I work pretty hard to be a good mentor, both inside and outside the classroom, and in general I enjoy getting to know students and colleagues through workshops and whatnot that I am often asked to do, but I am inclined to start to say no when asked to do uncompensated teaching. Figuring out what a “reasonable” amount of service to do is a perpetual struggle, especially for women and faculty of color, and it’s too easy to say yes to teaching.
Why say no? For one it does eat up time. And just like writers and artists who want to draw a line at doing uncompensated work for “exposure”, free teaching strikes me as a way to devalue the very real work of teaching well..
Moreover, the “free teaching” requests that come out of USC benefit the institution. I love having pipeline programs and getting diverse students interested in things, but you know, I never have any grace or leeway granted to me regarding my teaching duties. One enrolled student short of the cutoff for a TA? Sucks to be you, no TA. By some weird kink we have 2 credit hour classes that fit with with nothing else and burden junior faculty with more course preps? The fact that some really nice faculty member 30 years ago once taught two sections of that for 2 hour credit means that you have to do so, too. Sucks to be you, you owe us the other 2 credit hours come hell or high water. Or take a pay cut. Up to you.
Given that institutional rigidity, why exactly should I teach for free as a service task? No matter how minor the actual teaching task?
I haven’t thought this all the way through, so I’m interested in opinions. Not ones that start out “Look, bitch from hell, you are worthless at your job because I hate women but here’s a bunch of pretexts as to why this comment isn’t really about that…”
Instead, happy to hear real ideas: should I do this as somebody who is institutionally protected as a means to say to administrators “dammit, teaching is our bread-and-butter and it deserves compensation” or does my stance somehow make things harder for adjuncts and contract faculty to do so as well? I 100 percent support them in setting the same limit.
I admit, to no small degree, I likely ask this question out of a bruised ego, but my ego or not, I think this question is enlightening.
I asked this question to Manuel Pastor a few weeks ago when I interviewed him for the podcast. Now, Manuel is one of the greatest, if the greatest, scholar I know. *He* is an important urbanist. It took USC way too long to get its poop together and start heaping him with endowed chairs and university titles, but it finally did, and it’s way well-deserved. ( Please do pick up Manuel’s book and listen to the podcast if you get a chance because it’s a very nice, unwonky policy/politics book from an excellent policy scholar. Oh and you can watch Manual talk about it here. )
Manuel called Kotkin “an important urbanist” in his (otherwise excellent) book, State of Resistance, and I called him out on it, and it got uncomfortable even though Manuel is one of my favorite people in the world, and I think most of the time he likes me, too (not always an easy or pleasant thing.) Bugging him about it wasn’t particularly nice.
But when genuinely, authentically important scholars like Manuel validate people like Kotkin as important, I die a little.
Manuel didn’t have a good answer to this “Why are you calling Joel Kotkin important” question, and I think it’s because Manuel’s very fast brain, in mid-interview, made the connections that I see, only after he couldn’t do much about it: Kotkin gets to be important because he gets published in various media outlets and the rest of us validate this. Why? He’s a white male contrarian who writes decently well, and self-appointed contrarians get to be treated seriously because Americans love “balanced” things in an uncritical way because it allows us to substitute virtues like “listening to both sides” as an end in itself instead of a means to “a resolved, deliberated course of action.” The former allows us to feel like good, nice people without having to deal with the latter’s hard work of rhetoric, conflict, sacrifice, and rigor.
You can make a really good living exploiting this tendency (see Brooks, David). Much more seriously, if you are one of 4,000 scientists who are like, yep, we’re cooking planet with likely disastrous consequences, you have a 1/4000 chance of getting the call to comment when a reporter from the NYT calls. If you are 1 of 20 scientists willing to say anything, no matter how factually or morally wrong, to feather your own nest, your shot is better at being a “singular” expert in the NYT. Journalists seek “balance.” If other university administrators reward media hits as much as USC has done (learning the hard way that not all publicity is good publicity), the latter strategy has real merits for becoming an “important” scientist without having to do any real work.
I see Kotkin the same way. Why be one of the 12,000 urban scholars who agree that infill is a good idea when you can stand up for suburbs which, btw, are in general growing and many doing fine without you? Deploy finger guns here.
Normally, I can stand this stuff. Even relatively superficial contrarianism like Kotkin’s “if a New Urbanist says one thing I’ll say the opposite” strategy can help us think more rigorously if good critical scholars pull apart the trolling and see what kind of weaknesses there are in things around which a consensus has formed. I’ve generally told people to hold their fire, don’t get too wound up, the noisy world of pundits is full of fluff, and the more attention you pay to dumb stuff, the bigger platform you give it. And there’s always work to be done empircally examining various claims among the dominant paradigmers and the contratrians.
Kotkin’s recent garbage essay in the Daily Beast, is, however, a bridge too far. And I’m not linking to it because not today, clickbaiters. Here, Kotkin wants us to understand the American, European, etc baby factories (aka women) are a problem, speaking just demographically, natch, except among those EN-VI-RO-mentalists who see procreation as a practically a sin. Why, employers gotta scramble for labor! And of course immigration isn’t an answer because those people are all uneducated and poor and competition for US’s own uneducated and poor people. They aren’t sending us their best! Instead, baby factories should flip to “on.”
Kotkin just keeps repeating this “immigrants can’t be the answer, it must be the baby factories” claim over and over and over in this painfully long exercise in bad thinking. Why is immigration just an impossible way to have young laborers join an economy? Wait for it: “immigration upsets people.”
Gee, the rest of us hadn’t noticed that, Joel. Thanks.
This is the level of insight it takes to be “important”? This is rewarmed 1980s demographic thinking and FoxNews-level xenophobia provided a gentler intellectual cover. Stahhhhhhp. No wonder the rest of us are fed to the teeth with old dudes telling us how great they are when this is the game they bring. We’re bored.
My student Herri Gulabani (email@example.com) and I nerded out during class the day that the Mueller Report dropped. Herry basically used a set of scripts that I gave them earlier in the semester for analyzing tweets about bike subscription services in New York and Minneapolis. I’m putting us both as creators because of that, and because I want to be able to make sure that I get the pushback in case any of Donal Trump’s fascist followers decide to make an issue of it at USC.
Here are probably the most informative graphics (and my personal favorite) from Herry’s exercise:
First off, a note: I will be maintaining this blog and social media accounts to some degree, but I am no longer responding or engaging to comments. I will use social media primarily for promoting books, the podcast, and my students.
I’ve been reading Robert Caro’s little book called Working, and as virtually all my close friends know, I am a sucker for writing process books, and this one is often really delightful. I have a longstanding dispute with Robert Caro over his paragraphing–he lets them go on entirely long. I get that his watchword patience, but good paragraphing can still let you go on as long as you like.
Reading this book has been lots of fun, not only because I have a fondness for Caro, but because his attitudes about so many things reflect my own: it boils down to, look if I could have written dozens of books quickly, I would have done that, but I couldn’t. I wrote and researched the only way that felt right to me.
Bless his heart for saying it out loud. For everybody looking at tenure track professors and financially successful authors, it’s easy to treat that statement as so much privilege. Perhaps it is. But perhaps it’s also actually true. I spent my early years on the tenure track, and before that, as a consultant, playing the game, and while I did it, I wasn’t all that good at it, and it hollowed me out and made me sick. I was really, really unsuited to the 8 to 7 world of a regular consulting gig; I can’t work around other people. That job finally drove me to a breakdown. This is one reason why now that I have tenure and full I spend a lot of time and energy standing against unreasonable expectations for productivity and adjunct exploitation.
Since the PR stuff around Caro’s book came out, there has been quite a bit of criticism about how his process reflects his privilege, and while it is true, it’s probably best to remember that a whole damn bunch of us who look like we’re sitting on top of the world weren’t born there and sacrificed a lot to get there.
There has also been a lot of speculating about how much Caro acknowledges his wife’s contributions and sacrifices, and if you are worried about Robert being grateful to Ina, don’t be. In this book, she is front and center, and it seems they are like Plato’s two halves made whole. She’s his lobster, and he hers. (He’s always talked about her extensively in his acknowledgments, too, but most people don’t read those unless they are looking for themselves or hopelessly nosy like me.)
Here’s Caro on how both he and Ina sacrificed and paid dues for the Power Broker:
When I was a reporter I blamed this feeling on the deadlines. I just hated having to write a story while there were still questions I wanted to ask or documents I wanted to look at. But when I turned to writing books, the deadlines were no longer at the end of a day, or a week, or, occasionally if you were lucky in journalism, a month. They were years away. But there were deadlines: the publisher’s delivery dates. And there was another constraint: money—money to live on while I was doing the research.* But the hard truth was that for me neither of these constraints could stand before the force of this other thing. It wasn’t that I was cavalier about deadlines. As it happens, I was lucky enough to have a publisher who never mentioned them to me, but they loomed in my mind nonetheless, as I missed them by months and then by years. * And I hated being broke, having to worry about money all the time. (I didn’t know the half of it. It wasn’t until, in 1974, when, after I had been working on the book for seven years, The New Yorker bought four excerpts from The Power Broker that my wife, Ina, said “Now I can go to the dry cleaners again.” I hadn’t realized—because she had never told me—that we had been unable to pay the bills at our local dry cleaners (or, I later learned, butcher shop) for so long that she had been doing her shopping in a more distant shopping area. (As years earlier, we had moved to an apartment in Spuyten Duyvil in the Bronx after I came home one day to the house on Long Island that Ina loved, at a complete loss as to how to go on without a regular paycheck, to find her standing in the driveway to tell me, “We sold the house today.”
*See any of these spots for a paragraph break, friends. Would that be so much to ask?
Yes, certainly, lots of young writers don’t have a Princeton education and lots of young journalists never get a house to sell for their books, but the idea that this was all sunshine and roses it’s very accurate either. I’m for the idea that spouses who contribute as much as Ina did deserve authorship, it dishonors her considerable agency and commitment to the work–not just to Caro, to the work–to act like she was a long-suffering spouse who had no choice in how her life rolled out. One reason why the Caros took time over the stories they told was, simply, that they wanted to give proper time and attention to the people that nobody else paid any time or attention to.
Ina’s contributions become particularly important when getting information to precisely to the of the Texas Hill country:
And, of course, as Ina became friends with them, they told her intimate details they at they would never have told me: about the perineal tears, caused by childbirth without proper medical care, which seemed to be common in the Hill Country. (And indeed were: I was looking up federal statistics and studies from the New Deal days all the time now, and one study by a team of gynecologists had found that out of 275 Hill Country women, 158 had perineal tears, many of them third degree “tears so bad that it is difficult to see how they could stand on their feet.”) And yet, Ina would tell me, her eyes brimming, how these women had told her they had no choice but to stand on their feet and do the chores; with their husbands working from “dark to dark” (…) there was no one else to do them. I recall many moments of revelation like that; as I say, I hope to write about more them someday.* When Ina said to me one evening with real anger in her voice, “I don’t ever want to see another John Wayne movie again,” I knew exactly what she meant. So many of the women in western movies were simply the background figures standing at stoves or pleading with their husbands not to go out to a gunfight. You hear a lot about the gunfights in westerns; you don’t hear so much about hauling up the water after a perineal tear.
*DITTO WITH THE PARAGRAPH BREAK.
It’s certainly not a radical critique, it’s not a revolutionary insight or marriage, but Ina Caro was essential to it all, and it’s pretty clear that Robert Caro was the public face of a working partnership that suited her pretty well even if she didn’t receive the public acknowledgment she should have.
I was wittering about on Twitter yesterday, and somebody’s comment caught my eye, and then in the way of Twitter, it disappeared down my timeline, and I lost it. But the pith was: “it’s time just to get rid of the term “public service” because politicians are all about the money and feathering their own nests.
I certainly understand the cynicism, as it has been the prevailing sentiment about politics and, to no small degree, government employees, throughout my lifetime. I grew up in a family where working in government or politics meant serving your neighbors. Throughout the US, leaders in small towns do such public service every day with very little hope of lining their own pockets on part-time salaries. When I stepped into what became my adult world, that was so not the sentiment. “Why do you want a degree to get the a….government job?” sneered one MBA after another. Politics was crooked and lame, instead of the necessary, if often messy and difficult but potentially honorable work of sorting out collective futures for shared lives. It was the purview of losers who couldn’t hack it in the private sector, marked by lower salaries and “union protection” instead of the raw talent private sector firms thrived on according to its own mythologies. No matter what size it really is, the government is too “too big” (ever notice how nobody is ever asked what the right size of government is? It’s just always “too big” no matter what size it is.)
Donald Trump is, for me, the final, unfortunately logical, outcome of the folksy Reagen revolution where people decided that the world was simple, there was good and evil, and the simple facts are the private enterprise (both business and philanthropy) was good and government, especially the welfare state, was terrible. That government had only two real missions that boiled down to one: 1) ensuring social (read racial and class) order so that 2) the wheels of business could turn and make everybody (supposedly) richer. Democrats joined Republicans in supporting mass incarceration and one war after another, ensuring our own impoverishment through our lack of investment in our own young.
And so now we have government-by-grifters, whose fans love, rather than deplore, the naked exercise of state power by a petulant strongman they think will hate and punish all the same people they do. Gramsci, fascism, etc, and the rest of us befuddled by a man so entirely without any public ethics besides “Me first” that it has laid bare just how much of our executive leadership has been regulated by the honor and self-control of prior leaders, now utterly absent in the ones we have in men like Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell (who just got his Russian pork for helping get Russian mobster Oleg Deripaska out of sanctions; the emerging global world order is now a visible crime state, and while horray for workers in Kentucky, is this really what we are doing now? Really? )
If we ever get rid of our grifter-in-chief, whither the institutions he has so degraded? I’m seeing that question everywhere, and I don’t know what to do with it. Do we attempt to regulate the presidency so that we no longer rely on norms and expectations about the prudential use of power, or do we re-commit to judging our leaders based on precisely those virtues? And, in turn, do we re-commit to expecting it—and honoring it—in all our representatives, as well as in the people who work in our institutions day by day? Americans seem so utterly ungrateful to other people, from teachers to janitors in our public buildings, that I am not sure I can ever envision us doing right by them anymore.
I’m not fool enough to believe in a prelapsarian where government and politics were all shiny and truly democratic or representative. The US government has been hamstrung since the beginning by bargains struck to immiserate slaves and indigenous people for order and power for European settlers and subsequent generations of white people.
But I do very much worry about who steps into the power vacuum left once government work and politics becomes so hopelessly stigmatized as the purview of the rotten and hopelessly self-interested because it strikes me as a self-fulfilling prophecy. And we don’t want those people in charge.
I can also see the value of just getting rid of the pretense, if that is all it is, that people can behave virtuously in the exercise of power and, simple as that, put in so many limits and accountability checks that people who hold the reigns on state power don’t go to the bathroom without sunshine laws and effective oversight making sure it’s legit.
In the universe of feminist pedagogy, I support approaches that de-center mentors in favor of prioritizing students and junior faculty. The decks are so stacked for the tenured faculty vis-a-vis more junior people that you have to think about mentoring here as an exercise of using power ethically. Groveling for whatever crumbs you get thrown from the great I Am is bad for both student and mentor (who is trading a real, gratifying relationship for cheap power trips).
That said, I’ve been encountering a lot of drive-by Twitter proclamations that dictate what your students are entitled to and how you are scumbag, unprofessional faculty member if you don’t do them. I recently found a very snippy Tweet about not answering emails in a timely manner, about how that’s “unprofessional” and students deserve better.
I am guilty of this one. In my defense, I get 100+ emails a day, and those are not spam. I try to get the ones from students as fast as I can, but I try to limit the hours I spend on email, and I have to admit, sometimes I put it off.
What struck me about the tweet was the tone. Now, Twitter is what it is, and nobody needs me to tone police, but I also kinda wondered about all of it: so many of these smell of a) faculty sending out “how you should be” messages that are essentially virtue signaling that these actions are the Right Way To Care About Students because they do them that way and b) projected anger from graduate students who feel like their needs aren’t being met and can’t direct that anger safely at the faculty who aren’t helping them. Neither are all bad, but neither are exactly speaking to truth to power in the manner I suspect their authors think.
To wit: no, I often don’t answer emails right away. But my students–all of them, including my undergrads–have my cell phone number. If a student needs something, they can call or text. If they prefer not to do those, then I hold between 8 to 10 office hours a week. If they don’t want to do these, then I guess they have to wait until I get my lazy ass around to answering emails, which is usually about once a week, on Friday afternoons. Sorry. A better person would think about student needs 24/7, but I got old and sick and couldn’t do that anymore. Does it help that I feel guilty?
I think all this is reasonable. I am sorry that I am not great at emails, but I’m not, and I’m pretty damn stretched most of the time. And moreover, I am not willing to accept “professional” as the behavioral standard I am expected to work to. “Professional” has always been a way to reinforce hierarchies in my experience, and I find the fetishization of the concept in the academy to be a worry. My university–like most–are puh-lenty corporate and willing to treat students like customers and me like retail salesperson vending shirts (btw, I don’t’ think retail salespeople should be expected to endure the emotional abuse of being happy clappy all the time, either.)
Too much of this “customer”/professional business reduces everything about my relationships with students. If we want to be nasty about it, ‘professional’ may mean you as a student are entitled to a timely email response to class-related questions, but then I get to kick you out of my office if you start telling me about your life if it doesn’t strictly pertain to the class? Your hopes and dreams? Screw that, I’m not a guidance counselor, and every second I spend with you smiling and nodding and supporting is a second out of my hide. I could be researching or relaxing.
I don’t listen to hopes and dreams or, conversely, dreads and worries because it’s my *professional role.” I do it because it’s what I think the old owe the young in payback for all the ways we were supported when we were young and trying to get where we were going when we were coming up. It’s human, not professional per se. I do it for students because I happen to be in a university, but I also listen to people on the bus and at the farmer’s market, and lots of other places because it’s good to support aspirations.
I do this not because it’s my job but honestly, out of gratitude to professors like Professor Jackson at the University of Iowa who listened to my prattle when I was 18 and wanted to be a classics professor. There strikes me as a great deal about being a mentor that is about paying back by paying forward. I will never, ever be able to repay Randy Crane for the faith he demonstrated in me as a wounded, fucked-up, social disaster of a PhD student. So I did my best by trying to be a credit to him, saying thank you (awkward though it was for both of us), and doing for younger people what he so sweetly did for me. Was he perfect? Nope. Am I blind to his flaws? Nope. But he saw all my flaws and stood with me anyway. And to me, that’s about as good as anything gets, ever. Ever.
It leaves me wondering about what all this “hey tenured professor shithead, do your job and attend to us with less power” stuff does to gratitude. Nobless obliges stinks, but I have to say, ingratitude stinks, too. Maybe institutions that run off noblesse oblige poison things like gratitude. But for me, I feel better in all this call-out culture of progressivism being grateful, too, even as we demand better from people who have power. At some point, we are all just limited, broken things making out way in the world, and gratitude and grace strike me as pretty important in all this.
Note: I should probably add that if you haven’t been a student of mine, you don’t get to have opinions on how I treat students.
Our Bedrosian club podcast recently discussed Unkindness of Ghosts by Rivers Solomon. At the beginning of the podcast, I misgender Soloman until about partway through when it finally occurs to me to ask what their preferences are! After that I do ok (not great, but ok). One listener has suggested that we go back and re-edit, but we really don’t know how to do that properly, I’m sorry to report. It’s a good suggestion, but our skills are not there yet.
This misgendering is particularly annoying of me because the novel so masterfully renders nonbinary genders in multiple, enlightening ways. On top of it, I misgendered the novel’s protagonist. Gah, Schweitzer. It’s particularly annoying because I’m the podcast host, and I should have done better leading everybody to proper representation.
I have two defenses neither of which are any good. About misgendering the protagonist…ahhhhh this character is so wonderful and brave, and I identified with and wanted to be like them so much, that I started imposing my identity on them. It’s one of the most soothing things to me about fiction, being able to find role models that are missing in my life. But it’s also not cool. Trans, nonbinary, and queer folk deserve their own representations without me doing that stuff on podcasts instead of just in my head working through my own issues.
The second defense isn’t much better. I’m pushing 50 now, and it’s hard to break gendered speech habits you’ve had for that long. It’s *annoyingly hard* because it’s not just affecting my ability to re-script hurtful patterns of speech, it makes it hard to acquire new language skills, like Arabic, that I am learning. I’m trying to reprogram my brain to use gender neutrals, and I succeed sometimes, but I am still not doing it right with consistency. I will do better.
Please still do listen to the podcast despite my bad leadership this time out, and please DO get yourself a copy of Unkindness of Ghosts by Rivers Solomon. They are an astounding talent and their work deserves all the attention it can get. Listen to the podcast *after* you read, as in addition to my incompetence, we do tons of spoilers and this isn’t a novel where you want to know any plot twists ahead of time.
All of us regulars at the podcast support gender and race inclusive feminism. We want every single soul safe from violence and oppression and free to be themselves. I regret I didn’t help out as much as I should have this time out.
My last open letter upset some people, and I don’t understand why, really. But it’s worth writing about since there was a mix of genuinely good questions and some of this nonsense right here:
I’ll write about the ones that strike me as legit questions.
Maybe students resent me because I’m implying that I don’t have any power when as a faculty member with tenure, I do have power.
I have no idea where that conclusion comes from based on the actual open letter I wrote. To some degree, the letter had a tone of “Welp, damn, what are you going to do?” since there is not really all that much most of us here at USC can do ex poste after various wrongs have been committed, and the media shitstorm exploded. I suspect this feeling of some powerlessness is pretty common to those of us who have tried to push USC upward and onward only to look down to find ourselves, like Wiley E. Coyote, over yet another cliff edge we did not see. We have to find a way to rebuild. Excuse our construction mess, I guess.
As to whether I think I’m powerless, please. This comment came from a student who has never gotten to know me in class, so I should be patient, but I find I am not in the bloody mood. Over the course of my time here, I have joined and started one struggle after another to try to help and protect students, adjuncts, burgeoning unions, and young faculty. I have been doing this for 13 years, and while I normally find student idealism wonderful, this time the whole “you have power” answer just annoys me. What, ya think I’ve just been watching tv over here all this time until you showed up to remind me of my power? I’m not out of the fight, I just have a black eye and need stitches in my lip, thanks.
I also think it’s important for people to stop romanticizing the power that tenure track faculty have. We have some power, and in many instances. liek my own, quite a bit of privilege, but let’s not act like labor precarity doesn’t affect the tenure track.
A little story about all my power: one of the wonderful African American students in my undergrad class wanted to do our progressive degree program. I wrote her a letter, raved about her to anybody who listened, and sure enough, one day she hugged me and told me she was in. I was elated. Then our chair slunk into my office and said the central uni had nixed her acceptance. Her GPA “didn’t meet standards.” I protested vigorously. I was told, that there was no point in appealing because, as pencil-pushing administrator said, “We have standards.” I told her I would support her appeal, but as white supremacist institutions do to students of color, she got too discouraged to try.**
I was pissed as hell at the time, but then two months later I get to read in the LA Times that USC admits people in if they photoshop their picture into stock sports photos and slip in a check.
STANDARDS YOU SAY? We’ve got standards? No, we only have standards when it comes to me, a faculty member in the damn university, saying that I believed a student could do the work after having some froshie-year struggles with grades. When it comes to people writing checks here and there, turns out, our standards are quite flexible, except when it comes to how many zeroes need to be on the checks.
If you can’t understand why I am feeling a bit powerless and quite a bit pissed off after that anecdote, then this is the wrong blog for you. Maybe go read something else.
It’s hypocritical to complain about USC while enjoy its elite institutional perks/ go work at a Cal State or community college.
2. It’s hypocritical to complain about USC while enjoying its elite institutional perks. Why stay at USC just to complain about it?
This one is a good question, and it hits home, or else it would if I had just not spent 13 years at USC torturing myself (and sometimes, my students) with the same question. The reasons are manifold, but one has been simple ego: I’ve been told my entire life that I’m not good enough or smart enough to be anywhere, and my getting tenure and full professor at USC–on my terms, without kowtowing or failing to speak out when I felt like somebody needed to–has been my little fuck-you to every elementary school teacher/ guidance school counselor/shitty high school French teacher/brother who told me I “wasn’t good/smart enough” to be a college professor at all, let alone be one at a private university drunk on it own sense of self-importance.
The other reason is simply that I think I do good at USC, despite it all. Even though plenty of people think USC is only rich kids on yachts, it’s not. We have first gen students here who live in their cars and work one job after another to stay in school, and while perhaps they might be better off at a less expensive school, they chose here. The research on elite schools shows that yep, they are status-quo maintaining for kids who come from privilege, but for those who do not come from privilege, the increment in social mobility that comes from going to an elite school can be substantial.
That’s why I stay. I stay to be comfort and support to the students for whom USC is not designed. I stay to try to keep them there, to try to find money for them, to help them find opportunities, and to help them understand the WASPy mores and norms of rich white people are crazy. And that they themselves are not crazy for not fitting into those norms because those were designed to keep people like us out. I stay to try to help them get what they came for. They deserve that support.
I also stay to try to influence the children of privilege to see it. If you have not had the jolly time of trying to teach about race, class, and gender among highly privileged people, you have no idea the blowback. You really don’t. But it’s worth hanging in. Maybe someday it won’t be. But for right now, it is.
3. People at USC aren’t “unbelievably hard-working.” They don’t work any harder than anybody at the Cal States.
Again, why this turn of phrase set anybody off is beyond me. It would be one thing if I had written: “people at USC work unbelievably hard, unlike those lazy, good-for-nothing yoinks at other schools like the Cal States.” Then I could see getting pissy. As it is, I think most people’s money comes hard, and I have never been anything other than very supportive of the Cal State system–or our exemplary community colleges. I believe in education, whether it’s learning art history at a snooty uni like USC or learning how to plumb from a trade tech. Learning, if done for good reasons, is a virtue, and it is often very difficult.
As it is, all I really wanted to express in the entire essay, and in that passage specifically, was that I appreciate how hard everybody at USC seems to work, and that it kinda sucks that our administrators *manage* rather than *lead*. Both are necessary. We’ve had an abundance of management. We’ve had precious little leadership to help us get past feeling bad about all the rotten things that have gone on under our noses while we were chasing the road runner of rankings and funding we were told to. I think lots of us need a sense of mission. I stand by that point.
In sum, some of y’all aren’t listening like planners. Because if you were listening like planners, you’d understand: I’m so pissed about all the scandals because I believe in this place and its potential to transform students’ lives.
I am not an academic free agent looking to optimize my salary, where one place is as good as another. As USC tenured and promoted me, warts and all, it has invested in me and I in it, warts and all. Period. Perhaps all that should be different, but it isn’t, not in my heart. Trust me, I would *love* to be the ideal neoliberal academic, getting offers from one place after another, and extracting what I can from one place and moving to another, dangling my titles and paychecks for one and all. I have as much petty ego and cupidity as the next person. But I’m not that person, mores the pity. I like roots more than I like prestige.
**I hope she goes to UCLA and wins a MacArthur Genius award and a Nobel Prize in something and responds to media questions with “Neener neener USC you suck.”
I feel like I’m getting into pompous David Brooks territory with these various open letters that I have been writing, but I am so heartsore this morning after the terrorism in New Zealand, the loss of a young Thornton student to gun violence, and the latest USC crime against higher education that I need somebody to cheerlead me.
Since all our obscenely overcompensated leaders can’t seem to do anything for us besides send out frantic ass-covering emails, some leadership is in order. You’re stuck with me for this leadership since our real “leaders” are apparently pencil pushers who don’t have enough decency to write to us with the humanity and care we deserve other than to pelt us with emails about how wonderfully they are managing this brand-new public humiliation.
To all of us decent, unbelievably hard-working cogs in the USC machine who haven’t absconded with millions, taken pay-for-admissions, or sexually victimized any of the young people in our care, thank you.
We’re awesome, ya know?
We keep working, especially all the staff and the contract laborers who help the students figure out their financial aid, counsel them, scurry after self-important administrators, and keep this place beautifully maintained with incredible on-campus dining (even if the prices are shocking). USC is amazing in no small part because our staff and services personnel are so professional, friendly, and *competent*.
The screw-ups of those at the top who have ridden off into the sunset with their lovely homes and million-dollar bonuses make all our work invisible to everybody outside the university. We are left to cope with grant foundations who want us to re-earn their trust even though we ourselves did nothing to break it. We are left with students who resent us because our leaders have so degraded the value of their degrees and their athletic achievements with one scandal after another. We deal with snotty jokes about USC isn’t worth bribing your way into, or the moniker “University of Spoiled Children.”
To all of us who have worked this whole time through one unforgivable revelation after another, I salute us. We deserve better. We always have. I wish, when we show up on Monday, we would all at least receive a thank-you from our provosts and our deans and our trustees for hanging tough to make this place work, but that would require them to think about somebody besides themselves.
I don’t think USC is structurally capable of having leaders that think about other people first. That’s why it’s so broken and why it’s been so damn broken for so long that this backlog of scandals will keep Times reporters in content for the next decade or so.
Instead of the raises and combat pay and thank you we deserve, the admin wants a 5 percent cut. It’ll come from our hides, not theirs. It always does. It never doesn’t. The $6billion we killed ourselves to get was for vanity projects, not faculty, staff, or the students.
So here’s to us, friends and colleagues. Here’s to us. I’m proud of us even if our love and care for the institution and the students go otherwise unappreciated. Again, here’s to us, and to hell with them.
It’s a truth universally acknowledged that manels and whanels are bad ideas. As one of my favorite colleagues, LaVonna Lewis, says: “You can’t be it if you don’t see it.” Representation matters so much, and in general, I support this line of thinking a great deal.
The problem is that no manels and whanels make a lot of work for people of color and those of us in skirts, and while it’s good to be highlighted and featured during conference presentations, some of this stuff is just straight-up scut service work that does jack to raise your salary.
I have rather unfortunately overscheduled myself a little bit in March and April, largely to prove to myself that I can still do the job I’m getting paid to do, illness and all, and one of these situations came up. One of my very favorite people asked me to do something for a USC student conference: be a moderator.
Now, I remember student conferences and how fun they can be for the students, and it’s very nice to get to know students from all over, not just your own, and what they are working on, as they are usually on the cutting edge of things. And again, one of my favorite people asked. So I said, “sure.”
THEN I get the agenda for the day, and there is a keynote speaker. It’s a white dude. It’s the same white dude that gives the keynote at every single everything and has since I was going to student conferences myself 400 years ago. White dudes always seem to be “keynoting” here and there and everywhere, which is one of the reasons why I hate the word, other than my general dislike of adjectives used as verbs, and the self-important way dudes always say “I’m keynoting at this upcoming thing.”
Now, in reality, this gig is a very nice thing for this gentleman to do. He’s a very accomplished scholar, and by all accounts, he’s wonderful to and with students. He’s a genuinely good man from everything I have ever known.
BUT: WHY THE ACTUAL FECK AM I ALWAYS GOOD ENOUGH TO MODERATE BUT NEVER GOOD ENOUGH TO DO THE KEYNOTE IN MY OWN FECKING HOUSE? WHY AM I ALWAYS ASK TO DO HOUSEKEEPING BUT NOT THE CENTER ROLE?
And to myself: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO DO YOURSELF OUT OF A DAY’S WRITING TO DO NICE SERVICE WORK FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT APPRECIATE YOU ENOUGH TO LET YOU STAND IN A SPOTLIGHT?
Part of this, I am pretty sure, is a Baby Boomer-Gen X thing. The guy has been around a long time, and Gen Xers like me in planning, like lots of fields, have been squeezed into some nonexistence by the fact that many urban planning departments started up with a big set of hires in the 70s and 80s, guaranteeing Boomer scholars a long time to dominate. Meanwhile, those of us who have come after have been a bit like Prince Charles, keen to do our bit but never really being wanted or needed since we already had Boomer Scholarz! Boomer Star Scholarz galore!
In reality, I am a full professor at an elite university (God don’t even get me started on the cheating crap from yesterday; it’s all so gross), so all of this is just so much whining. But part of me is outraged because I think this tendency to ask me to participate but not dominate is the desire to avoid manels AND elevated women’s voices. And that pisses me off.
It could also be because I’m not a very good public speaker. But I feel like I’ve done some good ones.
Or maybe it’s all just my bruised ego.
Maybe I’ll just say no to everything from here on out and fully commit to my life as a grumpy old hermit.