Today, I taught John Scalzi

Today, I taught John Scalzi

No, I didn't actually teach the man himself. Really, it was more that he taught my class. Or maybe he just made it possible for me to teach. No, I don't teach science fiction, but this wasn't science fiction. It wasn't history either, as it happens. Instead, it was my Freshman Seminar on an incredibly cool topic. But one of the outcomes for the course is that students develop multiple perspectives and global awareness. We were supposed to be discussing an article on a 17th pseudo-Utopian community, but instead, we started with Scalzi's post of this morning, "Things I Don't Have to Think About Today."

I didn't have a lot of time to think about it. I saw it and just decided it was worth talking about. So I walked in, and asked how many definitions of the word 'privilege' they knew. A couple had heard of race and/or gender privilege, or class privilege, but no one really knew what it meant. So I said I had something we could read that might help to explain it. The makeup of this class is interesting in that it is majority white and male. Most of my classes are a bit more heterogenous, or at least more gender-balanced. But whatever. So we went around the room, each one reading a line aloud. Sometimes the lines were especially sad, because the student reading them probably *had* had to think about the ones they read. Next time, I will probably give them all a list and ask them to check off the ones they have or haven't had to think about. Anyway, after each one, we took a minute to discuss what they meant, some more than others. So, for example, more than half the students didn't understand why someone would have trouble hailing a cab after midnight. But enough did that they could explain. Some didn't understand why a prescription might be difficult to get. We talked about that, too.

Fortunately, it happened that the reading for class also had some interesting race stuff. So we were able to relate the two readings and to talk about different ways of excluding people or othering them. And this is where I start to worry about fail. Because this is ADM talking, and ADM is pretty white. Yeah, there are lots of sorts of privilege I don't have, but white privilege is something I've got. And so I feel a bit weird talking to students of color, or gay students, or anybody else who really knows about what it's like to have to think about all of the things that Scalzi and his commenters mention, because I'm also the person in the classroom with the most power and privilege in this situation. The dynamic are interesting. Today was a bit more interesting than usual, because I started my day with Dr Crazy's post on feminism in the classroom and was hoping that I create such a space when I teach. I think I probably do, but sometimes it's a clumsy space. Because I'm me. And sometimes I show my ass. But that's the risk you have to take, I think, because this shit is important to talk about. Still, I do hope I'm not screwing it up.

How can I say this?

How can I say this?

Hello, readers. I'm looking for a gender-neutral way of getting across the sentiments incorporated in the phrase, "to man up." You see, I really like those sentiments, but I don't like the phrase, because it's anything but gender-neutral. Actually, I don't really like the sentiment that is embodied in the "this is a manly quality, even when applied to women," part of it. Um ... does that make sense?

Suggestions?

Collegial advice

Collegial Advice

Dear colleague,

I understand that you are an Important Person at your institution, whose very nature is based on understanding hierarchy and conforming to it. But you have come to me asking a favor. It may be that, in the past, you have had similar favors granted by my predecessors. But we are in a new era of accreditation standards. So if I send you a very polite request asking for further information on which to base my judgement, and make it clear that I am consulting with other colleagues on your request while performing due diligence to make sure, if we grant that request, our accrediting agency will approve, let me give you a little advice:

Do NOT send a curt response to me that denies me my academic title, let alone my professional one (not that being department chair carries any extra rank at SLAC -- just more work!).

Do NOT spell my name incorrectly.

In short, do NOT write:

Ms. AMD


[insert grudging response to polite request for more information here]

[replacement of courtesy close with a statement that implies that I owe you your request]



Because seriously. Dude. Your insignia don't outrank my PhD. I don't owe you a thing, and I have every right to review your current connection with my department and see if we should discontinue that.*

no love,

ADM, PhD

Department Chair from whom you are asking a favor.


*I should point out that I will not be making this decision on my own, although that is within my rights. I will be consulting with 4 colleagues who have expertise, and then presenting my advice to my Dean. Because in ADM land, we consult and discuss and work for consensus whenever possible -- especially when there might be conflicts of interest -- and we document.

Girly-men teachers?

Girly-men Teachers?

Apropos of a conversation at Historiann's, this idea just struck me. I don't have time to go into it in great detail, and it might not even be original. But here it is:

The discussion of Judith Bennett's book last month focused in part on the idea of patriarchal equalibrium, and Bennett herself focuses a great deal on the consistant wage disparity between men and women. At SLAC, as at other universities all over the country (and possibly the world) -- at least where there is no union scale -- men tend to be paid more than women faculty of the same rank. I want to take that further, though. Those of us in Liberal Arts programs know that the folks in hard sciences are typically paid more than their peers in the humanities and social sciences. And hard sciences have traditionally been dominated by men.

Let's take that a step further, though. At SLAC, faculty in the (mostly male-dominated) professional schools make more than those of us in the Liberal Arts. Moreover, their teaching loads (and often service loads) are lighter, and publication requirements somewhat higher (although many of us in my school meet those higher requirements for scholarship even with our heavier teaching loads). We are 'teaching faculty' and they are 'research and professional' faculty. My question is this -- does the overt masculinization (is that a word?) of the 'research and professional' faculty that exists in terms of actual staffing lead to a de facto feminization of all faculty in the 'teaching' side? That is (partially), do even male faculty in Arts and Sciences get less respect and have they less clout because they teach and are willing to take lower salaries (because what man would do that? it's only natural that women do, but ...)?

Just a half-baked thought.