponed look at the years immediately prior to the American Revolution. But I do know that the book, informed by the past decades of work on the trilogy and its sidelight volume, will be very different from that I would have researched and written in the 1970s."
Stay tuned: the end of one thing is often t he beginning of another, and I wouldn't expect the announcement of Norton's next trilogy until at least 2030 or 2040.
As usual, Norton has chosen a great title for a great blog past that actually explains how an entire intellectual career has unfolded up to this point. Why is it a great title, other than the obvious allusion? Because no one who knows her would ever accuse Mary Beth Norton of "not really trying." Ever. At anything. You heard it here first.
Along this journey, Norton enriched her analysis by folding in new intellectual developments that were changing history as a field: she mastered the histories of gender and sexuality, as well as Atlantic Studies. She brought the trilogy to a crescendo (a?) this month with Separated by Their Sex: Women In Public And Private In the Colonial Atlantic World (Cornell, 2011). "And so my unintended trilogy on the theme of gender and political power in early America is complete," she concludes. "Research for it led me in each iteration in so many unexpected directions that I do not know what to anticipate as I embark on a new project, that long-postponed look at the years immediately prior to the American Revolution. But I do know that the book, informed by the past decades of work on the trilogy and its sidelight volume, will be very different from that I would have researched and written in the 1970s."
Stay tuned: the end of one thing is often t he beginning of another, and I wouldn't expect the announcement of Norton's next trilogy until at least 2030 or 2040.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Publicly Thanking Claudia Dreifus and Andrew Hacker
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
The fourth printing of Higher Education? How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money And Failing Our Kids And What We Can Do About It by Claudia Dreifus and Andrew Hacker will be out in August. Claudia let me know that my work is mentioned in their section on student loan debt. I want to publicly thank them for writing such a provocative and important book, and also referencing my work as an advocate for student loan debtors.
If you haven't purchased their book yet, I recommend that you buy it immediately!
Related Links
"Conversations that Matter: Claudia Dreifus talks about why Colleges are Failing U.S. Students", AEM, September 12, 2010
The fourth printing of Higher Education? How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money And Failing Our Kids And What We Can Do About It by Claudia Dreifus and Andrew Hacker will be out in August. Claudia let me know that my work is mentioned in their section on student loan debt. I want to publicly thank them for writing such a provocative and important book, and also referencing my work as an advocate for student loan debtors.
If you haven't purchased their book yet, I recommend that you buy it immediately!
Related Links
"Conversations that Matter: Claudia Dreifus talks about why Colleges are Failing U.S. Students", AEM, September 12, 2010
Abusive Phone Calls Wanted! Looking for the Worst Stories
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
What's the worst thing your lender or debt collector has said to you over the phone? Let's collect the worst of the worst and share them on AEM, and show the world what thugs these lenders are!
What's the worst thing your lender or debt collector has said to you over the phone? Let's collect the worst of the worst and share them on AEM, and show the world what thugs these lenders are!
"Honey, I can't believe what this a$*!!! just f$*#! said to me."
Higher Education Under Attack: An Interview With Dr. Henry Giroux
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
The full interview with Dr. Giroux is available here.
The full interview with Dr. Giroux is available here.
Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun: The Radical Responds To Her Critics
![]() |
Tenured radical faculty have too much, others have nothing. |
Let's roll the videotape:
I suggested (I deliberately did not make this a law, because I do not believe in coercion and I use my super powers with restraint and wisdom) that people who take full-time visiting faculty jobs should make themselves available to work full time, as opposed to teaching one or two days a week because they are traveling several hours each way from Big City. Fulfilling this obligation (something that would be a normal expectation anywhere but in academia and e-trading) could mean moving to or near the place of employ, or making arrangements to spend several nights a week there. I also suggested that if full time visitors were not going to do this, they should be responsible for actually getting themselves to the work site (a.k.a., skool) without assistance from the super-privileged tenured faculty who committed the crime of hiring them in the first place.
It turned out I was wrong about this, and that these are all not only highly retrograde notions unworthy of a true Radical, but also evidence of my secret affiliations with the radical right. "About as 'Radical' as Don Chafin, I'd say," sniffs Anonymous 5:40 (I had to look that one up, not being well versed in the history of union-busting coal industry minions.) "TR, you say it's 'just advice,'" Anonymous 12:29 summed up in hir closing argument to the jury. "Fine. But it's clear enough from your post that YOU are the one negatively judging those adjuncts who dare to hold on to their connections in other places. YOU'RE the one who feels offended by this practice, even though this practice is a totally rational labor response to a short-term, low-wage job contract." Yes, and it would be a totally rational response on MY part to fire YOUR sorry a$$ for putting in minimal time for the actual job I had hired YOU to do.
Actually, I have had two homes for most of my adult life, which was expensive as all get out, particularly when I was in a visiting gig early in my career. Subsequently, I commuted between Zenith and New York for over fifteen years. I had two homes that I eventually gave up for one home in New Haven, from whence I commute 30 minutes a day, three to five days a week. My point of view was that this was better than not working at what I wanted to do for a living. But things have changed, I guess, since I was a young Radical (favorite comment from one of the multiple blog posts elsewhere sending me the hate? "I want to rename her Tenured Liberal!" Yes, you do that. Sounds like a devastating criticism anyone would take to heart, even me.) The commenters above and others like them are clear: moving somewhere for a year, renting a room a couple nights a week, or taking responsibility for your own transportation to fulfill the terms of a full-time salaried, contract without any guarantee this will lead to future success or the lifetime security of tenure is something only ordinary people without PH.D.'s should have to do.
Well God Bless, and good luck. And the next time you decide to police the content of my blog, and reprove me for being condescending, be warned: act like d00shb@g$, and the condescension veers way out of control. Sorry. Like the relentlessly condescending/entertaining Rachel Maddow Show, Tenured Radical is not intended for children. It may include adult themes, hard language, nudity, and all minors should be accompanied by a parent, guardian or dissertation advisor. )
In other news, readers who perceive tenured faculty as responsible for the death of their life prospects are going to be really upset when they see this one. When we weren't looking, an administrator acquired two administrative jobs, 1,000 miles apart, that gross him $212 large a year. Talk about a highway flyer! According to Inside Higher Ed:
Donald Green is executive vice president of instruction and student services at Florida State College at Jacksonville, where he has worked since 1998. He is also, concurrently, the acting senior vice president of academic affairs at Essex County College, in New Jersey, where he has been working 15-20 hours a week as a consultant since last October.
Essex CC is actually paying Green as a consultant, at a rate of $130 an hour, which means he gets his benefits in Florida, Governor Chris Christie will be relieved to know. This is probably about $127.75 more per hour than the adjunct profs teaching Humanities 101 are making, and $105.10 per hour more than full-time instructional staff.
While it isn't clear that Green has done anything illegal, it does appear that the guy had all kinds of paid sick days, vacation time and what not to fly up to the Garden State for a week or so at a time to be an adjunct administrator of sorts. Marcella Washington, a political science prof at FSC, says that the faculty is investigating. Full-time faculty members work "more than 40 hours per week" at FSC and administrators should at least be putting in their full forty. "If we are truly giving all we have to our students, we don’t have time for another job. For [Green] to have another full-fledged job to put in 20 hours a week is just not giving all the attention and concern to Florida State College. It’s unacceptable behavior. [From an administrator], it just doesn’t set a good example.”
Interestingly, if you scroll down yesterday's comments you will get to "Christopher" who also had two jobs for a year, his regular adjunct gigs (three different jobs, it sounds like) and a one-year visiting slot with benefits that he was able to land in the same town.
The one year gig was a 3/3 and paid $46k. Except, I'm used to 6/6 and even 7/7, so 3/3 was a snap. I kept 3 of my adjunct gigs, and pocketed the $46k plus another $18k, give or take. Nice. Plus, the FT gig provided health insurance, and so I made sure during that year to have every test known to medical science done. I'm good. For now.
The more salient fact, though, is that when the FT gig was done, I still had employment. Yes, it was back to the adjunct pool, but that's certainly better than nothing.
I suppose folks could call me out for gaming the system. Right. Go for it. Sue me, or something.
Dude! I think people are not calling you out because they are in awe of you, as well they should be. Consider yourself invited for a guest post.
In Case You Missed The Panel: JD in the New Economy
Copyright Notice: If you are not reading this at All Education Matters, and unless I've explicitly given an individual or entity permission to publish my work, this post has been illegally appropriated. Please read original content here.
This panel about student loan debt, law school, and employment in the legal field took place on April 7th (I was the moderator), and can be accessed for free here.
This panel about student loan debt, law school, and employment in the legal field took place on April 7th (I was the moderator), and can be accessed for free here.
Quick Announcement: Henry Giroux
I recently interviewed Henry Giroux to discuss the assault on higher education in the U.S. That piece will appear on my new blog - The Margins of Everyday Life - and I've already posted a 'teasers' for your enjoyment. Stay tuned!
Related Links
"A Discourse of Critique must always include a Discourse of Possibility," The Margins of Everyday Life, April 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)