Turns Out All These Professors Are Not What They Seem, or Ignorance Is Everywhere!
It has come to our attention that certain tenured faculty members continue to address, to their non-tenured "colleagues," questions that they ought to be embarrassed to ask.
We hereby publish the answers.
Yes, students must complete the English core before they can take upper division courses. That's the definition of "core," after all, isn't it?
No, students ought not be advised to take Senior Seminar (the capstone course) until they have completed most of their other upper division credits. We not only wonder why a tenured faculty member would feel the need to ask this question, but we also wonder why he/she feels no shame at addressing such a question to someone whom they recently sought to keep from voting on curricular matters. For once and for all, if you fancy yourself our intellectual superiors, you should at least have the self-respect not to give the lie to your own claims by asking us questions to which you ought to know the answers. Ask someone else, surely, for God forbid you dispense incorrect information to students, but don't ask the very people whom you should wish will never see the truth about your ignorance.
The most amusing (and infuriating) aspect of this situation is that many of you have been teaching in the Department since Captain Howdy was still in high school, indeed, in some cases, since before Captain Howdy was even born!
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Monday, December 01, 2003
Turns Out All These Liberal Professors Are Not What They Seem, or Racism Is Everywhere!
Earlier this semester, an ad hoc faculty "Committee to Study Racism" was formed at the suggestion of a certain professor, who complained at a faculty meeting that she was tired of being the only person to whom black students could go with their reportedly numerous complaints of racist treatment at the hands of the English Department. To hear her tell it, this has been going on for years. No explanation was given for why she had never reported the alleged tidal wave of complaints.
It seems to me that if there have been that many complaints she should have gone with them to the Chair of the Department, or even to the Dean, long before now. The appropriate course of action would have been to bring any such allegations to the attention of the proper authorities, not to keep them to oneself for years, so that you can later don the martyr's mantle and attempt to shame your, um, non-non-white colleagues, who, by the way, will believe whatever you tell them about themselves, when it comes to racism, convinced as they are that their skin color and the behavior of their ancestors condemns them to a lifetime of shame, guilt, and groveling. Long story short: this isn't about taking care of students; it's about gaining the moral high ground and the power that comes with it.
At any rate, a recent memo from the self-appointed (and self-righteous) committee reads, in part:
(Actually, this could be a reference to the momentary controversy surrounding last year's proposal that graduate Teaching Fellows be allowed to select two of their number to represent them at faculty meetings and vote on matters relating to the courses they teach. One professor moved that the faculty decree that the student representatives be "non-white." His motion precipitated a rather vigorous discussion, during which Captain Howdy's head nearly exploded. (Nothing brings on the cognitive dissonance like hearing a college professor, presumably ones intellectual superior, claim that "affirmative action works" without providing any of the evidence that he would require even of the lowliest freshman.) Needless to say, the motion wasn't even seconded, but, apparently, it lives on as an assumption that the English faculty are a bunch of racists. The failed motion assumes that graduate students would necessarily elect white peers to represent them, so the faculty must step in to "correct" their presumed racism. But isn't it just as reasonable to assume that the graduate students would elect "non-white" representatives? That is a possibility that has apparently not even been considered.
And do you know why? It's because this little project has nothing to do with the best interests of students and everything to do with professors promoting their own political positions within the Department. Is it an accident that the memo from the "Committee to Study Racism" includes among its "possible avenues of redress" the development of a "Diaspora Studies" program? This has much more to do with certain professors manipulating events so that they will be able to teach in their specialties, than it has to do with "protecting" students.
Oh, and suggesting (as another "possible avenue of redress") racial sentivity training for professors is another such tactic, for no non-non-white English professor who completed graduate training in the last twenty years would dare dream of refusing to attend such a PC-fest, fearing deep in their soul that they might be racist, and everybody knows that, which makes the suggestion manipulative beyond belief.
Earlier this semester, an ad hoc faculty "Committee to Study Racism" was formed at the suggestion of a certain professor, who complained at a faculty meeting that she was tired of being the only person to whom black students could go with their reportedly numerous complaints of racist treatment at the hands of the English Department. To hear her tell it, this has been going on for years. No explanation was given for why she had never reported the alleged tidal wave of complaints.
It seems to me that if there have been that many complaints she should have gone with them to the Chair of the Department, or even to the Dean, long before now. The appropriate course of action would have been to bring any such allegations to the attention of the proper authorities, not to keep them to oneself for years, so that you can later don the martyr's mantle and attempt to shame your, um, non-non-white colleagues, who, by the way, will believe whatever you tell them about themselves, when it comes to racism, convinced as they are that their skin color and the behavior of their ancestors condemns them to a lifetime of shame, guilt, and groveling. Long story short: this isn't about taking care of students; it's about gaining the moral high ground and the power that comes with it.
At any rate, a recent memo from the self-appointed (and self-righteous) committee reads, in part:
The committee met and catalogued concerns that have been voiced by undergraduate and graduate students:[my numbering]No mention whatsoever is made in this "catalog" of "concerns" of whether any evidence has yet been presented. It would appear, as elsewhere in academia where the charge of racism is concerned, that the alleged victim need only claim that racism exists for it to be true. Again, no evidence whatsoever is mentioned that double standards have been used, nor are any examples mentioned of "insensitive racial comments," or profiling, or "inadequate recognition of leadership potential" (whatever that means--in an academic department where no such leadership opportunities exist for any students, of any color, race, ethnicity, gender, or political party).[1] Double standards in grading...
[2] Double standards in mentoring, guidance, and support...
[3] Inadequate recognition of leadership potential...
[4] Insensitive racial comments...
[5] ...gross generalizations and stereotypes
[6] ...profiling and ranking of student potential...
(Actually, this could be a reference to the momentary controversy surrounding last year's proposal that graduate Teaching Fellows be allowed to select two of their number to represent them at faculty meetings and vote on matters relating to the courses they teach. One professor moved that the faculty decree that the student representatives be "non-white." His motion precipitated a rather vigorous discussion, during which Captain Howdy's head nearly exploded. (Nothing brings on the cognitive dissonance like hearing a college professor, presumably ones intellectual superior, claim that "affirmative action works" without providing any of the evidence that he would require even of the lowliest freshman.) Needless to say, the motion wasn't even seconded, but, apparently, it lives on as an assumption that the English faculty are a bunch of racists. The failed motion assumes that graduate students would necessarily elect white peers to represent them, so the faculty must step in to "correct" their presumed racism. But isn't it just as reasonable to assume that the graduate students would elect "non-white" representatives? That is a possibility that has apparently not even been considered.
And do you know why? It's because this little project has nothing to do with the best interests of students and everything to do with professors promoting their own political positions within the Department. Is it an accident that the memo from the "Committee to Study Racism" includes among its "possible avenues of redress" the development of a "Diaspora Studies" program? This has much more to do with certain professors manipulating events so that they will be able to teach in their specialties, than it has to do with "protecting" students.
Oh, and suggesting (as another "possible avenue of redress") racial sentivity training for professors is another such tactic, for no non-non-white English professor who completed graduate training in the last twenty years would dare dream of refusing to attend such a PC-fest, fearing deep in their soul that they might be racist, and everybody knows that, which makes the suggestion manipulative beyond belief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)