Backsliding…

Oh, I’m a bad bad person…

Back on January 10, I said my goal was to lose 15 pounds by my birthday, which is March 25. I’m beginning to think that that ain’t gonna happen because, as of today (depending on the extent to which I want to believe my quasi-psycho scale), I have about another 12.5 pounds to go. I was doing pretty well, but then there was some unauthorized snacking. Not a lot, but Tuesday was “Fat Tuesday” or Paczki Day as they say around here (but I just had one, not like seven or something) and I had a bit too much chocolate on Wednesday because, as is my tradition, I went and got myself a treat after the mean dental lady finished cleaning my teeth.

The real killer has been the gym, or lack thereof. I’ve had something I have had to do for work every single day this week that interferes with my gym time, and because I have a conference I have to go to on Saturday, it looks like the weekend is pretty much out, too. And for the non-academics out there: just because I am not in my office on campus every day doesn’t mean I’m not working; it’s just that I tend to work (do most of my work, actually) at coffee shops, at home, very early in the morning, at night, etc.

Anyway, the result of this and the realities of the calendar make me think that making my -15 pound goal by March 25 is pretty unlikely, especially at the rate I’m going. Or not going.

But two good thoughts. First, I do think I have a reasonably good chance to get back to the weight I was at when we went to Hawaii last June. That would mean losing about another five pounds. Second (and this will be the case if I don’t lose any more weight at all), I’m still quite a bit lighter now than I was a year ago, maybe 10 or so pounds lighter. So I guess that’s good…

"Why won't they just LISTEN to me?!"

There’s an interesting article on The Chronicle web site, “Too Many Dissonant Notes,” by Alexander “his real name (I think)” Gelfand. Actually, I thought there were two interesting articles in this issue, but I’ll get to the second one in a bit.

This article follows the time-honored CHE pattern of these essays with an opening that “puts us in the scene:” Gelfand is in the process of throwing a couple female freshman out of class during a mid-term. Thus the tale of the troubled students begins.

But is it just the students? Hmmm….

Gelfand then talks about his own teaching experience, and here he perhaps reveals more about himself than he realizes:

“My previous teaching experience, and my own education, at a string of private high schools, elite liberal-arts colleges, and major research universities had shaped my assumptions about the respective responsibilities of professors and students.

“I was there to dispense information, to inculcate habits of critical thinking, and to serve as an all-knowing guide to the course material. My students were there to listen and absorb my generous gift of knowledge with an air of respectful gratitude. Or so I thought.”

Ah, okay…. I’m not quite sure what’s worse here, that Gelfand’s vision of higher education is defined entirely by his membership of the elite, or the fact that his concept of pedagogy is the problematic role of “sage on the stage.” Or, as I remember from an old bumper sticker, “Get in, sit down, shut up, hang on.”

In any event, Gelfand teaches now at what he describes as an “urban university” in Queens, NY. He spends a lot of time praising the diversity of the student body, which comes across to me a bit like the phrase “I’m not a racist, but…” Then he describes his students, who seem to me to be like a lot of the students at many different universities in this country, including EMU:

“Many students come from low-income households and work long hours to pay their tuition, commuting from home to class to work and back again. And many are the first in their families to attend a college or university.

“The culture gap across which we gaze at one another is particularly large when it comes to first-year students who have not yet been acculturated to a university setting, but it remains evident with more mature students, as well.”

Despite all this, Gelfand says he assumed (and here, I’m not sure if he is recognizing the problem of his assumption or not) that his students would simply buckle-down and work. And, for the most part, that’s what happened. But these two freshmen really seemed to get him:

“On a good day, they buried their heads in the wireless laptop computers the university had provided them, making their presence known only by the telltale sounds of instant messaging and e-mail notification. On a bad day, they laughed and chatted throughout my lectures and musical examples, distracting their classmates — not to mention their professor.

“I initially responded with an occasional “Ladies, please,” accompanied by a meaningful glance, hoping they’d eventually come around on their own — inspired, as it were, by the example of their fellow students, and by the sterling example I myself was setting as a scholar and teacher.”

Of course, these students aren’t completely innocent and probably should have been thrown out of that midterm. Actually, they probably should have been thrown out of class a whole lot earlier, and, in a way, Gelfand seems to have learned his lesson. But he seems bitter about it:

“Imposing iron discipline from the start, rather than getting tough late in the game, might have helped. But like many academics, I’m not particularly good at playing the heavy.

“Better yet, I might have taken the time to make explicit the implicit contract that most professors feel they have with their students, and clearly defining the consequences (grade penalties, dismissal, whatever) of breaking our shared compact. It’s a tactic I formerly used when teaching elementary school, but had dismissed as overkill at the college level.”

Actually, I think there a lot of other lessons here:

  • The behavior of these students during the midterm is not acceptable, but it isn’t surprising given Gelfand’s approach to “teaching.” I mean, if all Gelfand was doing was standing there and lecturing on and on, I probably would have spent my time during Gelfand’s class checking my email and surfing the web on my laptop, too.
  • Like Gelfand, professors tend to base their approach to teaching on some sort of rosy remembrance of what it was like to be a student. The problem is that most folks who have the dedication to become college professors were not typical undergraduate students. Gelfand (and many others, including me) might benefit by checking out an article in the “for pay” version of this issue of CHE which reviews five relatively new books on teaching and pedagogy in higher education. In the nutshell, this advice comes in a variety of shapes and forms from folks who have learned their lessons. Undoubtedly, many of these authors have had experiences like what Gelfand describes here. The difference is they decided to do something to change their approach to teaching.
  • The idea that students need to have clearly defined rules about what is and isn’t expected to them is not limited to the world of elementary school, and it isn’t just students who need to have these rules. I mean, faculty can’t get too grumpy about students not knowing what’s expected of them when they complain about the vague standards of tenure and promotion.
  • In my own experiences as a teacher and a happy academic, I have learned two things over the years, lessons I’d like to pass on to Professor Gelfand (if he’s interested).

    First, you have to start the semester by “imposing iron discipline from the start.” You can “lighten up” after the term gets going, but you can’t “tighten up” if you start the semester with loosey-goosey rules.

    Second, you can’t assume that first year students know anything about how college works. Gelfand wants to blame these students’ poor behavior on their lack of preparation for higher education, but I’ve had plenty of students with the “right” backgrounds (e.g., upper middle-class, college educated parents, good high schools, etc.) who were just clueless about the “rules” of college. I’ve had first year students completely baffled that this handout they received the first day (“what-cha-call-it, the, ah, silly-bus?”) was important enough to be read and keep for the whole semester. I’ve had first year students who were completely shocked when I rejected their “dog at my homework/my printer doesn’t work” excuse for not turning in an assignment. I’ve even had first year students stare at me with dropped-jaws when I answer their question about “extra credit” that there is no extra credit.

    Mind you, I don’t that makes these students dumb. They just don’t know any better.

Anyway, I understand Gelfand’s venting about his students– all teachers do that from time to time. I just hope he and his ilk realize that it isn’t just students at “urban universities” who behave like this, and I hope he realizes that there’s a pretty good chance that the “problem” here isn’t just the students.

Two more quick things about the whole Ward Churchill matter

* While surfing around today, I came across this post from Timothy “Easily Distracted” Burke. He makes a lot of good points, like this:

Churchill’s scholarly oeuvre is practically a guided tour of every trope of identity politics: polemical extensions of the concept of genocide into every possible institutional or social interaction between the colonized and colonizer, erasures of any historical or programmatic distinctions between colonizers in different eras or systems, reduction of all history and contemporary society into a sociologically and morally simple binary schema of colonizer and colonized (hence the remark that the people in the Twin Towers were “little Eichmanns” while Iraqis are literally infantilized into starving babies and nothing more), pervasive indictments of systems of representation, and aggressive assertions of exclusive cultural, moral, political and economic ownership of anything and everything connected with a particular identity group (Native Americans in this case).

Of course, if this polemic approach to identity politics in scholarship were grounds for dismissal from a tenure-track position, then there would be a lot of pretty famous and not so famous academics looking for work. And as polarizing as Churchill seems to be, that is not a reason to fire the guy for speaking his mind.

* Here’s a copy of an email I sent to the University of Colorado Board of regents:

Dear Colorado Board of Regents members:

I am writing for two reasons. First, I applaud the fact that you did not give into public pressure and “simply fire” Professor Ward Churchill because of the controversy surrounding his scholarship and speaking engagements. Second, as you follow your procedures and review Professor Churchill’s tenure at CU, I urge you to recognize that the concept of academic freedom and the system of tenure are designed to protect Churchill’s rights to pursue controversial ideas. To fire Churchill for saying disagreeable things would be completely at odds with this important ideal.

I don’t agree with the arguments that Professor Churchill presents in his now infamous essay “‘Some People Push Back’ On The Justice of Roosting Chickens.” However, I also think that this essay has been widely misread, and I think Churchill has clarified his position in a number of other statements, most of which have been ignored in the popular press.

But in my mind, the key issue here is not Churchill’s message, but rather the ideal of academic freedom and tenure. Simply put, the fact that Churchill published an essay that is disagreeable– or even “wrong”– is not grounds for his dismissal. As I am sure you are all aware, the point of tenure is to protect the free exchange of ideas, especially when those ideas are controversial and they incite such powerful reactions. This is because it is the exchange of ideas, controversial or not, that makes the concept of a university work. I realize that standing up for Churchill is problematic; but to not stand up for the principle of academic freedom endangers the future of academic thought itself.

This matter brings to mind another news story about free speech that was widely reported just a few days before the Churchill controversy became national news. According to a study John S. and James L Knight Foundation, high school students are woefully ignorant of the protections granted to all Americans by the first amendment. As reported in their press release, three-quarters of high school students thought flag burning was illegal, half believed that the government can censor the Internet, and a third of high school students surveyed thought that the protections of free speech outlined in the first amendment go “too far.”

There was widespread outrage at the ignorance of “today’s youth” regarding one of the fundamental principles and ideals of this country for well over 200 years, free speech. Yet, just a few days later, because Churchill exercised his rights to free speech, there were many calls Churchill’s dismissal in the media (which, of course, is protected by the first amendment) and even in the Colorado legislature (which, one would presume, is familiar with the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution). An even greater ignorance was demonstrated regarding the concept of tenure and academic freedom from all quarters.

My point here is it seems that it is not just high school students in the U.S. who are unaware or even “ignorant” of the concept of free speech.

In closing, I would like to suggest that this current situation gives you, members of the Colorado Board of Regents, a unique opportunity– a “teaching moment,” if you will. I urge you to uphold Churchill’s right to free speech and to honor his tenure and his rights to academic freedom. In doing so, you will have the chance to remind the citizens of Colorado and the U.S. about the importance of free speech, and you will have the opportunity to protect the ideals of academic freedom at both the University of Colorado and beyond.

Sincerely,

Steven D. Krause
Associate Professor, Department of English Language and Literature

Eastern Michigan University * Ypsilanti, MI 48197

http://krause.emich.edu

The threat of boobs loomed large at last week’s Superbowl…

I’m not much of a football fan (particularly pro football), so I didn’t watch much of the “big game.” I do recall catching an ad in the first part of the game for a company called GoDaddy.com (they provide web server space and domain names for cheap) that was kind of funny and a bit “risque.”

The ad featured an attractive model, who is wearing tight jeans and a tank-top shirt, talking to a “censorship committee” about what she can and can’t do in the upcoming GoDaddy.com ad for the Superbowl. In the course of telling and showing what she wants to do, the model has a slight “wardrobe malfunction:” the strap of her tank-top mysteriously breaks, and the model struggles to go on with her presentation while dealing with her shirt. You never actually see anything, but she does have to hold up her shirt, hide under the table, etc. You can see the “approved version” and the whole “uncensored” version of the ad here (be warned– a big download).

Kinda cute, kinda funny, and, IMO, pretty innocent. I mean, I’m not offended by a kind of sexy ad that is an obvious parody of last year’s Superbowl and the current “uptightness” about sex and TV, but I am offended by these beer ads that are some variation on the theme of “my wife/girlfriend is a bitch and isn’t that funny” that I see way too often.

Anyway, in the course of surfing around the ‘net last night, I came across this entry on “Hot Points,” the blog of Bob Parsons, who is the founder and president of GoDaddy.com. Let me quote what Parsons wrote there:

As you may have noticed our Super Bowl ad only appeared during the scheduled first quarter spot. It was scheduled to run also in the second ad position during the final two minute warning. Our ad never ran a second time. Instead, in its place, we saw an advertisement promoting, of all things, “The Simpsons.”

The NFL persuaded FOX to pull our ad.
We immediately contacted Fox to find out what happened. Here’s what we were told: After our first ad was aired, the NFL became upset and they, together with Fox, decided to pull the ad from running a second time. Because we purchased two spots, we were also entitled to a “Brought to you by GoDaddy.com” 5 second marquis spot. They also chose to pull the marquis spot.

Unbelievable. And then, of course, we get a halftime show from that unpredictable and oh-so-current performer, Paul McCartney.

We are living in very uptight times, aren’t we?

Mr. Blogger responds (sort of)

Loyal readers will recall that late last month, I posted about an email I sent to Blogger Headquarters feedback page suggesting that they change the software so that users can set up categories for posts. As I promised in that post, if I received a response, I would post it here.

So here’s the message I received this morning:

Hi there,

I’m afraid we don’t currently have a category feature. However, we are
constantly working on improving Blogger, so we will certainly keep this in
mind for the future. Thanks for the input, and thanks for using Blogger!

Sincerely,

Blogger Support


(Deep sigh.) Duh, I knew that! That’s why I asked! Maybe they really will roll that out in the future though.

Still, I doubt I’m going to make a big jump to something else anytime soon. This is one of those big “crunch times” of the year, where I have a ton of reading and prepping to do for my teaching, where I seem to have meeting after meeting to attend, and where I have literally four different scholarly projects just screaming at me to get done with them. I don’t have the time right now to tweak the CSS on this site, let alone learn something like wordpress or drupal or whatever. Maybe at the the end of the term….

A couple more Social Security Thoughts

I came across this colorful image on an academic blog I read regularly called vitia.org and it got me thinking about a couple of other social security things:

  • Bush and his evil minions are playing off the apathy of the youth, and by “youth,” I potentially mean people like me. In other words, they know that people of my generation and younger have this dismissive view of social security (e.g., “it won’t be around when I retire, so who cares?”), and that gives them their opportunity. They’re sneaky bastards, no doubt about it.
  • I heard an NPR story the other day, the day after the State of the Union address I think, where they were interviewing some guy in a bar, one of these kind of “man on the street” opinion pieces. This guy was all for privatization of social security because he wanted to get his hands on “my money.” In other words, this guy in the bar was under the impression that if social security were privatized, he would literally have the money he is paying as a tax right now in his pocket, and he could do what he wanted with it.

    It strikes me that this is a pretty common misperception about privatization. But the thing is no one is suggesting that. Bush et al have been pretty sneaky in not saying exactly what they’re proposing, but it has been made clear that if the money were to be put aside in a “personal” account, it would still be invested fairly conservatively. And I have to think that these guys in the bar who want “their money” aren’t going to be happy to hear about that.

  • Among other things I think I’ve learned in the talk about Social Security lately is that it isn’t in “crisis” in the sense of total collapse; privatization does nothing to eliminate this “crisis;” and privatization will cost a shitload of money. So, why is Bush so for this?

    I suppose there really is a philosophical difference of opinion here. Bush says he wants the U.S. to move to an “ownership” society, which, I suppose you could argue, is the way it used to be when only white land owners had any power, and when they pretty much “owned” their women and when they literally owned their slaves.

    But I think there’s something else going on here, though to be honest, I don’t know what. Whenever a politician proposes a big and expensive plan, I think it’s always a good idea to try to follow the money. So, who would financially benefit from this kind of plan? I don’t really know, but I would assume this plan would benefit people who are in the finance business: stockbrokers, investment bankers, financial planners, etc. That’s probably a pretty solid Republican block. I don’t know how exactly, but maybe it will benefit people above a certain earning bracket, the kind of person who doesn’t need Social Security in the first place.

    Like I said, I don’t really know. But I am beginning to think there’s something about this proposal that the Bushies know that the rest of us don’t know. Yet.

Two interesting blog revision options

As I’ve written about several times before, I’m pretty sure that I will be sticking with blogger, even when (or maybe “if”) I revise the design/layout of this web site. The main reason boils down to spam spam spam. So very annoying.
Even though I haven’t done anything with the old Moveable Type-driven version of my blog(s) for about a year, I still get spam spam spam on those sites, even with MT-Blacklist installed. What a pain.

Anyway, while I haven’t been seeking out new and improved templates, I’ve come across two kind of interesting possibilities:

  • This cool site from glish.com. I’m not sure I like the color changing thing– it’s kind of cool, but it’s also maybe just a bit much– but it’s kind of an interesting and simple design that seems flexible enough to change to my own needs and desires.
  • These templates from eris: design, which was what Samantha Blackmon was using on her old blog (I still need to update my links to her new blog…).

Really, I think what I want to do is to have the skills/knowledge to modify my blogger template for my own purposes and tastes. I’ve learned A TON about CSS in the last couple weeks, and that’s making me feel a bit more confident. So who knows? Maybe there will be something different soon.

Or maybe I’ll just update this boring template.