Recognition at last! An editorial in the Gateway has tagged me as "perenially outraged", and suggests that this blog "too often has descended into criticizing the administration for the sake of criticizing." I'm outraged! (not)
But seriously, whatever happened to the "perenially outraged" Gateway of yore? The editorial rightly criticizes Folio, Express News, and Colloquy for being focused on "good news" and glossing over problems, but this year's Gateway hasn't read much differently. What happened to student activism?
Posts
Kirby marks Education Week with call for support for teachers
-
Monday, March 5, 2012
For Immediate Release
NDP Education Critic Dale Kirby (MHA, St. John’s North) noted the annual
arrival of Education Week with congra...
2 days ago
Personally, I am outraged at how fair you insist on being, both to the Administration and to the AASUA.
ReplyDelete"Beatings shall continue until morale improves"... well, seems morale has improved. :)
ReplyDeleteWhat indeed, Jeremy? Clearly we are not providing our students with sufficient training in critical thinking. Of course, the profession of journalism on the whole has shifted largely from an adversarial position relative to those in power to a cosy relationship in which they identify themselves as part of the elite. It's not completely surprising to see this mentality that pervades the media seep down to university journalism.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is a good opportunity to develop a 'highlights of 2011' ... what were the top actions/changes that were accomplished or inspired due to comments and discussion on the blog in 2011?
ReplyDeleteGreat idea, Anon @ 12:01 pm. Unfortunately, though, I think the list would be very short (which may be your point!). About the only thing that actually got changed was withdrawing the procedurally flawed and inequitable transportation (aka parking) survey, but that was hardly a step forwards.
ReplyDeleteBut I wouldn't be doing this if I thought it was totally pointless. Information is power, and I hope that the blog puts much more information in people's hands. If nothing else, it means that our administrators now know that people are actually watching and listening to what they do and say. I hope it also encourages people to speak up in whatever spheres of influence they occupy, although I still find it disappointing that so many people feel they can only express their concerns and feelings anonymously. To me, this speaks volumes about how people feel about their work environment.
Jeremy - All I too could think of was the survey, which I too don't see as a major positive. But I too recognize that this blog may inspire others.
ReplyDeleteSo ... does it?
To all the readers out there ... can anyone describe actions/accomplishments based upon what has been discussed in the blog? Or instead, is it a rant board?
FWIW, though I may not share many of the opinions expressed here, I find the blog to be very informative. I appreciate the work that is put into having it run, and would miss it if it were gone.
ReplyDeleteRegarding anonymity, there are presumably a wide range of reasons why some might prefer it. I, for one, have an unusual name and prefer not to have every post I've ever made accessable instantly in a Google search. I'd like to think I would be just as willing to say the same things in casual conversation in person.
I can think of a couple. One was when I posted here the issue with the USSRI's being public, and the follow-up was such that the policy was changed. I had previously brought that up at other venues, including the person is charge of FOIPP , and no one agreed with me so I didn't bring it to AASUA. ie. I assumed they would discredit my concern the way others did. Then, It was only after I posted it here that I could explain it to other people and the response from AASUA and the Senior Admin in changing the practice was actually fairly swift. Another was Jeremy's recent motion at AASUA to have the transportation survey nixed, after we gave pretty consistent feedback on this blog that it was bothering a lot of us. I can't speak for Jeremy, but I think a lot of the value here is people have a chance to see when they're not alone with a particular beef and so them they're more likely to pursue it. I have also seen points raised or clarified on Colloquy, after they were brought up here so you can tell the Senior Admin does read this. I'm sure there are many more examples. So, yeah, Jeremy is doing a lot of us a valuable service by providing this blox. Thanks, Jeremy!
ReplyDeletePerennially outraged? The spirit at the UA was once so well characterized by its motto:
ReplyDeleteQuaecumque Vera
I think it is safe to say that the popularity of this blog, and perhaps Jeremy's notoriety, is really due to the UA's new spirit, one oriented to spin rather than higher aspirations. I would propose that we therefore correct the motto to:
Vera? Quaecumque...
(apologies for the abuse of the Latin grammar)
I agree with Isotopic that my desire for anonymity has less to do with fear of retribution within the workplace (indeed, I think someone so inclined could probably figure out who I am from the collective substance of my comments here) than my dislike of having everything I blurt out immortalized under my professional name in perpetuity. I guess you could say my problem isn't with the UofA, it's with the Internet.
ReplyDeleteAs for the value of the blog, I personally have found solace in the fact that it is not just me who finds some of what goes on at the UofA ridiculous when it is not incredibly troubling. I value the cross-campus insights available here (it's not just Arts that f$}*ed, it's all of us). Postings and comments give me greater perspective on issues and sharpen my sword, so to speak.
Thanks Jeremy!
309,549 views at current count..
ReplyDeletesay no more, but wow!
Wow, indeed! I suspect the very existence of Colloquy is a result of this blog. I wonder why Colloquy is not as successful?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't take "perennially outraged" too personally. The student editorial was pretty good, marred only by excessive adherence to today's farcical standards of journalistic "balance". Since she criticized the admin, she had to locate some other critic (you) against whom to leverage herself, the better to conjure up and then position her own contribution as belonging to some "middle ground" of even-handed reasonableness. Every editorial, even every news story has to be shoe-horned into an "on the one hand, on the other hand" format, and the facts on the ground be damned. See the current kerfuffle over the NYTimes' Public Editor's astonishing query as to whether or not such an approach qualifies as the finest in journalism, and you'll see where this student apprentice is getting it from.
ReplyDeleteYour blog is read by some of us to see what you will say next, and how many people there are like you who see the glass to be very empty. We are the kind of academics who seem to irritate you (lots of publications, good FEC results etc). Your blog lightens our day as we laugh quietly.
ReplyDeleteGlad to amuse you!
ReplyDeleteYour blog is read by most of us to see what you will say next, and how many people there are like Anonymous@12:25 who have their nose so far up Administration's bum that they can't even see the glass, let alone determine its level. They are the kind of academics who get a position on the Executive and irritate the rest of the AASUA membership (with their pompous attitude, petty posturing, and childish power trips). Your blog obviously irritates the hell out of them and they read it compulsively, complaining about the nasty smell that in reality emanates from the nasty substance on the end of their noses.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous @12:25 PM: That quiet laugh as the democratic deficit at UA grows is the reason why we need this blog. Good job, Jeremy!
ReplyDelete@Anon.@12:25pm do you know the saying about daring to *assume*? There are many here who also have "lots of publications/good FEC results, etc" yet highly value the space that Jeremy has created for collective dialogue. And dialogue is necessary for mobilization and action.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible to do well at FEC and still be incredibly troubled by the direction this institution is heading. Indeed, the combination foregrounds key scholarly tenets such as critical thinking and insight.
Interestingly, you don't mention teaching or service in your list. Perhaps this is why you take a bemused 'glass is full' approach to our current situation. We're facing layoffs, possible program closures, and radically increased class sizes that threaten our students' quality of education. Meanwhile, they have to pay more to receive much less! But at least we do have several lovely new buildings.
I've found this blog to be a crucial information-sharing resource that signals to the powers that be that faculty and staff are scrutinizing policy decisions and PR statements. Without Whither, we'd be marginalized to hallway grumblings about the discrepancies between our deteriorating work conditions and the daily sunshine forecast in Colloquy.
Thank you Jeremy!
@Anon @ 12:25 -- That was a low blow. And unworthy of a colleague.
ReplyDelete@Anon @1:02pm. That was an equally low blow. And unworthy of a colleague.
ReplyDeleteDon't feed the trolls, people.
ReplyDeleteI don't usually agree with Jeremy, but his is a voice that has both the right (clearly) and, more importantly, the need to be heard (even if I don't like what I hear). So good for Jeremy.
ReplyDeleteI am on Council and if I understand the motion the Executive is putting forward I will be voting against it.
Readers may find the following article in today's Globe and Mail useful in this context:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/career-advice/barbara-moses/why-we-need-contrarians-in-the-workplace/article2302129/
Just my 2 cents worth!
You're right, Blither. I should know better.
ReplyDeleteThanks Anon @ 09:07 am: Debate is healthy, but if no-one offers counter opinions, there is no debate. But at the end of the day, there has to be a mechanism for arriving at decisions (otherwise there is no progress), and parliamentary procedures are designed to facilitate that process. Once a decision is made, those engaged in the debate have to accommodate it (although it is always possible to bring the issue back to the table for a new debate if sufficient support can be raised. The original motion can also be "re-considered", if one of those who voted for it subsequently changes their mind).
ReplyDeleteFor the record, people may recall that I actually made two motions at that Council meeting in November. The second motion, relating to the Interdepartmental Science Students Society (ISSS) proposal for a course commenting website, was rejected. You didn't see me clamouring to change the rules because of that. Instead, because I felt strongly about the issue, I took it up with the Teaching and Learning committee, and we had a very productive meeting with the VP Academic of the ISSS, during which their objectives became much clearer, the root problems were revealed, and some concrete and progressive suggestions for a solution were voiced. That's how business is constructively moved forward.
In case you want to stoke that outrage:
ReplyDeleteExposed: University bosses' lavish expense claims
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/exposed-university-bosses-lavish-expense-claims-6289942.html
But it could never happen here....
As someone who often disagrees with Jeremy, I just want to point out that contrarian doesn't quite fit. That's someone who disagrees with the majority a lot, mainly for the sake of it. Comparing our discussions with contrarians in th workplace could lead people to believe that its unusual or against the system to disagree with the people "above" us. But, actually, in a collegial and/or parliamentary system, the success of the whole enterprise is dependent on people being willin and able to speak up and express and debate various views. That's how we work out the very best ideas.That should be at the heart of what we do. I find it a bit disturbing that so many places and people across campus seem to have forgotten this.
ReplyDelete