Then Tony the Tiger, another faculty member in the Department, sent this memo...

Subject line: Candidate B

I would like to know the specific reasons why Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny believe that the top-ranked candidate is the least qualified. Is it his publication record? teaching experience? field of specialization? I am not really sure, but then I am not exactly sure what we are looking for in this position. I am also concerned that we are continuing to form hiring committees in which one or more members appear to have a clear preference of a candidate before the process even begins.

Then the Easter Bunny sent another email...

Subject Line: Slanderous Statement

Department:

It is an absolute bold face lie that I said anything about the minority candidate's ethnicity at the final committee meeting I attended, where the candidate placed in the top three. Although I did say that I preferred to hire a black or hispanic male at the previous meeting, I didn't even discuss the candidate's ethnicity at the final meeting meeting I attended. I discussed only his inadequate qualifications. The committee is claiming that I made the prejudiced comment at the last hiring committee meeting I attended because neither General George Armstrong Custer nor Conan the Barbarian were at the previous meeting where I did say that I preferred to hire a black or hispanic male because they are woefully underrepresented as teachers in our college. The committee is claiming that I made the hateful comment at the last meeting I attended so that they will have more people to accuse me of the charge. Once again, it's my word againist their word. But I tell you emphatically that they are telling a monstrous lie about me.

the Easter Bunny

Then the Easter Bunny sent out this e-mail...

Subject Line: Vlad the Impaler's Knowledge of Candidate's Wife?"

Department:

In the recent Hiring Committee letter to the department, they decided to slander me, perhaps because I am a lone Negro and they think they can say anything they want about me to serve their own purposes. Nonetheless, let me state emphatically that I never said that I did not want an Iranian in the department. Rather, I said that I wanted someone who more fairly represented the students population at our school. As the only non-white male in the department, I certainly do not have anything against other non-white males, Iranians included. I merely told the committee that I believe our faculty should more fairly represent our student population, in particular blacks and hispanics. After all, our country was formed by people seeking fair representation in their society.

As for Vlad the Impaler knowing the minority candidate or his wife, I suspected she might know the candidate's wife because Vlad the Impaler participated with the candidate's wife in the [Workshop Session] at the [Conference], [City], in [Month & Year]. I thought it unlikely that two people would be part of a workshop session at a national conference and never actually meet. The candidate's wife lists the presentation on her web page at her current school, where she graduated. In fact, here is how she lists the presentation:

[Quoted passage lists the workshop and names Vlad the Impaler as one of the participants.]

If you want to see the listing for yourself, please find the link below.

[link]

I have seen several black male professor friends of mine falsely accused by colleagues of saying things in order to destroy their careers. The committee is trying to destroy my career through their viscious [sic] lie. I might be a lone Negro, but I won't go quietly without a fight. I never said that I didn't want an Iranian in the department. Of course, it is my word against their word, but, unfortunately, it is all a lone Negro has.

the Easter Bunny

So then the Hiring Committee sent out this response to the "clarification" sent out by Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny...

TO: English Department Faculty
FROM: The Hiring Committee - Position (Casper the Friendly Ghost, Conan the Barbarian, General George Armstrong Custer, and Vlad the Impaler)
SUBJECT: Response to the letter of resignation submitted by Sanata Claus the the Easter Bunny
CC: the Dean & the Provost [don't they have better things to do than read this crap?]

As you know, the hiring committee is moving forward with plans to hire a faculty member in Specialty, a position discussed and voted on by faculty at a department meeting last Spring. We hope that you will all join us in welcoming the candidates to campus in the next two weeks.

At this time, we write to assure the department that protocol has been followed throughout the hiring process and to clarify the committee's perspective on allegations raised by Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny in their letter of resignation from this hiring committee.

1) Though the pool of applicants is small (twenty-one), the committee was able to select a group of seven qualified finalists at our first meeting. At the first meeting, however, three key issues arose:

a) Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny believed one of the candidates to be a personal friend of Vlad the Impaler's, and thus asserted that Vlad must recuse herself from voting on that candidate. Vlad the Impaler explained several times that she knows of this candidate's work through Conference committees but has met neither her nor her husband (who also applied for the position and who is the minority candidate/finalist in question) personally. In addition, Vlad the Impaler explained that she had originally suggested, via email, to the female candidate that she apply because she seemed like an appropriate candidate with expertise and experience in the field.

b) At the beginning of the meeting, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny suggested that we not spend time looking at the files because the pool of applicants was so small and because there was only one minority candidate. Vlad the Impaler and Casper the Friendly Ghost both argued that we owed it to the department and the applicants to review and discuss their files in a serious manner to determine if anyone seemed appropriate for the position. After reviewing the files, we agreed on seven qualified finalists, and scheduled a meeting for the following week to review and rank the candidates. Clearly, given that we were able to agree on seven candidates for further review indicates the presence of a small, but very qualified, pool of applicants.

c) When we discussed the minority candidate, who is Iranian, the Easter Bunny asserted that he did not want to hire an Iranian, and that we do not need an Iranian in our department.

He had stated this previously to one member of the committee, and he repeated this assertion at our follow-up meeting one week later when this candidate was selected as one of the top three finalists. In our view, this comment was entirely out of line, and as members of this department and of this particular committee, we strongly believe that no one has any right to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality.

2) Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny suggest in their letter that they resigned because the minority candidate in question is, in their view, the weakest of the seven finalists. They allege that the rest of us rated him highly simply because he is a minority candidate with training in Field. This allegation is absolutely untrue: none of us argued that "the candidate rates highly because he is a minority." He is an impressive candidate, with a Ph.D. in Field. He has taught courses in Subject and has received several teaching awards. He has had direct experience with Activities in the Subject & Subject worlds, and his recommendations are stellar. In addition to the work he does in his own field, he is also a translator of Persian poetry, and he has demonstrated a strong commitment to multicultural education. We believe that he is anything but "poorly qualified," and we invite you all to review his file (as well as the others') and meet him when he comes to campus for an interview on March 8th.

3) The letter from Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny states that they "are opposed to changing the job description to fit one candidate." The original job description was first published in early Fall, and was then altered as per changes suggested by Santa Claus at a department meeting in December. At that time, it was also agreed that the job search would be extended to February 15, 2006. Since that final version of the job description went out, no changes have been made.

4) Finally, their letter states, "We believe that the committee's desire to select a minority candidate is actually a clever ruse to hire a candidate who might be an acquaintance or a relative of an acquaintance of a committee member." See above (#la) for clarification on this point. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny have been fully informed that Vlad the Impaler does not personally know either the female candidate (who is not among the seven finalists) or her husband, the minority candidate in question. Such allegations, especially after they have been repeatedly answered, do not serve a constructive purpose in the department.

Though the committee respects the decision of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to resign, we want to assure the department that we have followed protocol and the priorities established by the department from the very beginning of the search, and that we will continue to do so. We will be seeking your input on the finalists who come to campus for interviews, so we encourage you to take the time to review their files, to hear them talk at the luncheons, and to spend time with them while they are visiting our campus.

Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny sent this memo to "clarify" things...

To: English Department Faculty
From: Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny, English Department
Re: Our Resignation from the Hiring Committee

In her email to the department, General George Armstrong Custer announced our resignation from the Hiring Committee for the Position. We feel obliged to explain to the department our abrupt resignation after we had been intensely involved in the initial search and screening process.

We resigned from the hiring committee because a candidate who, in our estimation, is the weakest candidate of the final pool of seven received three first place votes, including a first place vote from a committee member who expressed strong preference for another candidate in a previous meeting. These three committee members have argued that the candidate rates highly because he is a minority (in fact the only minority who applied for the position) and has training in Specialty, even though the candidate is poorly qualified according to the job description.

We, as long time advocates for hiring minority candidates, are opposed to changing the job description to fit one candidate, because we believe it does not serve the best interest of the department or the minority students. We suggested that if hiring a minority candidate supersedes the immediate needs of the department, then the department should revise the job description to one in teaching non-classical Subject in order to attract a larger pool of minority candidates. The suggestion was rejected by the majority of the committee.

It appears that the majority of the committee is more interested in hiring this specific candidate than in hiring a minority candidate. We believe that the committee’s desire to select a minority candidate is actually a clever ruse to hire a candidate who might be an acquaintance or a relative of an acquaintance of a committee member.

We thereby submitted our resignation.

This memo recently came around via e-mail:

To: Department
From: General George Armstrong Custer

Greetings:

I am writing to inform the department that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny have resigned from the hiring committee elected to conduct a search for a Subject instructor. Thanks to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the rest of the committee for their hard work so far. Even given the small pool of applicants (20 or so), the commitee was able to narrow the field to a group of strong candidates. The remaining members of the committee (Conan the Barbarian, Vlad the Impaler, and Casper the Friendly Ghost) are contacting these candidates to see if they are still available and to arrange on-campus interviews for them.

Even though the committee can continue to function with the three remaining elected members (plus the Chair of the department), I would like to ask if any faculty members would like to volunteer to fill the vacated spots. The work that remains is to arrange the on-campus visits and to decide wheter or not we would like to hire one of the candidates we interview. If ther are more than two volunteers, we will hold an election.

In any case, this is the point in the search process when it becomes crucial for the entire department to participate. Each candidate will be interviewed and observed teaching by the search committee; after the formal interview, any interested facyulty members, graduate students, and English majors will be invited to an informal talk, preferably over lunch or refreshments. The committee is currently discussing other ways to involve faculty and students in this process, and if you have any ideas, please let us know.

Thanks very much.

So someone writes on the faculty listserv:

Is it just me or does John Edwards need to work on his subject-verb agreement?

And someone else writes back:

John Edwards doesn't need to work on subject-verb agreement; nobody but English professors notice it, and there are too few of us to matter. Besides, we're all voting for him anyway.

Overheard outside a tenured professor's office...

One tenured professor was telling another tenured professor about some people he had met. This was his astute observation:

"They're hicks from New Jersey."

Racism Runs Rampant Even Among Department Filled With Politically-Correct Leftists

A headline in last week's issue of the campus student newspaper reads "Prof. Denied Tenure, Brands Decision Racist."

In the article, the professor in question, Captain Kangaroo, is quoted as saying:

"The decision to deny me tenure...is based on discrimination [...] I think it is appalling that such discrimination and racism is practiced on a campus with 80 to 85 percent black students."

The obviously well-trained student reporter dutifully followed that quote up with reference to the truth:

"In fact, the figure is closer to 50 percent."

How funny is it that Captain Kangaroo claims to have been denied tenure based solely on the basis of race, then so quickly demonstrates her own academic, er, quality by failing to check the very facts upon which she bases her argument? How hard would it have been for a professor to find out what percentage of our students are black, when a student reporter apparently had no problem doing so? Could it be that this mathematical mistake perfectly symbolizes the professor's fitness for lifetime employment as an educator?

Not only that, but what does it say about this professor who sees white racism everywhere she turns, that her perception of the number of black students on campus is so wide of the mark?

There are black students everywhere! Oh, no!

The student reporter is to be commended for correcting the professor's math. And for this sentence:

"Captain Kangaroo did not cite any specific incidents to support her charges."

Apparently our students are learning something about logic and argumentation in their writing classes, which may be more than we can say for the students in Captain Kangaroo's own classes in "African, Asian, and post-colonial literature," in which, according to a student petition protesting the tenure decision:

"Captain Kangaroo has taught students about the caste system in India, government corruption in that country, and mistreatment of women in Africa."

It would be interesting to ask these students whether she also taught them about literature, the ostensible subject of the courses.

One final point, since Captain Kangaroo brought it up in the article.

She is quoted as saying, about colleagues who have received tenure since she came to the University:

"They have tenured Mister Rogers, Krusty the Clown, and the Easter Bunny while I was here for far fewer publications than mine."

One is tempted to ask why she offers no explanation as to why the Easter Bunny, who is black, was awarded tenure, if the Department is such a hotbed of racism. Is Captain Kangaroo saying that in one case, the Department expresses its (alleged) racism by denying tenure to non-white professors, but in another case, it does so by hugging them close? That she spouts such illogical nonsense is perhaps as telling as any evidence one might require in order to decide whether she deserves a lifetime appointment as a teacher.

Further, it is well-known that the Easter Bunny publicy supported Captain Kangaroo's bid for tenure. It is simply astounding to this writer that she would turn around and repay the Easter Bunny's friendship and loyalty by impugning his academic qualifications.

The English Department Sees Its Mission As Paving The Way For The New World Order

The committee charged with drafting a Departmental mission statement presented a one-page draft at a recent meeting.

The draft begins:

[The Department] sees textual and interpretive skills as crucial to the exercise of global citizenship, particularly at a time in which the honest and precise articulation of ideas and values is increasingly endangered.

"Global citizenship"? What exactly do you mean by that? And you have the nerve to whine about "honest and precise articulation of ideas and values"?

Sheesh.

Not only that, but should a mission statement (which will stand, one assumes, for some time to come) be so laden with poorly-veiled references to current events?

It's no wonder nobody wants to work on this committee.

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!

Laziness Update

The refrigerator has been mysteriously cleaned by...someone.

Now we all get to watch the filth slowly accrete again until...someone...breaks down and cleans it again.

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:

The committee met and catalogued concerns that have been voiced by undergraduate and graduate students:[my numbering]

[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...

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).

(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.

After receiving the minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting last week, I understood that the mere idea of allowing adjuncts to vote on any issue related to their pedagogy and/or teaching environment was hideously repulsive to the minority elite of tenure-track faculty. After all, adjuncts are in the majority! True, there may be merit in allowing them to speak about their concerns, but vote? They might take over! And if NTTAs were allowed to vote, wouldn't that make it easier for the floodgates to open? After all, consider the possibility: The faculty might be overrun by masses of unwashed low-class pseudo professors! They might impinge on the sanctity of the true academics at LIU! (I could feel the horror of such a prospect permeating the electronic airwaves.) Then, the following question seems to have arisen in their discussion: Were NTTAs actually members of the faculty senate?

Oh, had I been there! And had I been unafraid to speak out! I would have asked if any of them would consider the barely palatable possibility of allowing adjuncts and NTTAs to be considered three fifths of a member. That worked before the Civil War. Maybe it would work now.

Faculty Members Are Simply Better Than The Rest Of Us

The Chair of the Department was overheard today asking the secretaries whether "cleaning" could be added to their list of duties. A surreptitious peek revealed that she was unable even to look them in the eye as she made her request, which, we assume, was in regard to the disgusting mess one usually encounters whenever one ventures near the microwave, the refrigerator, or the water cooler in the common area.

We here at the Brooklyn English Underground realize that college professors hatch from pods and thereafter roam freely over the landscape without benefit of parental instruction in such matters, so allow us to offer some advice.

When you nuke your soup, wipe up anything left clinging to the inside walls of the oven.

When you put something in the refrigerator, always remember to come back later and remove it before such time as it grows a furry coat. If your package leaves an offensive puddle of filth behind, clean it up.

If you spill anything on the countertop during the preparation of whatever you are eating or drinking, clean it up.

Do not assume that someone else will do these things for you.

Believe it or not, an advanced degree does not automatically relieve you of the obligation to behave responsibly.

Indeed, since English professors typically insist that they should not be treated as better than anyone else (despite their status as members of the cultural elite), some might even argue that stooping to clean the microwave on occasion would provide them with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that their professed solidarity with the working class is more than so much hot air.

Misplaced Priorities, Anyone?

It has come to our attention that a certain tenured professor has announced her refusal to advise English majors until such time as she is supplied with new computer equipment that can handle mainframe access. Apparently, she has for several years requested such equipment, to no avail, and has now reached the end of the proverbial rope.

(For those of you who are not so privileged as to work in our precious little pit of vipers, online mainframe access allows one to see whether individual sections of a course are open or closed and who is enrolled in a particular section. It also allows one to see students' transcripts.)

Most members of the faculty ROUTINELY report that they DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO USE mainframe access, yet they nonetheless manage somehow to advise their students anyway, so it would seem more than a bit disingenuous to claim at this late date that one can't advise students without it. Reliable sources indicate that most faculty send students to the Registrar without first checking whether the sections being scheduled still have open seats. Other persons in a position to know report that professors regularly schedule students for courses the prerequisites for which have not been completed and habitually joke about their inexplicable inability to remember, for more than a few seconds, the keyboard commands for navigating mainframe access, which, for a bunch of stuck-up PhDs, should be downright embarrassing. And English majors themselves regularly complain that Department faculty "don't know what they're talking about" when it comes to the requirements for graduation. This leads us to conclude that professors take their professional responsibility to advise those students who have, for some mysterious reason, chosen to major in English, less seriously than, say, writing articles and books that nobody will ever read. Yet none of this has ever stopped those professors from advising their students.

In short, if we didn't know better (ahem), we might think the good professor were punishing her advisees for the admittedly poor treatment being meted out to her by the University, when it comes to the unrelated matter of her office computer.

We here at the Brooklyn English Underground sincerely sympathize with the frustration one must feel at being repeatedly ignored when requesting up-to-date computer equipment, which is of course necessary for all the work one is required to do as a professor, not only advisement. So we wholeheartedly support her request for said computer equipment, but we must protest when she stoops to using students as bargaining chips.

Is It Contageous?

Let's look for a moment beyond the "hollow" walls of the English Dept. to see the universe beyond. Yes, I'm speaking of our illustrious Deans who lead the way for us into the galaxy of outrageous absurdity. There is the Dean of Great Expectations who has yet to learn how to communicate clearly and effectively to us who reside here on planet Earth ( but, then, she is above it all). Then there is the Dean of Peter's Principle who still believes if you run fast and far enough, and muck up the waters behind you, no one will ever discover you know absolutely nothing.
Yes, I'm sure you have more stories to tell on this front, yes?

"When I Was Chair..."

A woman who used to be chair of the department, and therefore ought to realize how important it is to restrict everyone's unlimited use of the copy machine, complained today that she has to enter the last five digits of her social security number in order to operate the machine.

Obviously, somebody has too much time on her hands.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that people with actual work to do, don't have time to file grievances against the secretary.

Don't Call Us, We'll Call You

From a recent proposal on voting rights in the department: "Administrators with teaching responsibilities may vote on all matters pertaining to the composition and sophomore literature sequences, and shall serve in an advisory capacity on committees pertaining to the programs they administer."

That's rich. I'm smart enough to "advise" you about developing, say, your major program. But when it comes to deciding whether we ought to implement whatever we come up with, I won't have any say?

In the interest of political incorrectness, I would like to point out the following.

I got your "advisory capacity" right here.

Oh, You Poor Overworked Dears

If you want to deny non-tenure track workers the right to vote in faculty meetings, and if you want to try to justify that position by arguing that it is the tenure-track faculty who do all the heavy lifting (curriculum development, committee service, student advisement, etc.), I say fine, but don't then turn around and say that you don't want to participate in a curriculum development retreat because you "feel tired." Or at least don't say this in front of everyone. And even if you are tired, don't put off the retreat (which, after all, is the type of thing one is obligated to do if one is a tenure-track faculty member) for an entire year. Stupid.