Ravitch: An Awesome Display
Last night, courtesy of my loving and gracious spouse, I was allowed an unusual reprieve from the family bedtime routines to travel to Normal, IL, to attend a lecture by education historian and public intellectual Diane Ravitch. So, with Andrew Hartman and Richard Hughes, I listened to Ravitch eviscerate NCLB, Arne Duncan, the anti-teachers union movement, voucher programs, “school choice,” charter schools, high-stakes testing, Michelle Rhee, “teacher accountability” assessments, and phony teacher merit-pay schemes. Although the message was indeed polemical, Ravitch—in a first-rate exhibition of historical thinking—cited boatloads of studies to build a narrative of recent history contrary to that given by prominent anti-public school advocates. All in all, it was an awesome display.
I haven’t watched this video Ravitch giving a similar lecture, but, since it is from this past January it’s probably similar. That said, last night Ravitch incorporated evidence and studies released only within the past few weeks. She’s on top of things. – TL
The Catholic Vote And The Catholic Intellectual Tradition
Topic: Santorum Fails to Capture Catholic Vote.
Prediction: Santorum and the Catholic Right will blame this on “uncatechized” Catholics—that they have not been properly educated in the Catholic intellectual tradition. But this article misses the point as much as they do. What they and the article’s author fail to realize is that very same tradition inspires and supports different means (i.e. politics as the art of the practical) to many of the same ends that the Catholic Right espouses (e.g. pro-life, subsidiarity, fidelity to authority, dedication to family, communitarian values, bringing faith to the public square, etc.). There’s more than one way to work against the negative aspects of liberalism, secularism, and modernity.
The adjunct problem is every professor's problem.
While this piece from the NYT‘s business section is designed for any worker, it should have special relevance for academics:
These are the kinds of comments I hear in my work as a consultant:
• “I’m overwhelmed, and with all the changes going on here, it’s getting worse. There aren’t enough hours in the day to do my job.”
The Militarization Of Citizenship
A week or so ago I was venting, in a vague way, on Facebook about one of my classes. As a former student advisor, I’m sensitive to FERPA and always avoid any information that could be linked to a particular student. But teaching can be a frustrating profession, especially when you’re doing it right—even on good days. So classroom leaders occasionally need to let off some steam. Since the status update generated 47 comments, clearly a number of friends either share my concerns or were engaged by the topics.
I’ll leave the bulk of the post for Facebook (safely restricted, ensconced in privacy controls). I will, however, offer this: as the discussion of my status update evolved, several comments addressed the topic of citizenship and democracy. A number of problematic things were offered by one particular “friend” (of a friend), but one comment in particular caught my attention:
“As for your collective love of of what you consider democracy, I can only shrug and watch it play out. I personally would consider myself more of a ‘citizen’ than a great many people (arrogant, perhaps, but I believe mandated service should be requisite along the path to obtain citizenship); I took it upon myself to make the safety and security of my fellow people my personal responsibility by placing myself in harms way, rather than pontificating about what a citizen should or shouldn’t be from the secure comfort of the ivory tower and a position of privilege as a professor.”
There are four points of concern: (1) the indifference and casualness about the love of democracy; (2) mandated service for citizenship; (3) the prioritization of placing one’s self “in harms way” as the apotheosis of citizenship; (4) the notion that the only thing professors do is “pontificate” about what citizens should or should not do, or be.
I won’t address (4) directly, letting it go to snark. And I don’t necessarily have a major problem with (2), provided there are caveats about age and ability. As for (1), well, I weep for anyone who views democracy as a spectator sport. That sentiment makes me profoundly sad. My primary concern today is (3), which actually has reverberations for (1) and (4).
My USIH colleague Ray Haberski has addressed the sanctification of service and “the troops” many, many, many times. Ray is addressing how the militarization of citizenship has evolved over the second half of the twentieth century.
But the comment from my “friend” was the most explicit, and nearest, encounter I’ve had with the deification of military service as the new ideal for democratic citizenship. If that is the epitome of citizenship, what of civil dialogue? And how will we ever solve the problem of compromise? How has compromise, to quote U2′s Bono, become a “dirty word”?*
I say this knowing that the militarization of citizenship is not a new phenomenon. Most U.S. presidents have had some kind of military experience. And exceptions, recently with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, have been negatively viewed by a significant portion of the electorate. Thankfully it has not prevented them from obtaining our highest office.
Even so, the military ideal is a dangerous one. It elevates bloodshed and war to the highest circles of admiration. This must be challenged somehow, and education institutions are safe grounds for considering alternative high ideals. With that, there is nothing wrong with teaching and researching citizenship in higher education. Indeed, unless one truly feels that democracy should be relegated to the realm of casual spectator sport, all of our institutions of learning should address the nature and meaning of citizenship. Otherwise it only takes a generation, or less, to lose the institutions we value. – TL
———————————-
* Bono inserted this into an extended version of “Sunday Bloody Sunday” during a 2001 performance at Slane Castle in County Meath, Ireland.
The Answer Is No, Sadly
J. Bryan Lowder asks the following in the headline of her/his latest contribution at Slate (its XX Factor blog, actually): “Has Rush Limbaugh Finally Gone Too Far in Slut-Shaming Sandra Fluke?”
Sadly, the answer is most likely no. There are two reasons for this.
First, Lowder speculates that the loss of money via advertising withdrawals may help clean up Limbaugh’s act. But the truth is that he’s monetarily secure. He could reimburse his employer (Clear Channel) for the losses.* The most probable scenario, however, is that Limbaugh or his lawyer/s incorporated clauses into his contract that account for these kinds of eventualities.
Second, Lowder actually provides a path toward a negative answer in his column. When Limbaugh speaks like this it reminds his core audience, and more importantly those who may have drifted from his broadcasts, that they like the edginess of his “contrarian analysis.” So, paradoxically, Limbaugh’s radio program most likely expands his core a bit when he does this—gains audience. I’ll bet his listener ratings go up, and therefore the ad revenue increases in the medium term.
What say you? What will bring about Limbaugh’s demise? I think that only death or voluntarily retirement will end his reign of crassness, illogic, and selfishness. – TL
————————————–
* The best source of information on Rush is, believe it or not, his Wikipedia page. I discovered this several years ago in researching an encyclopedia article on Limbaugh and his radio show.
A Taxonomy Of Insults
It’s good to get this somewhat cleared up. …I agree that the term is most often applied to men who are jerks. I’m not sure, however, that I’ve never heard a woman called a douche or a douchebag. If douche is most often a stronger synonym for jerk, then perhaps the question is whether we call women “jerks”? If not, why? What are the parallel terms for women? – TL
I Despise/Admire Their Honesty
From this job posting (bolds mine):
————————————————
Job Summary: Lecturer in History, starting fall semester 2012. Provide excellent customer service.
Job Responsibilities: Candidate will teach HIST 1301 and HIST 1302, Texas A&M University -Kingsville’s U.S. History undergraduate surveys. Teaching load will be five classes per semester.
————————————————
Here’s how I read this: Please your students or else. Excellence, assessment, and scholarship are secondary here. We are a third-rate institution that depends on tuition for our survival.
Sweet. – TL
