Posts Tagged ‘kutztown university’

22
Feb

A Proposal: Gettin’ Dirty

   Posted by: K. Mahoney   in Uncategorized, writing

Get your minds out of the gutter folks…The “Dirty” here is as in “getting your hands dirty.”  I’ve been a little lax keeping up with Cooking with Dionysus.  Much of my virtual presence has been spent working on a blog for our local union’s delegates to the APSCUF Legislative Assembly, a non-official local union blog called APSCUF-KU XChange (of which I’m thinking of changing to just the KU XChange), and building a wiki for our composition and rhetoric program at KU.  I’ve also been writing quite a bit on private writing blog.  For a host of reasons, I write more and more often in that blog than I do when I plop myself down in front of a blank Word document.

I began my private blog as a way to finish up a chapter for Seth and JongHwa’s forthcoming  collection, Activism and Rhetoric: Theory and Contexts for Political Engagement.  In short, I liked writing and thinking in a blog space a lot more than I did in a Word context.  From there I began writing class notes and ideas for my course, “Rhetoric, Democracy, Advocacy” (which I am currently teaching), and seemingly random notes about issues I’m interested in and want to research.  The more I wrote, the more I wanted to write (a pretty consistent theme in my academic career).

Like everything else at a teaching university, my desire to write more and more often had to confront very real time constraints.  So, I scheduled myself a three-hour bloc once a week to write.

One of the first things I did was re-read all of the conference papers I’ve written over the past few years to see which ones (if any) I could work on and turn into an article.  As I read, it started to see the shape of a bigger project.  I shouldn’t have been surprised, actually, since I made a conscious decision a while back that I would only propose conference papers that chipped away at a bigger project.  After a few days of toying around with organization and, more importantly, the title I had the outlines of a book proposal together: Gettin’ Dirty: Rhetoric, Democracy, and Sustainable Dissent.  Yup.  So, that’s what I’m working on!

So…why this breaking out of my private blog into Cooking with Dionysus?  I refuse to admit this to myself, but I am sure it has something to with watching Julie and Julia the other night.  I’ve gone back and forth on bringing my works-in-progress to CwD (or any other blog for that matter) for a range of reasons…that I’d be happy to talk about.  What convinced me to move Gettin’ Dirty (the draft proposal at least) onto CwD?  Two things: 1) I need to give myself smaller deadlines and a consistent space to write in order to put this book together in a relatively short period of time (self-imposed urgency); and, 2) to open up the possibility of not feeling like I’m working in isolation.  Even if no one bothers to comment to what I post, it feels less isolating.  To me.  No general principles about the nature of blogging and it’s impact on writer identity here.  Just a fact that it seems easier to write.

As my first little nugget, I thought I’d post my very, very drafty table of contents.  This is what I am working with:

Gettin’ Dirty:
Rhetoric, Democracy, and Sustainable Dissent
by Kevin Mahoney

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction: “Rhetoric of Advocacy: Curricular Labor and Democratic Futures” (from CCCC 2009 conference paper) [Potentially retitled as “Curricular Labor and Democratic Futures.”]
  2. Radical Teaching and Social Movements: Historical Legacies (from chapter 3 of my dissertation)
  3. “Space: Mapping Democratic Openings in Empire” (From CCCC 2004 conference paper)
  4. “Advancing Composition: Public Rhetorics and the Struggle for Democratic Futures” (From CCCC 2007 conference paper)
  5. “Viral Advocacy” (from CCCC 2010 conference paper)
  6. “Literacies for the Long Haul: Traditions of Radical Literacy Education for Access, Autonomy, and Democracy” (from CCCC 2005 conference paper)
  7. “The Day After: Grieving and Sustainable Dissent” (new)

So, there ya have it…my little entry into public, academic writing.  Oh, if you’re wondering about the picture at the top of this post, I found it online.  I love it.  I want to ask permission to use that as the cover.

I’ve got some ideas already about where to submit my proposal…but if you’ve got any ideas, I’m all ears.

4
Jan

Happy New Year!

   Posted by: K. Mahoney   in Uncategorized

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?

1
Dec

North Campus Academic Bulding aka the New Lytle

   Posted by: ktmahoney   in Uncategorized

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.

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.

20
Nov

Update on ENG 316 Rhetoric, Democracy, Advocacy

   Posted by: K. Mahoney   in Uncategorized

Hey all.  I went through my book order today and now can tell you that we will be reading Susan Kates, Activist Rhetorics and American Higher Education, 1885-1937.  That’s in addition to the book list I posted last week.

I got a little bit concerned looking at amazon.com because it looks like the book might be out of print.  However, on the Southern Illinois University Press site, it shows the book in-print.  Very cool!

So, any KU students who are last minute register-ers and might dig this class…REGISTER SOON!  I want to make sure this class runs.  It looks pretty good now, but I stress over this kind of stuff.

19
Nov

into the mess…

   Posted by: K. Mahoney   in Uncategorized

Last night the PaSSHE Chancellor was on our campus and had an open meeting with faculty.  We knew that one of the issues that faculty were going to raise would be the reorganization of the College of Business due to a mandate from the Chancellor’s office for AACSB accreditation.  Let’s say that the Chancellor’s visit proved to be a game changer.  Here’s what I posted on APSCUF-KU Xchange this morning.

I wake this morning with my Irish up as strong as it was before I went to bed.  Here is the Chair of Accounting and Finance, Keshav Gupta’s, account of what the Chancellor said last night at the open faculty meeting @ KU:

At today’s meeting with PASSHE Chancellor, Dr. Cavanaugh, I asked the following question:

It is well known that colleges of business are cash generators.  E.G. for the fiscal year 1998-1999 Accounting and Finance Department generated almost $2,000,000 in tuition and fees revenues with only $950,000 in expenses.  That resulted in $1,050,000 in cash contribution, after expenses, to KU.  In view of this why would you want to shut down the college of business, if it were unable to get AACSB accreditation, and what will be its impact on KU?

Dr. Cavanaugh’s response was something like this:

Thank you for giving me a chance to dispel a rumor.  I have never said that.  There are Pros and Cons of AACSB.  AACSB’s AQ-PQ requirements are very stringent.  AACSB focuses more on faculty qualifications than perhaps any other accrediting body.  Unlike some other disciplines, AACSB accreditation is not absolutely necessary.  From the studies I have seen, AACSB is probably helpful in recruiting faculty and MBA students.  Impact of AACSB on recruitment of undergraduate students is less clear.

KU needs to debate pros and cons of going for AACSB accreditation and pros and cons of not going for AACSB accreditation.

Later on in a brief private conversation, Dr. Cavanaugh stated that closing down college of business would be stupid.  He also said that when he took office he saw all these accreditation mandates from the previous chancellor and that he did not agree with them.  Finally, he said that if we go for AACSB accreditation we have to make sure that we get it.

Cavanaugh’s statement flies in the face of everything we have heard up till now.  Here’s what I wrote to our APSCUF-KU Executive Committee this morning:

I want to put my two cents in on this.  I agree with Paul that managements plans for splitting the College of Business needs to stop immediately without conditions.  Frankly, I am livid.  Here’s just a little summary of why:

  • Up until this point, we have been operating under the assumption there was a MANDATE for AACSB accreditation.  A Board of Governors’ policy was the source of that mandate and the former Chancellor had made it perfectly clear that any College or program offering a degree in business that was not AACSB accredited would face closure.  The effect of that would be the retrenchment of a significant number of faculty members.
  • The ONLY reason Paul demanded that the administration produces a coherent plan and present that plan to the union was to save the jobs of a significant number of our faculty.
  • It was clear if we HAD NOT forced this issue, the CoB Dean and the administration would have violated the contract, and potentially the law, which would have ended in a failed proposal for AACSB and the potential closure of the program and hence the loss of faculty jobs.
  • As a union–particularly those of us who met with the administration to review and critique their proposals, Paul, Ruth, and myself–we have taken some hits for being involved in the process at all.  Personally, I was willing to absorb those blows and deal with the trash talk in the rumor mills because I thought we could save faculty jobs.  A couple of years ago we did the same thing when it came to saving the Early Learning Center.  We knew that we would take hits from some people who didn’t see the value of the Early Learning Center, but we got involved with discussion with administration because we thought we could save the ELC.  And we did.
  • The chancellor’s announcement last night that there was no mandate for AACSB accreditation and than any decision to pursue accreditation should be a university wide discussion of strategic priorities–i.e. part of a shared governance process–raises several fundamental questions:
    • How is it possible that our administration did not know about this?  If they truly didn’t know about this, then that raises serious questions about what exactly President Cevallos has been doing this past few months when not in China.  If they DID know about this and hid this from us, all bets are off.
    • Given the significant cost of the accreditation process and the divisive nature of having a disproportionate amount of money being allocated to the College of Business in support of accreditation, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that the administration–Cevallos in particular–not have someone in CONSTANT CONTACT with State PaSSHE regarding the process of AASCB accreditation and PaSSHE policy?
    • Why has the administration not released a clear statement today putting a halt to the reorganization of the College of Business given this new information?
    • Why did the CHANCELLOR not explicitly communicate this change of policy to all university presidents? From what we’ve been able to find out in a short period of time, this information is news to many of our colleagues across the state system.
I have to stop or I am going to get even angrier than I am at this point.  If we get additional corroboration of the Chancellor’s statements (there is a question as to whether the Board of Governors’ has actually approved this change of policy), then I think it’s time open the grievance flood gates.
This is a game changer folks.
Bread and Roses,
Kevin
It’s gonna get a whole lot messier before it gets better.
11
Nov

Books for ENG 316 Rhetoric, Democracy, Advocacy

   Posted by: K. Mahoney   in Uncategorized

Here’s a preliminary list of books for my spring course, ENG 316 Rhetoric, Democracy, Advocacy.

I think I’ve got another book on order, but for the life of me I can’t think of what it is at the moment and the file is at work.  I also have some articles and on-line material that we’ll bring into the mix.  If anyone has any “must read” books and/or articles for a class like this, please pass them along.

Not surprisingly, my friend Seth Kahn down at West Chester is teaching a class similar to this one…another parallel made to order.  Just too cool.  A little plug for Seth…he’s co-edited with JongHwa Lee an awesome book, Rhetoric and Activism: Theory and Contexts for Political Engagement due out early 2010.  The next time I teach ENG 316, I’ve gotta put this one on the reading list.

15
Sep

a delayed beginning to the fall semester

   Posted by: ktmahoney   in comp/rhet

Well, actually, the fall semester wasn’t delayed at all.  Only my post to this blog :-) .

Welcome back everyone!  I have to say that  it was pretty incredible coming back this semester and having seven–SEVEN– comp/rhet faculty at our first meeting.  We’ve come a long way in terms of faculty hiring and program development in a very short time.  When I took over the Coordinator position, we had three comp/rhet faculty members.

There has also been a pretty rapid increase in student interest in upper-level composition courses.  ENG 430 Rhetorical Traditions/Contemporary Renditions, went live in the Spring 2007 semester and this coming Spring, my new course ENG 316 Rhetoric, Democracy, Advocacy will be offered for the first time.  Amy Lynch-Biniek authored a new course, ENG XXX Composition and Rhetoric Studies which is making its way through the curricular process and will be one of the key courses for our proposed concentration in Composition, Rhetoric, and Literacy Studies.  Linda Cullum will be submitting her new course, ENG XXX Women, Writing, Rhetoric to the curriculum committees this semester.  In addition, our ENU 405 Teaching of Writing, continues to fill every semester with graduate and undergraduate students. Needless to say, we are excited about the direction our program is headed!

This semester I hope to get all our comp/rhet faculty up and running on this blog too.  This way you can hear from all of us…of different approaches to teaching, latest scholarship, thoughts on writing and rhetoric, musings, and random contributions to this little space.

I am going to leave for now…but will return soon!  Thanks for taking the time to check in.

29
Apr

end of the year…thinking ahead to 2009-2010

   Posted by: ktmahoney   in comp/rhet

There are just three days left in the semester and we’re wrapping things up. Like most of my colleagues, I am deep in grading mode. However, I thought I would take a few minutes this morning (before I head into campus and while my son is sleeping) to post.

This past academic year has been pretty incredible for our little composition program.  We have one new class on the books, ENG 316 Rhetoric,  Democracy, Advocacy, which will be offered in spring 2010 for the first time.  We also have two classes heading for college and university curriculum committees after passing our department unanimously: Women, Writing, Rhetoric and Issues in Composition and Rhetoric Studies.  A very productive year for course development and another step toward rounding out a solid concentration in Composition, Rhetoric, and Literacy Studies at KU. 

This past year we also completed two successful tenure-track faculty searches.  In the fall, we will welcome Mysti Rudd from Lamar State College-Port Arthur (IUP PhD candidate) in Texas and Moe Folk from Michigan Tech.   Over the summer I am going to ask Mysti and Moe to introduces themselves to you, but for now let me just say that both of these folks promise to contribute to our program in exciting ways.  As I have suggested before on this blog, our program has at its core an ethic of “conversation.”  That is, we are interested in a diversity of approaches at our composition table that can contibute to a lively conversation over the teaching of writing, literacy in the 21st Century, and all things composition and rhetoric.  Many of us got into this field because of its lively discussion over the purpose and nature of writing, rhetoric, and literacy…so, it only makes sense that we would want to use that energy, that commitment to discussion as the model of our program.  I am sure that Mysti and Moe will both expand and deepen our conversations. 

This past spring saw another successful Composition Conference for student writers.  This 5th annual conference was expanded to include student writers from all levels of composition courses, which exceeded our expectations.  Despite a very miserable weather day, attendance at this year’s conference was the best yet.  Our keynote speaker, Steve Parks from Syracuse University, gave an engaging talk entitled “Once I was a Washing Machine: Worker/Writer Alliances at the Edge of the Economic Abyss” (see the pics below).  His talk was both well attended and sparked conversations that echoed through our conversations for weeks. 

Over the course of this summer we will be planning for what promises to be an exciting new academic year.  We will be hiring an additional tenure-track faculty member in Multicultural/Multiethnic Rhetorics; formally submitting our concentration for department approval; expanding our course offerings; deepening our use of new media; and continuing conversations in our weekly meetings and reading groups.  Toward the end of this semester, we began some interesting and exciting conversations with our fellow rhetoricians in the Speech Department (soon to be Communications Studies).  Frankly, the promise of reuniting rhetoric just gets me all happy (yes, I am a rhetoric geek). In short, I think we are in great shape…or, given that today is Obama’s 100th day in office, maybe I should say: “the state of our program is strong!”  :-)

4
Apr

an experiment in podcasting panels

   Posted by: ktmahoney   in comp/rhet, events

podcast-icon-miniIn addition to all the vlogging we did and photos we took, we did our first experiment in podcasting for the KU Composition Conference.  Three students from my Advanced Composition class–Tim Crane, Katrina Albert, and Renee Franklin–agreed to having their panel recorded for a podcast.  A huge thanks goes out to them for their willingness to try this out.  

I just finished loading up the audio (with very minimal editing) and it sounds good!  If you’d like to check it out, click on the radio icon above.  A QuickTime (or other audio program) should start up and play the file.  If you want a little context for the panel, check out the paper assignment that provided the prompt for Tim, Katrina, and Renee’s paper.  Or, check out the Ramage-tagged posts on our class blog.