2010.  Wow.

I can’t think of a decade that went by faster than this past one.  I’ve spent 7 1/2 years of the ’00’s in Pennsylvania.  That means that I have lived here longer than DC (3years), Oxford, OH (4 years), and almost as long as I lived in Syracuse (8 years).  Pretty wild.  And…what’s really got me thinking…of my 7 1/2 years at Kutztown University, I’ve been the coordinator of composition for all but two of those years.  That’s right…I’m one of those people who took on the reigns of writing program administration well before I was tenured.  I’ve been a tenured coordinator of composition for only a year and half.   Believe me, I was told all during grad school that taking on WPA duties before tenure was a bad idea.  Practitioners in our field also recommend strongly against it.  But, at the time it didn’t feel like there was too much choice if I was going to be able to help build our composition program–one of the key reasons I came to KU.

At the end of my second year, ten faculty in our department retired; one tenure-track faculty member got married and joined her husband on the West Coast; and, our then Chair decided to tell us during finals week that he had accepted a new job and would not be with us the following fall.  He even passed around pictures of his new house in Michigan.  I remember that moment as both daunting and exciting.  Daunting in that our faculty was gutted by almost a third and we had to scramble to elect and new chair and figure out how to staff all of our courses by the fall semester.  Exciting because many of those people who were retiring were the very faculty members who seemed committed to internal factionalism and personal conflict.  In one fell swoop, that dysfunctional departmental dynamic would be gone for the most part.  We had the opportunity to build a new, collaborative department.

Our coordinator of composition at the time decided to run for department chair.  She and I had talked about me taking over the coordinator position, but this would mean I would do so a year ahead of time.  I didn’t see any real alternatives, no matter how conflicted I was about my premature entry into the world of writing program administration. I can’t pretend that my first couple of years at the coordinator were easy.  It was a huge adjustment that was marked by my own, at times, ambivalent relationship to administrative work.  But, in looking back on these 5 1/2 years, I think I can say that I’ve been able to do some pretty good things here.

I think my biggest contribution has been to privilege growing the program.  This has meant: 1) prioritizing building a core faculty in composition and rhetoric; 2) cultivate intellectual spaces to support that core faculty and all faculty teaching composition; and 3) build an undergraduate (and eventually graduate) concentration in Composition, Rhetoric, and Literacy Studies (the name came later, actually). Since I took over in 2004, we’ve hired three new faculty in composition and rhetoric and we are in the middle of hiring our fourth.  We’ve also converted a temporary faculty member–who is completing her PhD in composition and rhetoric–to a tenure-track position.  So, by fall 2010 we will have increased the number of comp/rhet faculty from three to eight.  Not bad.

In terms of creating an intellectual space, I started a reading group in Composition, Rhetoric, and Literacy Studies that meets monthly to discuss current scholarship in the field.  Thanks to the great work of Amy Lynch-Biniek and the Composition Conference Committee, we’ve expanded our annual undergraduate composition conference to include students taking composition and rhetoric courses at all levels.  We’ve also brought in keynote speakers such at Keith Gilyard, Rosa Eberly, and Steve Parks–and this spring Susan Wells will be joining us.

We have also revised and added several new courses to the department’s offerings.  In my first year as coordinator, we added ENG 430 “Rhetorical Traditions/Contemporary Renditions.”  Last year, we added my course ENG 316 “Rhetoric, Democracy, Advocacy.”  And this past semester, we added ENG 260 “Issues in Composition and Rhetoric” (Lynch-Biniek) and ENG 274 “Women, Writing, and Rhetoric” (Cullum).  Linda Cullum also worked with Lisa Weckerle from Speech/Communications to update ENG/SPE 335 “Rhetoric of Literature.”  Thanks in large part to our Chair (and fellow compositionist) Janice Chernekoff, ENU 405 “Teaching of Writing” runs every semester and is a required course for all Secondary Education/English majors.  All of these new courses are part of our proposed concentration in Composition, Rhetoric, and Literacy Studies, which I expect to have cleared all the curricular hurdles by the end of spring 2010 semester.  It’s really been quite an amazing run so far.

Like anything else, I could also list the many things I wish I had done, done better, or didn’t do.  But, I’m pretty good at beating myself up about those things on a daily basis.  In the spirit of the New Year, I thought I’d cut myself a little slack, look back at some accomplishments, and remind myself that the work is worth it.  Now I can actually begin planning for the next step!

Hmmmmm….where can we go from here?

As many of you know, I am scheduled to teach my new course, “Rhetoric, Democracy, Advocacy,” in the upcoming (spring ‘10) semester.  This will the be first time that the course is offered.  Unfortunately, the course was scheduled in conflict with the only other rhetoric course in our department…as a result, several students who would have liked to take both, cannot.  Worse yet, this means that my course has a low enrollment and, given the “budget crisis,” my be cancelled unless a few more students add the class. I posted quite a bit about the class a while back, but I thought I would post again in case there are any KU students out there interested in activist rhetorics and democracy.

Course Description

ENG 316: Rhetoric, Democracy, Advocacy The connection between rhetoric and democracy is an old one dating back to the origins of both concepts in Western traditions. Simply put rhetoric—the skilled use of argument and persuasive discourse—and democracy were seen as ways to replace violence as the primary means of governing and resolving conflict. This course argues that the intimate connections between rhetoric and democracy are critical to retain and reclaim for the health of democratic society and culture. American democracy has been defined not only by its institutions and Constitutional frameworks, but also by vibrant traditions of citizenship advocacy that have relentlessly stretched the boundaries of democratic freedoms, identities, and protections. A healthy democracy requires citizen advocates who are skilled in the analysis of public discourse and the rhetoric of advocacy. This course will be a sustained study of the theory and practice of advocacy rhetoric, primarily in the American context. In addition, this course will raise practical questions about what citizenship advocacy means in a context of increasing globalization and new media. 3 s.h. 3 c.h.

Course Rationale

Despite the historic connection between the rise of democracy and the rise of rhetoric in Western traditions, rarely do we study rhetoric as a “citizen discipline.” That is, while it is common to find courses training students in the “expert rhetorics” of corporations (public relations) and political campaigns, there is a general lack of courses that focus on the role of citizen advocacy as integral to the health of democratic cultures. As one of the missions of higher education is to train critical citizens capable of meeting the challenges and responsibilities of an ever changing world, this course seeks to make such training an explicit part of the English department’s curriculum.

Books for the Class

• Emergent Publics: An Essay on Social Movements and Democracy (Semaphore Series)
• The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control
• Rhetoric for Radicals: A Handbook for 21st Century Activists
• Rhetorical Democracy: Discursive Practices of Civic Engagement
• Rules for Radicals
• Activist Rhetorics and American Higher Education, 1885-1937

So, there ya have it!  Come one, come all!

As many readers of this blog know, earlier this semester APSCUF and PSEA held a joint conference on labor in higher education in Harrisburg, PA.  If you want a little flavor of some of what some key figures at the conference said, check out this edition of Behind the Headlines, a TV show sponsored by the Susquehanna Valley Center for Public Policy.

Behind the Headlines, November 16 and 23, 2009.

In this video you will hear from current APSCUF president, Steve Hicks; current APSCUF vice president, Amy Walters; Howard Bunsis, Eastern Michigan University, AAUP; and Marc Bousquet, author of How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low-Wage Nation (Cultural Front).

With over 100 faculty in attendance, including 35 department chairs who were invited to attend, IUP’s Representative Council has elected to conduct a vote of no confidence in IUP President Tony Atwater. Three votes were taken, the first to authorize the vote of no confidence in the president. The second vote was of the members of Representative Council who voted unanimously no confidence in the president. The third vote was of the members of the Council of Chairs who also voted unanimously no confidence in the president. The vote is scheduled for December 14-16 with the result being formally presented to the IUP Council of Trustees at their December 17th meeting.

Follow this link for Indiana Gazette article on the vote of no confidence.

Hey all…and now for something completely different.  That is, non-College of Business stuff.  I actually began writing this post a few weeks ago, but I needed to clarify some info.  Then the College of Business stuff exploded and I put this on the back burner.

On October 26th representatives from English, History, Modern Languages, and Math (Math dept. was not in attendance) met with LAS Dean Zayaitz and Ass’t Dean Rauenzhan to discuss what’s up with the timeline for the “New Lytle.”  For those of us who reside in this architectural remnant of 1960s functionalism (aka the movement to make all state buildings look like housing projects), we have been waiting quite patiently and have put up with our share of building issues.  You might even go as far as to say we feel we deserve a new building.

At our November department meeting, we learned a little bit about the Administration’s plans for the New Lytle–what’s being referred to as the North Campus Academic Building.  At this point I think it’s fair to say that many if not most of us Lytlers are somewhere between skeptical and pissed.

Here’s some of what’s included in the Administration’s current plans:

• one (1) computer lab
• 16 classrooms of approximately 2000 square feet with a capacity of up to 50 students (double the size of the Lytle’s current classrooms), some of which will have electronic divider doors
• suite (aka bullpen) offices for temporary/adjunct faculty

I contacted LAS Dean, Anne Zayaitz, to see make sure I had the details right and it seems what is listed above is pretty much on target.  She did say, however, that what was discussed at the meeting was a “feasibility study” not a detailed architectural design: “This implies ‘footprint’ info—e.g. number of classrooms at particular sizes, number of offices at particular sizes, open spaces for student interaction, etc.”  So, if we are looking at doubling the classroom size as part of a feasibility study and that is accepted, then is seems that all future architectural plans will begin from that premise.

There are two additional issues that I’ll have to take up in an additional post.  First, the number of faculty to be located in the New Lytle.  From what I’ve been told, the new building will house more faculty members than the current Lytle, yet there will not be a proportional increase in space (again, we are working from a feasibility study, I know).  This can only mean a herding of temporary faculty members into one large, inadequate office space.  Second, it seems that the Old Lytle may not go away as previously thought.  The “New Lytle” is actually the “North Campus Academic Building.”  It seems that despite Lytle’s persistent problems (mold, wasp infestation, and over-heated classrooms) that the plan at this point is to keep it.

Stay tuned.

OK, folks…it took almost a week, but we finally have a statement from President Cevallos about the administration’s intentions regarding the Chancellor’s remarks regarding College of Business accreditation.  As you’ll recall, the Chancellor made it clear that any move forward toward accreditation needed to be part of a shared governance process.  Here’s what Cevallos wrote to faculty late yesterday afternoon:

From: “Cevallos, F. Javier” <cevallos@kutztown.edu>
Date: November 24, 2009 3:10:22 PM EST
To: COB-Dept <cob-dept@kutztown.edu>
Subject: COB meeting re: AACSB/December 3 at 11:00 a.m.

To the Faculty in the College of Business;

There has been quite a bit of conversation since the Chancellor’s November 18 visit to our campus regarding the College of Business and the pursuit of AACSB accreditation.  Although in the past there have been several conversations regarding this particular subject, and we have made significant investments in the College for this purpose, these decisions were made under a PASSHE mandate to accredit academic programs.  The Chancellor has suggested that we should have additional conversations on the campus regarding this issue in light of his new policy regarding accreditation, and I concur.  Given the importance of this issue, and the tight time line we face, I would like to invite the faculty in the College  (as well as APSCUF and University Senate representatives) to a meeting to discuss the matter, on Thursday, December 3, 2009  from 11 to 12:00 p.m. at DeFran 100.  I look forward to a productive discussion that will help us move forward in the best way for the College and the University.

Let’s hope that President Cevallos does not intend for a one hour meeting in the second to last week of the semester count for “shared governance.” At the very least, I hope that a timeline for future discussions will be established.  We’ll see.

On Wednesday, the same day that Chancellor Cavanaugh met with faculty and announced that the AASCB accreditation mandate was lifted, the Chancellor also met with KU students.  Click here to read the Reading Eagle story on the meeting.

From: Quinn, Paul
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 20:55
To: Faculty
Subject: College of Business Accreditation

Fellow Faculty,

I wanted to provide you with a brief update regarding the College of Business and the remarks made by PASSHE Chancellor Cavanaugh on Wednesday.  As you may or may not recall, the recent reorganization of the College of Business has been planned based on a mandate from the Chancellor’s office for AACSB accreditation.  This was a mandate issued by the previous Chancellor, Judy Hample, and supported by the Board of Governors.  On Wednesday, the Chancellor stated that there was no longer a mandate in effect.  He further supported this with a direct email to me and Ken Ehrensal.  His email reads as follows.

***********************************************************************************

Dear Paul and Ken,

During my visit to Kutztown this week, I was asked whether I mandated AACSB accreditation. I responded that I did not. However, I want to ensure that you understand that my predecessor, Chancellor Hample, did indeed mandate such accreditation, and did state that failure to obtain accreditation would likely result in departmental or program elimination. Consequently, decisions on campuses were made, including hiring decisions, that were in response to that mandate. My recent change in that mandate reflects a fundamental shift in system requirements. This shift in mandate happened in the past few months as a result of ongoing discussions regarding the new directions for performance funding being addressed by the Task Force.

John

John C. Cavanaugh, Ph.D., Chancellor
Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education
Dixon University Center
2986 N. Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110

***********************************************************************************
This new information changes the rules of the game.

Given this APSCUF-KU thinks the following:

1) the reorganization of the College of Business needs to stop immediately while we have a chance to digest the Chancellor’s Decision and process its effect on our University;

2) the administration and the faculty of the College of Business need to immediately revisit the accreditation process and discuss whether or not to pursue this or any other accreditation

On Monday, November 23 at 4pm APSCUF-KU will hold a special Executive Committee meeting at which time, we will discuss how to best move forward.  The Provost, Dr. Vargas, will be coming to the meeting to answer any questions we have and discuss the change in the mandate with us.  Then, on Tuesday, November 24, members of APSCUF-KU Exec will be meeting with the faculty in the College of Business to discuss how to best move forward. Thanks.

Paul