I know what you're thinking, two blogs this close together? What's TCH doing over there...isn't he supposed to be writing a dissertation and the rest of his time spent lecturing? To that I say, pah.
In that vein, I went out with my ole' buddy Jim this evenin' and saw a new flick, "New York, I Love You." Now, for those of you movie critic types (yes this would include any of you indie/townie-wannabes that we encountered before the film discussing the cinematic delights of God only knows what and the intricacy of plot and depth of character assignments, blah de blah blah blah) this film was decent. If you've seen "Paris, Je T'Aime," think of that only in NYC. But this is not a film review. Somehow I'm not yet full enough of, well, myself to become a film, food, or literary critic. Rather, its the impact the film had on me during my drive back to the flat.
After dropping Jim off, I starting wondering how it is that such a wonderfully diverse city like NYC and the tragic attacks it suffered on 9.11 have become so distorted by the neo-cons and military industrial complex and now, apparently, much of the so-called "left" that an escalation in a war on the other side of the globe seems necessary and prudent.
And then I got to rememberin'. True, Oby said he would quickly draw down troops and end the war in Iraq. So far, this seems to be the plan. And yet, when individuals like Barbara Boxer and myself had serious questions about why someone like "Give em' HellGates" would be left at Defense when we had all voted for change, Mr. Oby's line was quite pointed: Afghanistan was different and he trusted the Gates crew on defense policy. Afghanistan was not Iraq, so said (yes, past tense) he. See the following pieces for the predictions that the recently announced escalation was intended way back in the summer of 2008: salon and cnn .
The moral: we got what we voted for. There's no surprise here. Don't act shocked and awed. After all, what's one war traded in for another?
TCH
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Keeping the liberal faith
No apologies for the inattention to the blog. Life has had me running here and there to conferences, committee meetings, submitting chapters and grants and, yes, happily spending time with my woman and family here in Athens.
I blog today to get out the cloudiness that continually wracks my mind when things get quiet enough for me and Bob Dylan to consider things in the wind and God being on "our" side. Noting that this quiet time normally occurs late in the morning hours, I still believe my thoughts might be worth sharing. If you disagree, stop reading here and go back to watching the tube that blasts mindless non-information into your life so that you can refuse to face the realities surrounding humanity's collective existence. If you're still reading, I congratulate you on being either an extremely interested reader/friend or a blissfully unaware quasi-participant.
Over the past several months I have had the feeling that death is all around. Numerous folks (including myself) have had individuals taken from this life. Personally, about 5 months ago I eulogized a grandfather who was a shining example of humility and laughter, kindness and strength, intellect and wit. Only a few weeks after, two of my dearest friends lost grandparents and amidst all of that, the nation lost Edward M. Kennedy.
Now, of course, Kennedy's passing has been played up and down by talking heads (some only half-filled) and I do not desire to walk back down the road of EMK's legendary brothers, his family, or any of the scandals that haunted his self-acknowledged privileged life.
For months, thoughts of liberalism, the DNC, social justice, and equality have been swirling through my mind like donkeys kicking drunken elephants. Today, over lunch with a friend, I realized the connection that my life represents: I am the inheritor of a great american (hold on to your rocker) liberal tradition.
Like Kennedy, my grandfather was a Democrat of a different generation. However, as a man who returned from WWII to support the Dixiecrats in '48, he would live a life of dedication to faith, family, and hard work that placed him squarely in defense of President Clinton as well as avidly supporting President Obama's candidacy at the sunset of his life. I am proud of his journey that heralded choosing hope over hate and compassion over fear. And, that he let me tag along on the way.
So, even as the politically savvy thing to do these days is substitute "progressive" for "liberal" as if the term is inherently evil, or threatening, alarming, and/or offensive, I say, for most, reaffirm: My name is TCH and, yes, I am a liberal.
(In my best Palin voice): Why aren't cha?
TCH
I blog today to get out the cloudiness that continually wracks my mind when things get quiet enough for me and Bob Dylan to consider things in the wind and God being on "our" side. Noting that this quiet time normally occurs late in the morning hours, I still believe my thoughts might be worth sharing. If you disagree, stop reading here and go back to watching the tube that blasts mindless non-information into your life so that you can refuse to face the realities surrounding humanity's collective existence. If you're still reading, I congratulate you on being either an extremely interested reader/friend or a blissfully unaware quasi-participant.
Over the past several months I have had the feeling that death is all around. Numerous folks (including myself) have had individuals taken from this life. Personally, about 5 months ago I eulogized a grandfather who was a shining example of humility and laughter, kindness and strength, intellect and wit. Only a few weeks after, two of my dearest friends lost grandparents and amidst all of that, the nation lost Edward M. Kennedy.
Now, of course, Kennedy's passing has been played up and down by talking heads (some only half-filled) and I do not desire to walk back down the road of EMK's legendary brothers, his family, or any of the scandals that haunted his self-acknowledged privileged life.
For months, thoughts of liberalism, the DNC, social justice, and equality have been swirling through my mind like donkeys kicking drunken elephants. Today, over lunch with a friend, I realized the connection that my life represents: I am the inheritor of a great american (hold on to your rocker) liberal tradition.
Like Kennedy, my grandfather was a Democrat of a different generation. However, as a man who returned from WWII to support the Dixiecrats in '48, he would live a life of dedication to faith, family, and hard work that placed him squarely in defense of President Clinton as well as avidly supporting President Obama's candidacy at the sunset of his life. I am proud of his journey that heralded choosing hope over hate and compassion over fear. And, that he let me tag along on the way.
So, even as the politically savvy thing to do these days is substitute "progressive" for "liberal" as if the term is inherently evil, or threatening, alarming, and/or offensive, I say, for most, reaffirm: My name is TCH and, yes, I am a liberal.
(In my best Palin voice): Why aren't cha?
TCH
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Long time, no blogging: Life Events or "Lika rolain sto"
So it is not that I have limited things to say these days, rather, its that I haven't really slowed down long enough to get them on the blog. I'm back in Athens, getting settled back in to life as I knew it a year ago, sort of. I have just finished writing lectures for the course I'm teaching in the fall and am quite relieved to have that process, at least for the moment, done. I have moved all my stuff (including King Andrew) back to the house and LP and I are happily a block away from each other.
With all that said, two stories that should be shared. LP and I took a little journey over to Scotland in the early part of July for a mini-break and a conference presentation. The conference went quite well and LP and I got to experience our relationship in a foreign land: street maps, the intricacies of Edinburgh with Princes Street shut down, train tickets and short layovers as well as an angry French woman on the return flight who thought we tried to cheat her out of her seat, a bird we named Rupert, CapriSun on the window's overhang to get it cool, lots of walking, and, thankfully, no illnesses (so glad you made it, John) or explosions of small appliances. Overall, an excellent adventure and despite the above stresses we came back together and are going strong. Some of the hundreds of pictures are on Facebook, if you're interested.
Upon our return, a really good friend who was, sadly, unable to use her tickets to see Willie Nelson and Bob Dylan presented LP and I the opportunity to see these legends over in the ATL. LP, the day before the concert, discovered her new job would require some evening service and my good ole' buddy Jim graciously stepped in to her spot. There are plenty of things that could be said about this experience, but I will do my best to hold back. A quick summary will suffice for most of you, I think: journeyed over to Verizon Amph via the blue monster; grabbed a bite to eat at 5Seasons (pretty good white pizza); got to the concert at 5:50pm (it began at 5:30pm) and Willie was already on stage, where the warm-up act disappeared to, who knows?; Willie was great; bathroom break (Mellencamp was on); headlining...Bob Dylan, as this was the "Bob Dylan Show." The story would naturally climax here; and maybe it would have if I had seen Dylan 20, I'll even give him 5, years ago. The man we saw was a shadow of his former self, if that. I am NOT hating on Bob (so you people out there who were thinking...oh, just wait 'til I respond to this whipper snapper, don't, or do, I don't really care).
I am not the concert-goer who wants the cd performed exactly as was recorded; Willie didn't do it, and I loved it. The difference? I could tell that it was Willie Nelson performing. And don't give me the age and/or drugs argument...Willie is almost 10 years older than Bob and has had just as rough an on/off stage life. So what was my (and Jim's and over half the audiences' who left 2 songs in to Bob's set) problem? Bob showed up on stage, spoke his lyrics with words that were unintelligible even for Dylan, never once acknowledged the audience, played guitar on the opening song only, and blew the harmonica for maybe 30 seconds. I love Bob Dylan and am glad I got to see the man before he departs this world; I just wished a brighter image of the legend would have shown up.
Comments, as always, are welcome.
Cultivate peace.
TCH
With all that said, two stories that should be shared. LP and I took a little journey over to Scotland in the early part of July for a mini-break and a conference presentation. The conference went quite well and LP and I got to experience our relationship in a foreign land: street maps, the intricacies of Edinburgh with Princes Street shut down, train tickets and short layovers as well as an angry French woman on the return flight who thought we tried to cheat her out of her seat, a bird we named Rupert, CapriSun on the window's overhang to get it cool, lots of walking, and, thankfully, no illnesses (so glad you made it, John) or explosions of small appliances. Overall, an excellent adventure and despite the above stresses we came back together and are going strong. Some of the hundreds of pictures are on Facebook, if you're interested.
Upon our return, a really good friend who was, sadly, unable to use her tickets to see Willie Nelson and Bob Dylan presented LP and I the opportunity to see these legends over in the ATL. LP, the day before the concert, discovered her new job would require some evening service and my good ole' buddy Jim graciously stepped in to her spot. There are plenty of things that could be said about this experience, but I will do my best to hold back. A quick summary will suffice for most of you, I think: journeyed over to Verizon Amph via the blue monster; grabbed a bite to eat at 5Seasons (pretty good white pizza); got to the concert at 5:50pm (it began at 5:30pm) and Willie was already on stage, where the warm-up act disappeared to, who knows?; Willie was great; bathroom break (Mellencamp was on); headlining...Bob Dylan, as this was the "Bob Dylan Show." The story would naturally climax here; and maybe it would have if I had seen Dylan 20, I'll even give him 5, years ago. The man we saw was a shadow of his former self, if that. I am NOT hating on Bob (so you people out there who were thinking...oh, just wait 'til I respond to this whipper snapper, don't, or do, I don't really care).
I am not the concert-goer who wants the cd performed exactly as was recorded; Willie didn't do it, and I loved it. The difference? I could tell that it was Willie Nelson performing. And don't give me the age and/or drugs argument...Willie is almost 10 years older than Bob and has had just as rough an on/off stage life. So what was my (and Jim's and over half the audiences' who left 2 songs in to Bob's set) problem? Bob showed up on stage, spoke his lyrics with words that were unintelligible even for Dylan, never once acknowledged the audience, played guitar on the opening song only, and blew the harmonica for maybe 30 seconds. I love Bob Dylan and am glad I got to see the man before he departs this world; I just wished a brighter image of the legend would have shown up.
Comments, as always, are welcome.
Cultivate peace.
TCH
Monday, June 29, 2009
Fields Closed: Excuse Me?
Well hello there bloggers. I had an experience today that has motivated me to end the silence and return once more to the blog. You're glad, I know.
After a very, very long day behind my computer editing a review article, getting more reliable internet for the apt, and sending a variety of emails, LP and I decided to stretch our legs by playing a nice little game of frisbee. The two of us enjoy the game like many people our ages and often feel quite de-stressed after an hour or two of throwin' the ole' frisbee around. I particularly get a kick out of the occasional click of LP's ring on the disc when I hurl it at her, no less than 60mph.
Today's trip was especially needed. As I said, I had been working all day, LP had been mathin' it up today as well. So we headed to the IM fields where we discovered a sign that we had seen too many times before. It stated simply: "Fields Closed" and was accompanied by some yellow "do not cross" police tape. Given the fact that people were on other fields with similar signage/tapage, LP and I ventured down the hill and got our frisbee on. We were having a grand time when there came Mr. Regulation. Now, I'm not positive about this, but his attitude seemed to reveal him to be nothing short of a cranky, shifty-eyed Republican. Let me explain...
He came prissing down the hill (normally a character trait of angered liberals I have to admit) shouting simply this: "Uh, guys, the fields are closed. The sign is right there...and its roped off." Hmm, I thought, strange fellow. Guess we should go. Then while walking to the Blue Monster, LP and I noticed all the people on other fields that were clearly marked "closed." Ugh! Then, the electronic sign that gives field and cage hours of operation was flashing: "ALL FIELDS CLOSED" With that, I was off to find someone to whom I could voice my outrage. All LP could say was, "be nice" when we found the very same green shirted, blonde-headed BOY that had shouted at us earlier. And what was he doing? Watching a softball game on a field that was "closed"! He no doubt saw us coming...and braced himself (thinking, of course, what they told him at IM training...when confronted by individuals, hold your ground and blame someone else). I bid him hello and stated that I had a question. I pressed the young chap: if the sign out front said "ALL FIELDS CLOSED" why then were these people and about 50-75 others on other fields allowed to continue on when our frisbee time simply had to be cut short. His response was classic: "Well, I don't make the rules and your field was clearly closed and roped off and, uhh, the sign out front is managed by the guys that work during the day and I'm only here to enforce the rules..." I acknowledged that he was correct that the field we were on was in fact closed, but so were these. All I wanted was some justice, some equity, some fair play. I was clearly not going to get it from Brad the Republican Discriminating Regulator so I wished him a good night and we left.
Was this not an outrageous display of injustice? Who makes these rules? Who's with me? Sigh.
TCH
After a very, very long day behind my computer editing a review article, getting more reliable internet for the apt, and sending a variety of emails, LP and I decided to stretch our legs by playing a nice little game of frisbee. The two of us enjoy the game like many people our ages and often feel quite de-stressed after an hour or two of throwin' the ole' frisbee around. I particularly get a kick out of the occasional click of LP's ring on the disc when I hurl it at her, no less than 60mph.
Today's trip was especially needed. As I said, I had been working all day, LP had been mathin' it up today as well. So we headed to the IM fields where we discovered a sign that we had seen too many times before. It stated simply: "Fields Closed" and was accompanied by some yellow "do not cross" police tape. Given the fact that people were on other fields with similar signage/tapage, LP and I ventured down the hill and got our frisbee on. We were having a grand time when there came Mr. Regulation. Now, I'm not positive about this, but his attitude seemed to reveal him to be nothing short of a cranky, shifty-eyed Republican. Let me explain...
He came prissing down the hill (normally a character trait of angered liberals I have to admit) shouting simply this: "Uh, guys, the fields are closed. The sign is right there...and its roped off." Hmm, I thought, strange fellow. Guess we should go. Then while walking to the Blue Monster, LP and I noticed all the people on other fields that were clearly marked "closed." Ugh! Then, the electronic sign that gives field and cage hours of operation was flashing: "ALL FIELDS CLOSED" With that, I was off to find someone to whom I could voice my outrage. All LP could say was, "be nice" when we found the very same green shirted, blonde-headed BOY that had shouted at us earlier. And what was he doing? Watching a softball game on a field that was "closed"! He no doubt saw us coming...and braced himself (thinking, of course, what they told him at IM training...when confronted by individuals, hold your ground and blame someone else). I bid him hello and stated that I had a question. I pressed the young chap: if the sign out front said "ALL FIELDS CLOSED" why then were these people and about 50-75 others on other fields allowed to continue on when our frisbee time simply had to be cut short. His response was classic: "Well, I don't make the rules and your field was clearly closed and roped off and, uhh, the sign out front is managed by the guys that work during the day and I'm only here to enforce the rules..." I acknowledged that he was correct that the field we were on was in fact closed, but so were these. All I wanted was some justice, some equity, some fair play. I was clearly not going to get it from Brad the Republican Discriminating Regulator so I wished him a good night and we left.
Was this not an outrageous display of injustice? Who makes these rules? Who's with me? Sigh.
TCH
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Death of a Great Man
This past week one of the greatest men I've ever known died. Watching life leave his body, making funeral arrangements, offering his eulogy, and knowing that my life would never be quite the same without him was powerful and almost too much. And yet, life goes on for the living.
Thanks friends for the calls, texts, emails, thoughts, and prayers.
TCH
Thanks friends for the calls, texts, emails, thoughts, and prayers.
TCH
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Update on the Politics of/in Torture: Cheney vs Ali Soufan...and history.
Well, if you missed Dick Cheney's recent interview on Face the Nation, here's a great summation of what the former VP thinks on looking back on his days as co-president. I direct your attention to two arguments of the presiDick's:
1. As I alluded to a few weeks back, Cheney is still clinging to that same tired "We kept America safe" line. The former VP relies far too heavily on an increasingly weak counter-factual assertion that the Bush administration's enhanced terror techniques, those that "were not torture," made and kept Americans safe. Cheney even presses Bob Schieffer to think of the grilling (no pun, maybe) he would have received had the administration not gone forward with torture. Oh, Dick, you are as Limbaugh suggests, "the lone voice."
2. Enhanced torture worked well. Proof? No attacks post-9.11. And even if it didn't, Cheney continues to feel that defying the U.S. Constitution and refusing our commitments to international law and treaty obligations was needed and legal during "a time of war." Shockingly, Cheney boldly compared the administration's actions to those of Lincoln's suspension of habeaus corpus and FDR's WWII Japanese internment camps and concluded that the torture he and Condi, Rummy, GW, et. al., designed/approved were not nearly as severe as American war time precedents. When Schieffer rightly states that those actions by both Lincoln and FDR are viewed by historians and constitutional law experts as illegal, Cheney echoes the logic of his fellow Dick, Tricky that is: We took seriously our role to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic...and that no one's civil liberties were being denied. Is anyone as outraged as I am by this defense of torture via the politics of fear and "safety"? Ever heard of human rights, Dick? Again, I don't care how many lives you say you saved. America, as a nation that prizes the rule of law, should not be engaged in torture... for any reason.
Given the testimony of former FBI agent Ali Soufan, a participant in the early interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, torture did NOT work as VP Cheney has proclaimed. Sorry no video has been posted yet (he testified before Congress this morning), but do read what Soufan had to say in a NYTimes op-ed, as well as this enlightening New Yorker profile by Lawrence Wright and an informative piece on Soufan's place inside an intelligence community hamstrung by the Bush administration's decisions that the U.S. should use torture. This last article can be found at the The Washington Independent.
Comment. Let me know what you think.
TCH
1. As I alluded to a few weeks back, Cheney is still clinging to that same tired "We kept America safe" line. The former VP relies far too heavily on an increasingly weak counter-factual assertion that the Bush administration's enhanced terror techniques, those that "were not torture," made and kept Americans safe. Cheney even presses Bob Schieffer to think of the grilling (no pun, maybe) he would have received had the administration not gone forward with torture. Oh, Dick, you are as Limbaugh suggests, "the lone voice."
2. Enhanced torture worked well. Proof? No attacks post-9.11. And even if it didn't, Cheney continues to feel that defying the U.S. Constitution and refusing our commitments to international law and treaty obligations was needed and legal during "a time of war." Shockingly, Cheney boldly compared the administration's actions to those of Lincoln's suspension of habeaus corpus and FDR's WWII Japanese internment camps and concluded that the torture he and Condi, Rummy, GW, et. al., designed/approved were not nearly as severe as American war time precedents. When Schieffer rightly states that those actions by both Lincoln and FDR are viewed by historians and constitutional law experts as illegal, Cheney echoes the logic of his fellow Dick, Tricky that is: We took seriously our role to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic...and that no one's civil liberties were being denied. Is anyone as outraged as I am by this defense of torture via the politics of fear and "safety"? Ever heard of human rights, Dick? Again, I don't care how many lives you say you saved. America, as a nation that prizes the rule of law, should not be engaged in torture... for any reason.
Given the testimony of former FBI agent Ali Soufan, a participant in the early interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, torture did NOT work as VP Cheney has proclaimed. Sorry no video has been posted yet (he testified before Congress this morning), but do read what Soufan had to say in a NYTimes op-ed, as well as this enlightening New Yorker profile by Lawrence Wright and an informative piece on Soufan's place inside an intelligence community hamstrung by the Bush administration's decisions that the U.S. should use torture. This last article can be found at the The Washington Independent.
Comment. Let me know what you think.
TCH
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Politics of/in Torture
Dearest TCHblog faithful,
Although I am apologetic for the neglect over the past few weeks, a personal update will have to wait. Instead, a short and hopefully thought-provoking post for the current situation the US finds itself in. Despite the information distributed via Fix News and the not-so-accurate-talking heads of Cheney, Gingrich, Fleischer, Hannity, and the rest, I have one question: even if torture (if you consider waterboarding torture as the US did when the Khmer Rogue used it against countless Cambodians) produced "useful" information, is it worth it?
Am I the lone liberal who feels that it would be nice if the O admin could get the general approach to this situation better coordinated? Between the Pres, his Chief of Staff and "full court Press" Sec, Americans, at least on the Left, expect more than retreating from "torture" to "enhanced interrogation techniques." If someone could find the signs that ring: "America, the greatest nation in the world" I've got some non-torture water and we'll all HOPE they were designed with waterproof ink.
Where is the transparency in all this, Pres Oby? Please don't make me agree with Cheney ever again...let's see all the memos. I have little doubt that they will only demonstrate further what the past administration authorized was in fact torture and that no matter political affiliation, those involved should be prosecuted. Please pay no attention to the "publishing these memos only lets our enemies know our interrogation tactics" crowd. Unless I missed it, you put a stop to those tactics, right? Now, for Dick. It looks to this ole' boy that former VP-man is betting on the O admin not releasing the memos; thus, he can, as he always has, claim whatever he wants (namely, that he and Bushy defended America better than anyone else ever has and ever will) buttressed by his "Oh, I've seen it, I was there, believe me, believe me" mantra. Finally, why would Americans (people who say they believe in the rule of law) want AG Holder to hold-off on appointing an IC to prosecute ALL those involved in this mess?
Finally, can we agree that those directly involved in writing Bushy's legal memos to legalize illegal "tactics" should not be federal judges?
For weeks, Rachel Maddow's coverage of all of this has been excellent.
TCH
Although I am apologetic for the neglect over the past few weeks, a personal update will have to wait. Instead, a short and hopefully thought-provoking post for the current situation the US finds itself in. Despite the information distributed via Fix News and the not-so-accurate-talking heads of Cheney, Gingrich, Fleischer, Hannity, and the rest, I have one question: even if torture (if you consider waterboarding torture as the US did when the Khmer Rogue used it against countless Cambodians) produced "useful" information, is it worth it?
Am I the lone liberal who feels that it would be nice if the O admin could get the general approach to this situation better coordinated? Between the Pres, his Chief of Staff and "full court Press" Sec, Americans, at least on the Left, expect more than retreating from "torture" to "enhanced interrogation techniques." If someone could find the signs that ring: "America, the greatest nation in the world" I've got some non-torture water and we'll all HOPE they were designed with waterproof ink.
Where is the transparency in all this, Pres Oby? Please don't make me agree with Cheney ever again...let's see all the memos. I have little doubt that they will only demonstrate further what the past administration authorized was in fact torture and that no matter political affiliation, those involved should be prosecuted. Please pay no attention to the "publishing these memos only lets our enemies know our interrogation tactics" crowd. Unless I missed it, you put a stop to those tactics, right? Now, for Dick. It looks to this ole' boy that former VP-man is betting on the O admin not releasing the memos; thus, he can, as he always has, claim whatever he wants (namely, that he and Bushy defended America better than anyone else ever has and ever will) buttressed by his "Oh, I've seen it, I was there, believe me, believe me" mantra. Finally, why would Americans (people who say they believe in the rule of law) want AG Holder to hold-off on appointing an IC to prosecute ALL those involved in this mess?
Finally, can we agree that those directly involved in writing Bushy's legal memos to legalize illegal "tactics" should not be federal judges?
For weeks, Rachel Maddow's coverage of all of this has been excellent.
TCH
Friday, March 27, 2009
Perils of the Modern Lecture: Lessons Learned from Non/Miscommunication in the University Classroom
I have, thus far, on this blog, resisted posting any pseudo-academic writing as to not harass or coddle readers who, I hope, will get a great kick out of the following post. As much as it has something to say about the American college classroom, the post is equally a kind of social commentary that I have been brewing over for some weeks now. Those of you who have had coffee, lunch, or dinner with me lately (poor LP who chats with me daily) will no doubt read echoes of my ranting from portions of our conversations. Below is a version of the talk I gave this weekend concerning why the American university classroom is so non/dis/un-functioning. Agree, disagree, whatever. As always, comments are welcome.
__________________________
Ami Zusman contemplated the current status of American universities in a chapter in a 2005 anthology entitled American Higher Education in the 21st Century.
Zusman’s assessment: “The twenty first-century has brought with it profound challenges to the nature, values, and control of higher education in the United States. Societal expectations and public resources for higher education are undergoing fundamental shifts. Changes both within and outside the academy are altering its character—its students, faculty, governance, curriculum, functions, and very place in society.” Zusman concludes “…current changes are transforming higher education to an extent not seen since the end of World War II.”
(Zusman, “Challenges Facing Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century” in American Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, Philip G. Altbach, Robert Oliver Berdahl, Patricia J. Gumport, JHU Press, 2005).
This morning, I would like to consider three “lessons learned,” from my five years as a graduate teaching assistant at the University of G. that I believe might fit within this paradigm shift suggested by Zusman’s work.
Area One: “The brilliance of we academics”
The notion that humans communicate in a wide variety of ways is a “truth” that even the most strident post-modernist could agree with. In a number of different courses I have watched as out-going, and down-right-charming professors use their personal appeal to get students engaged in the course and its material. At the other end of the spectrum, I have observed the painful exhaustion of socially awkward academics suffering through their own lectures while over half the enrolled students drift from sleep to awake, from facebook to espn.com to tmz.com, you get the idea. I believe that this complex centers on communicative abilities; but should not be limited to one’s ability to construct a “cult of personality.” Rather, there is something that will always provide variety of classroom experiences simply because academics are human and will produce lectures or construct learning environments differently—not necessarily better or worse—just differently. The point, I believe, is that we should be attempting to communicate with our students in the best ways we personally can. With that said, I have developed some general points that (I hope) most professors already consider as they, consciously or subconsciously, develop pedagogical frameworks.
1. When we construct courses, particularly those at the introductory level, we should realize—that is , NOT blindly avoid—the fact our students are not our peers. They have not set through hours of graduate courses, seminars, colloquia, and conferences. More than likely, they have not read anywhere close to the amount of scholarship that we have—nor should they have. In introductory, and even capstone level courses, these are undergraduate students who we are guiding through processes of learning through which we began our own journeys some years back. Thus, we must struggle with a kind of conflict of interests, that is, striking the most delicate of balances as excellent professors: keeping in check our expertise and the drive that our graduate training/career aspirations inspire while NEVER allowing students to take in a semester of coursework unchallenged and non-stimulated.
2. This balance naturally requires that we assess early on our students’ familiarity with and/or interest in our courses. Unfortunately, the genuine interest of students in our topics, I believe, goes unnoticed by most professors simply because we do not take the time to listen to our students’ interests and make the connections so desperately needed; for example, at the beginning of every semester, I ask each student in my two-25 person breakout sections to introduce themselves and tell the class about their major. I know this sounds, to some, like a waste of time and I’m sure some students find it dull or even embarrassing, but as students introduce themselves I get a chance to show interest in their individuality by placing names with faces and also making the case that their major, be it art history, music, finance, math, or whatever has a connection with our course; so right there on the first day, I can see it, many students say to themselves: “Ok, I have to be here in this intro history course and spend my Friday afternoons with this strange guy, but at least he’s open to other things outside history.” This initial conversation also knocks down the level of intimidation that I was aiming at when entitling this section “the brilliance of we academics.” After a number of conversations with colleagues and former students, their number one point of agitation with professors was not grading irregularities, attendance policies, or even the lack of media in the classroom—-it was personal attitude. Too often, the expert at the front of the room lusts after the recognition of persons in the audience forgetting to fight the good fight to maintain professional/professor balance.
3. Whether with personal attitude or within our syllabi, it falls on us (like it or not) to make the course appealing to our students. Like my first-day conversation with students, we have to make the effort to connect our students’ likes and interests with the course as best we can. Will this always work?... of course not. But if we aren’t trying, I dare say that we aren’t reaching as many students as we might. In some ways, this gets us back to the idea of showmanship and personality types that I mentioned earlier, the general idea here is that we must force ourselves to interact and engage our students—if we don’t, given the power dynamics in most college classrooms, students will not make the effort and the learning environment will remain a flat and uninteresting space for both the lecturer and students. Granted, there are professors out there who… just… don’t… get the point; one, in particular, upon observing one of breakout sessions stated: “Chase, you shouldn’t have a classroom full of students who like you.” Of course, s/he also informed me that I was pressing the students too hard to think critically, was working too hard, and had extremely high expectations for my students. Again, sometimes it’s all about attitude.
4. A final note on our collective brilliance: I think we must be aware, as in the real estate business, pre-sub-mortgage crisis, of “location, location, location.” Please be sure to hear me when I say I am not advocating regionalism as a go-to guide for appropriate topics and approaches to learning. Quite the contrary. What I am advocating is acknowledging where you are in the world. Normally, in those first-day introductions, I ask students to include where they are from, if they feel comfortable doing so. But perhaps, a local example of this location awareness will provide greater clarity: when teaching the post-1865 U.S. History survey, students’ with differing racial/ethnic backgrounds receive information and interact with their peers in all sorts of ways—so much so that international students are often at a loss for understanding the kind of micro geo-politics that are unleashed when discussing black/white relations in southern society at a southern university. Given recent events, apparently topics concerning gender and sexuality also touch the nerves of at least a few Georgia state legislators and could be added to the “just be aware list.” So, is the solution to avoid such topics? Not at all. However, I think academics should be smart and sensitive to students who might have never questioned their socio-cultural frameworks, or worldviews, before and how such questioning can often result in anger, defensiveness, and/or hostility within the classroom.
Area Two: Intellectual Exhaustion: The greatest pox on the American classroom
There is, raging in lecture halls and seminar rooms across America a kind of intellectual exhaustion that has, in my opinion, resulted from professors’ and students’ inability to effectively connect or communicate with each other. Interestingly, as I’ve observed it, the timing of the exhaustion doesn’t usually run parallel for these two groups. Students, be they traditional freshmen aged 18-19 or non-traditional, say 40+, can gage whether the class is going to be worth the struggle and if they will, in fact, get anything out of the course by about week 3 or 4. Much of this is based on interaction with the professor and fellow students and, more crassly, whether they think they will ever need any of the skills to, and the phrase is an apt one, HOPE-fully pass the course. For professors, it’s a little longer: past the midterm and into, say, week 9 or 10 of a 15 week semester when s/he realizes, with mid-term in hand, that the students just aren’t getting it. So what to do—for professors, at least?
1. Professors have to be willing to meet students where they are when they arrive in the classroom. We have to, as I suggested earlier, be sensitive to who they are, but EQUALLY, we must be constantly pressing, at least in the humanities, and probably elsewhere, why they hold the worldviews they do. Helping students realize 1. That their notions of self, world, politics, relationships, and even their participation in socially constructing race, gender, and class have all been, well… just that… socially constructed. And 2. That the greatest goal of higher education is the discovering and (re)shaping of who we, as individuals, are… for and by ourselves. However, in this process we have to be willing to have our own worldviews questioned and defended as well. Often, it seems, academics are unwilling to engage because engagement might take too much effort and we might be unable to logically defend our own ill-formed notions of the world as we see it. I’ll return to this sort of double-standard in just a moment.
2. In this process of challenging intellectual exhaustion, we have to take on the epidemic I like to call: “of course, you’re right, sweet baby.” As a graduate student, we fight on the front lines of a culture war that lifts high this banner from the moment students enter pre-K programs until exiting secondary schools; thus, we inherit high school students who bring with them the notion that they are always correct and take personal offense when we dare to question this truth. The answer and reality is that “yes, one can be wrong” and we must be willing to inform students of this. If this strikes you as radical, hold on, because I'm not done yet. We must explain to students why we think they deserve a B minus and not an A+. A personal example comes to mind to illustrate the double-standard I mentioned before: After recently submitting a grant proposal, I received a rather bland and formulaic "we're sorry" email that offered little direction for improvement of what the review committee said was an unclear proposal. After several emails and a short, strange and stoic meeting, I was left with the dumbfounded feeling: “I really hope I’ve never made one of my students feel like this.” I really do not know how we can expect students to respect us as we wage war against this “always right” epidemic if we are unable to clearly explain their lack of clarity and concision in, say, essay assignments. It might take one or two meetings and several emails, but we owe it to our students to explain how they can make their writing better. This level of engagement could be extended further: Can we be bothered to write letters of recommendation for our students? Help them in graduate school searches? Engage in email dialogue to making sure that difficult concepts discussed during class were grasped by all students?
Area Three: Is technology on our side?
Although all sorts of commentators seem to be reconsidering whether social security will remain the notorious third rail in American politics under the Obama administration, the third rail in 21st century pedagogy is technology and its appropriateness in the classroom. From seasoned professionals to newly-minted PhDs the opinions are all over the boards: the ardent defenders of the “no-technology”school hold fast to the creed of no power-point, audio or visual clips, smart boards…nothing beyond the outstanding personality of the lecturer, a black board and stick of chalk (for some reason, many of these advocates seem to be anti-Expo markers, as well). At the other end of the spectrum, there are professors who can’t seem to get enough: everything is on the powerpoint slides, will be posted online before or after the lecture, there will be music greeting the students on arrival, movie clips and photos scattered throughout the lecture, and perhaps an intricately choreographed musical number put on by the TAs to bring the lecture to a close. Ok, maybe a little much on the musical, but you catch my drift. Two main points present themselves here:
1. Technology, I believe can provide great teaching tools. There is certainly something to be said for the engagement factor that movies, music, etc. can bring to the classroom. However, there are certain drawbacks: moving from one form to the other must be seamless, planned, and distraction-less; when TAs (or worse, students) have to repeatedly help the professor with the technology s/he should reconsider its usage. Students, no doubt, appreciate the attempts to be “modern” but when technology becomes distraction instead of aid, I think the classroom would be better off without it.
2. Unfortunately, many tech-savvy professors seem to believe that utilizing technology absolves them of several of the earlier points presented here today: namely, communication and connectivity. There is also the risk that we become so reliant on technology that several uncomfortable problems can occur: all lectures will be neatly guided by powerpoint (what if it fails, where does the lecture go?); students can easily print out the outlines and materials that are posted online (so why go to class?).
In some ways we end where we began, or somewhere close by… with balance. Technological advancements in the 21st century will continue to press college faculty to keep pace with where our students are headed. Podcasts and e-textbooks may well be the wave of the future that started yesterday, but we have to strike the balance between tech overload and underload just as much as we do between status as professional and professor. Does this mean tolerating some students reading Salon.com while you lecture? Maybe.
And yet, despite all the perils of the modern lecture, the oh-so-heavy burden falls on us to present students with intellectually stimulating as well as memorable classroom experiences. Again, the battle is ours for the fighting, and if they do read the NYTimes online once in a while, count it a bargained triumph for some level of success has occurred in your classroom; for if the next generation is to be our partners in facing the “profound challenges to the nature, values, and control of higher education” I would much rather have it, albeit selectively, reading the Times rather than engaging in the mindless miasma of twitter.com.
TCH
__________________________
Ami Zusman contemplated the current status of American universities in a chapter in a 2005 anthology entitled American Higher Education in the 21st Century.
Zusman’s assessment: “The twenty first-century has brought with it profound challenges to the nature, values, and control of higher education in the United States. Societal expectations and public resources for higher education are undergoing fundamental shifts. Changes both within and outside the academy are altering its character—its students, faculty, governance, curriculum, functions, and very place in society.” Zusman concludes “…current changes are transforming higher education to an extent not seen since the end of World War II.”
(Zusman, “Challenges Facing Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century” in American Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, Philip G. Altbach, Robert Oliver Berdahl, Patricia J. Gumport, JHU Press, 2005).
This morning, I would like to consider three “lessons learned,” from my five years as a graduate teaching assistant at the University of G. that I believe might fit within this paradigm shift suggested by Zusman’s work.
Area One: “The brilliance of we academics”
The notion that humans communicate in a wide variety of ways is a “truth” that even the most strident post-modernist could agree with. In a number of different courses I have watched as out-going, and down-right-charming professors use their personal appeal to get students engaged in the course and its material. At the other end of the spectrum, I have observed the painful exhaustion of socially awkward academics suffering through their own lectures while over half the enrolled students drift from sleep to awake, from facebook to espn.com to tmz.com, you get the idea. I believe that this complex centers on communicative abilities; but should not be limited to one’s ability to construct a “cult of personality.” Rather, there is something that will always provide variety of classroom experiences simply because academics are human and will produce lectures or construct learning environments differently—not necessarily better or worse—just differently. The point, I believe, is that we should be attempting to communicate with our students in the best ways we personally can. With that said, I have developed some general points that (I hope) most professors already consider as they, consciously or subconsciously, develop pedagogical frameworks.
1. When we construct courses, particularly those at the introductory level, we should realize—that is , NOT blindly avoid—the fact our students are not our peers. They have not set through hours of graduate courses, seminars, colloquia, and conferences. More than likely, they have not read anywhere close to the amount of scholarship that we have—nor should they have. In introductory, and even capstone level courses, these are undergraduate students who we are guiding through processes of learning through which we began our own journeys some years back. Thus, we must struggle with a kind of conflict of interests, that is, striking the most delicate of balances as excellent professors: keeping in check our expertise and the drive that our graduate training/career aspirations inspire while NEVER allowing students to take in a semester of coursework unchallenged and non-stimulated.
2. This balance naturally requires that we assess early on our students’ familiarity with and/or interest in our courses. Unfortunately, the genuine interest of students in our topics, I believe, goes unnoticed by most professors simply because we do not take the time to listen to our students’ interests and make the connections so desperately needed; for example, at the beginning of every semester, I ask each student in my two-25 person breakout sections to introduce themselves and tell the class about their major. I know this sounds, to some, like a waste of time and I’m sure some students find it dull or even embarrassing, but as students introduce themselves I get a chance to show interest in their individuality by placing names with faces and also making the case that their major, be it art history, music, finance, math, or whatever has a connection with our course; so right there on the first day, I can see it, many students say to themselves: “Ok, I have to be here in this intro history course and spend my Friday afternoons with this strange guy, but at least he’s open to other things outside history.” This initial conversation also knocks down the level of intimidation that I was aiming at when entitling this section “the brilliance of we academics.” After a number of conversations with colleagues and former students, their number one point of agitation with professors was not grading irregularities, attendance policies, or even the lack of media in the classroom—-it was personal attitude. Too often, the expert at the front of the room lusts after the recognition of persons in the audience forgetting to fight the good fight to maintain professional/professor balance.
3. Whether with personal attitude or within our syllabi, it falls on us (like it or not) to make the course appealing to our students. Like my first-day conversation with students, we have to make the effort to connect our students’ likes and interests with the course as best we can. Will this always work?... of course not. But if we aren’t trying, I dare say that we aren’t reaching as many students as we might. In some ways, this gets us back to the idea of showmanship and personality types that I mentioned earlier, the general idea here is that we must force ourselves to interact and engage our students—if we don’t, given the power dynamics in most college classrooms, students will not make the effort and the learning environment will remain a flat and uninteresting space for both the lecturer and students. Granted, there are professors out there who… just… don’t… get the point; one, in particular, upon observing one of breakout sessions stated: “Chase, you shouldn’t have a classroom full of students who like you.” Of course, s/he also informed me that I was pressing the students too hard to think critically, was working too hard, and had extremely high expectations for my students. Again, sometimes it’s all about attitude.
4. A final note on our collective brilliance: I think we must be aware, as in the real estate business, pre-sub-mortgage crisis, of “location, location, location.” Please be sure to hear me when I say I am not advocating regionalism as a go-to guide for appropriate topics and approaches to learning. Quite the contrary. What I am advocating is acknowledging where you are in the world. Normally, in those first-day introductions, I ask students to include where they are from, if they feel comfortable doing so. But perhaps, a local example of this location awareness will provide greater clarity: when teaching the post-1865 U.S. History survey, students’ with differing racial/ethnic backgrounds receive information and interact with their peers in all sorts of ways—so much so that international students are often at a loss for understanding the kind of micro geo-politics that are unleashed when discussing black/white relations in southern society at a southern university. Given recent events, apparently topics concerning gender and sexuality also touch the nerves of at least a few Georgia state legislators and could be added to the “just be aware list.” So, is the solution to avoid such topics? Not at all. However, I think academics should be smart and sensitive to students who might have never questioned their socio-cultural frameworks, or worldviews, before and how such questioning can often result in anger, defensiveness, and/or hostility within the classroom.
Area Two: Intellectual Exhaustion: The greatest pox on the American classroom
There is, raging in lecture halls and seminar rooms across America a kind of intellectual exhaustion that has, in my opinion, resulted from professors’ and students’ inability to effectively connect or communicate with each other. Interestingly, as I’ve observed it, the timing of the exhaustion doesn’t usually run parallel for these two groups. Students, be they traditional freshmen aged 18-19 or non-traditional, say 40+, can gage whether the class is going to be worth the struggle and if they will, in fact, get anything out of the course by about week 3 or 4. Much of this is based on interaction with the professor and fellow students and, more crassly, whether they think they will ever need any of the skills to, and the phrase is an apt one, HOPE-fully pass the course. For professors, it’s a little longer: past the midterm and into, say, week 9 or 10 of a 15 week semester when s/he realizes, with mid-term in hand, that the students just aren’t getting it. So what to do—for professors, at least?
1. Professors have to be willing to meet students where they are when they arrive in the classroom. We have to, as I suggested earlier, be sensitive to who they are, but EQUALLY, we must be constantly pressing, at least in the humanities, and probably elsewhere, why they hold the worldviews they do. Helping students realize 1. That their notions of self, world, politics, relationships, and even their participation in socially constructing race, gender, and class have all been, well… just that… socially constructed. And 2. That the greatest goal of higher education is the discovering and (re)shaping of who we, as individuals, are… for and by ourselves. However, in this process we have to be willing to have our own worldviews questioned and defended as well. Often, it seems, academics are unwilling to engage because engagement might take too much effort and we might be unable to logically defend our own ill-formed notions of the world as we see it. I’ll return to this sort of double-standard in just a moment.
2. In this process of challenging intellectual exhaustion, we have to take on the epidemic I like to call: “of course, you’re right, sweet baby.” As a graduate student, we fight on the front lines of a culture war that lifts high this banner from the moment students enter pre-K programs until exiting secondary schools; thus, we inherit high school students who bring with them the notion that they are always correct and take personal offense when we dare to question this truth. The answer and reality is that “yes, one can be wrong” and we must be willing to inform students of this. If this strikes you as radical, hold on, because I'm not done yet. We must explain to students why we think they deserve a B minus and not an A+. A personal example comes to mind to illustrate the double-standard I mentioned before: After recently submitting a grant proposal, I received a rather bland and formulaic "we're sorry" email that offered little direction for improvement of what the review committee said was an unclear proposal. After several emails and a short, strange and stoic meeting, I was left with the dumbfounded feeling: “I really hope I’ve never made one of my students feel like this.” I really do not know how we can expect students to respect us as we wage war against this “always right” epidemic if we are unable to clearly explain their lack of clarity and concision in, say, essay assignments. It might take one or two meetings and several emails, but we owe it to our students to explain how they can make their writing better. This level of engagement could be extended further: Can we be bothered to write letters of recommendation for our students? Help them in graduate school searches? Engage in email dialogue to making sure that difficult concepts discussed during class were grasped by all students?
Area Three: Is technology on our side?
Although all sorts of commentators seem to be reconsidering whether social security will remain the notorious third rail in American politics under the Obama administration, the third rail in 21st century pedagogy is technology and its appropriateness in the classroom. From seasoned professionals to newly-minted PhDs the opinions are all over the boards: the ardent defenders of the “no-technology”school hold fast to the creed of no power-point, audio or visual clips, smart boards…nothing beyond the outstanding personality of the lecturer, a black board and stick of chalk (for some reason, many of these advocates seem to be anti-Expo markers, as well). At the other end of the spectrum, there are professors who can’t seem to get enough: everything is on the powerpoint slides, will be posted online before or after the lecture, there will be music greeting the students on arrival, movie clips and photos scattered throughout the lecture, and perhaps an intricately choreographed musical number put on by the TAs to bring the lecture to a close. Ok, maybe a little much on the musical, but you catch my drift. Two main points present themselves here:
1. Technology, I believe can provide great teaching tools. There is certainly something to be said for the engagement factor that movies, music, etc. can bring to the classroom. However, there are certain drawbacks: moving from one form to the other must be seamless, planned, and distraction-less; when TAs (or worse, students) have to repeatedly help the professor with the technology s/he should reconsider its usage. Students, no doubt, appreciate the attempts to be “modern” but when technology becomes distraction instead of aid, I think the classroom would be better off without it.
2. Unfortunately, many tech-savvy professors seem to believe that utilizing technology absolves them of several of the earlier points presented here today: namely, communication and connectivity. There is also the risk that we become so reliant on technology that several uncomfortable problems can occur: all lectures will be neatly guided by powerpoint (what if it fails, where does the lecture go?); students can easily print out the outlines and materials that are posted online (so why go to class?).
In some ways we end where we began, or somewhere close by… with balance. Technological advancements in the 21st century will continue to press college faculty to keep pace with where our students are headed. Podcasts and e-textbooks may well be the wave of the future that started yesterday, but we have to strike the balance between tech overload and underload just as much as we do between status as professional and professor. Does this mean tolerating some students reading Salon.com while you lecture? Maybe.
And yet, despite all the perils of the modern lecture, the oh-so-heavy burden falls on us to present students with intellectually stimulating as well as memorable classroom experiences. Again, the battle is ours for the fighting, and if they do read the NYTimes online once in a while, count it a bargained triumph for some level of success has occurred in your classroom; for if the next generation is to be our partners in facing the “profound challenges to the nature, values, and control of higher education” I would much rather have it, albeit selectively, reading the Times rather than engaging in the mindless miasma of twitter.com.
TCH
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Recent Events
Updates for those of you out there in the blogosphere:
1. Mardi Gras was a splendid little time that left me with a new appreciation for the phrase "Throw me something, Mister" and a host of new friends.
2. I miss Athens (actually, "my people" more than the city proper) more than I ever thought possible.
3. I am ready to play frisbee (and I mean, play hard) with a group of fellow enthusiasts and take in a whole UGA baseball game.
4. I read constantly and think that the on-going dissertation (both in my mind and on paper) will take the form of a screeching dinosaur that might well consume me and then regurgitate me before my committee who will collectively shake their heads in disapproval. Who wants to see dino puke?
5. I have returned to my running obsession and want to run another 10k and perhaps half marathon before next fall.
6. I am going to the beach, I've decided, sometime this summer and will do nothing but read and work on my tan, aka, skin cancer.
7. For the most part, I am happy and would love to hear from any of you followers as to what you all are up to.
TCH
1. Mardi Gras was a splendid little time that left me with a new appreciation for the phrase "Throw me something, Mister" and a host of new friends.
2. I miss Athens (actually, "my people" more than the city proper) more than I ever thought possible.
3. I am ready to play frisbee (and I mean, play hard) with a group of fellow enthusiasts and take in a whole UGA baseball game.
4. I read constantly and think that the on-going dissertation (both in my mind and on paper) will take the form of a screeching dinosaur that might well consume me and then regurgitate me before my committee who will collectively shake their heads in disapproval. Who wants to see dino puke?
5. I have returned to my running obsession and want to run another 10k and perhaps half marathon before next fall.
6. I am going to the beach, I've decided, sometime this summer and will do nothing but read and work on my tan, aka, skin cancer.
7. For the most part, I am happy and would love to hear from any of you followers as to what you all are up to.
TCH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
