I know that not everyone out there is a Hillary fan, but I loved this moment in the debate last night. I don’t know how much of this is projecting, but this seems to be closer to who she is as a politician than those picky little pot-shots that come out of her campaign. After the debate last night, David Gergen said that there seems to be a theme emerging–not Hillary-the-one-with-experience, but Hillary-the-fighter. He seemed to be suggesting that it may be a little too late, thought. Funny thing is, that is what my wife has been saying since Hillary launched her campaign. She’s a fighter.

I’ve had a couple of email conversations with people who wonder why I’ve been a Hillary supporter. For some, it seems to run counter to my politics. After all, many people associated with “movement” politics are lining up with Obama and he has all the makings of an inspirational leader. He seems to have captured the imagination of some on the left, and certainly given hope to many young and emerging voters. I keep coming back to how my local experiences in APSCUF-KU and conditions on our campus are lining up with this presidential campaign. I put it this way to one person: “I want a fighter, not a lover.” As my wife argued last night, the pendulum has swung so far in a bad direction over the past 8 years, so much damage has been done to people in their everyday lives, that we need someone who can fight to swing it back…THEN we can start from a more even playing field at work on changing the way we work together.

I am very sympathetic to this. I our current vote of no confidence in our university president, some faculty have argued some version of “can’t we all just get along,” or “can’t we just sit down and talk with the president to resolve these issues without going for a vote of no confidence?” Again, both of these statements are reasonable, and even desirable. But they’re also ahistorical. That is, they ignore the years of sitting down and talking. They don’t consider the ways in which this administration has simply ignored problems. They don’t weigh the very real concrete impact of this administration’s policies on the quality of education and working conditions. And, again, I think I understand that position in many ways. So the “reasonable” position only makes sense when we “forget” history.

Anyway, my initial reason for posting was to share this little video from last night’s debate. Here ya go!:

After I posted here last night, I wandered over to the No Confidence blog to poke around in the comments. I found some interesting comments…most notably this one:

Dr. Mahoney, you ARE a liar. Regardless of your protestations otherwise and the philosophical dribble you use as a smoke screen to your true self, the raw, true facts are that you are a prevericator to the nth degree. You exaggerate, overstate, mistate, and lie. Your perceptions are skewed and it would appear that you have not visited any other institution of higher education (and especially not any other PASSHE campus)in the last ten years to see the state of affairs at those campuses, else you would not whine, yes WHINE to the level that you do. You are out of touch with reality, happily cocooned in your web of deceit and protected by the long outdated concept of “tenure”, which allows you not just “academic freedom”, but freedom to participate in the wanton desruction of the very institution which affords you these priveleges. You and your elitist academic “brothers and sisters” of APSCUF gave up your rights to governance by joining a collective bargaining unit. Governance is the act of shared management of an institution of higher education; by its very definition, a union is not management, thus, how can you claim the right to participate in the management of it? You have no responsiblity or accountability, your union mentality makes you merely destructive parasites with nothing but entitlement as your moniker. One can only hope that if nothing else results from this APSCUF created crisis, that you and your ilk are exposed for what you truly are.

February 18, 2008 9:03 PM

Funny…that was right after I was writing about my lack of funding for conferences. I guess I’m just a whiner after all.

The whole discussion on the No Confidence blog has been interesting for the kind of arguments that are made…overtly and by implication as well. Frankly, I expect these kind of personal attacks…I think anyone with any activist experience learns to expect that when you work for any kind of change, the first line of attack is generally personal. If you are thin-skinned or take offense easily, activism and advocacy will take a heavy toll.

As I may have mentioned before, I am working on writing a class called “Rhetoric, Democracy, Advocacy.” The kind of exchange I am having with “Harry Potter” and “anonymous” may very well make it onto the syllabus. I think these kind of everyday moments are absolutely critical to work on. After all, these are the kind of exchanges that affect activists and advocates on a direct, often personal level. But, even more so, they point to the “micro-negotiations of hegemony” and how specific discursive formations are policed and disciplined. In a very real sense, these exchanges offer a chance to understand how hegemony is maintained.

Here is part of my exchange with “anonymous”:

What you seem to be arguing is that the only people who have any right to work for positive change are those living/working in the most destitute conditions. Only the poorest of the poor, mistreated of the mistreated, have any right to call for change. Everyone else in your argument seems to lose their right to work for a better world. And by “better world” I do not mean utopia. I just mean leaving the world a better place.

We might be able to group “anonymous’s” response more broadly under the category of “love-it-or-leave-it.” But, it becomes important, I think, to make the assumptions of the argument explicit so it is possible to respond to the core of the argument. I think too many times the temptation is to respond to the personal attack with a counter attack. In my mind, that is one of the things the first attack is supposed to do.

Anyway, just a few thoughts before work. That’s right…I still go to work, even when I do not have to teach, despite my whining.

Here’s what I just posted to the vote of no confidence blog:

By a vote of 45 to 15 (with 4 abstentions) APSCUF-KU Representative Council has authorized a vote of no confidence in President Cevallos.

Over the next two weeks APSCUF-KU will hold several faculty meetings to discuss the bill of particulars in even more detail. Links to the bill of particulars and other supporting documents can be found on the right-hand sidebar and the APSCUF-KU web site.

Further details about the voting dates and upcoming meetings will be posted here as soon as they become available.

45 to 15. It’s interesting. You never quite know how these things are going to break. I want to note as well that a member of the Music Department brought a “no confidence in APSCUF-KU Exec” motion to the floor as well. I seconded the motion. I thought it was important to have that vote too since some faculty have made a case that they are “greatly disappointed” in APSCUF-KU leadership and have inferred that that is also the feeling of “lots of other faculty as well.” However, when it comes down to it, numbers speak.

The vote of no confidence in our leadership was defeated. 7 representatives voted no confidence, 49 voted confidence in our leadership. I say our here because, of course, I am a member of APSCUF-KU Exec.

I seconded that motion because I thought it was an important discussion and vote to have. I for one have worked hard over the past 5 years to turn our APSCUF-KU local into a strong, fighting union. A union that actually served it’s members and worked to bring more membership involvement. When I first came to KU our union was deemed largely ineffective by most faculty. My early involvement seemed to confirm that. Don’t get me wrong, there were many people in the union who were working incredibly hard. But it was not, for the most part, an activist union.

Now that we are much more proactive and strong, we are getting resistance in the other direction…Are we pushing too hard? Are we doing too much? Are the faculty content with the way things are? Do they want to return to the days when the union was not so active? For that reason, I thought we–at the very least I–needed to hear if Rep Council had confidence in our leadership or not. 49 Reps said they did have confidence. 40 Reps said, we want to continue as an active, fighting union.

To all those Reps who showed confidence in our leadership…I thank you. You may well be the reason I stay at KU.

Well, it’s just about 11:30 on Valentine’s Day. I taught this morning–saw the second part of the Frontline Documentary The Persuaders–and I will teach again at noon and 1:30. After that is the Rep Council meeting that everyone has been waiting for. We will be considering a vote of no confidence in Kutztown University President, Javier Cevallos. All the discussion that has taken place across campus, in our department meetings, on-line, on the blog, and in the media now is a backdrop for a decision today. The decision? Whether or not APSCUF-KU should proceed with a vote of no confidence.

Yes my friends…these are heady times. What has been interesting throughout this discussion is that there has been virtually no discussion on the specifics of APSCUF-KU’s bill of particulars–that is, of our actual reasons for introducing a discussion of a vote of no confidence. What’s also interesting is to watch the dynamics of how faculty members (in particular) relate to the issue of a no confidence vote. I don’t mean whether specific faculty members do or do not have confidence in President Cevallos. No, what I am thinking about has to do with how faculty responses show particular understandings of democratic literacies–that is, the everyday practice of democracy.

I recall in Habermas’s study of the “bourgeois public sphere,” a discussion of the interconnection between that public sphere and particular bourgeois values (and I don’t mean to position “bourgeois values” here in a derogatory sense like they’re “bougie.” I am thinking of these values in their historical sense). I am thinking about this because much of the discussion around the vote had to do with the way the discussion was introduced and how and through what media the discussion was introduced. Put another way, the tenor of the public discussion (at least in terms of the faculty discussion) seems to point to some kind of Emily Post guide to the ettiquette of public discourse, or institutional behavior. Something like that.

More to come on this for sure…I’ve gotta go teach.

I’m reposting this from my blogger site as well…it is close to how I am thinking lately and is something that I want to work more on. I can see this making it’s way into on of my conference papers this year…

<o:p>**********************************
Email to faculty, 1/23/2008
**********************************
</o:p>

The Value of the Word

I have been thinking about some recent concerns about the way the issue of no confidence was raised at the beginning of the semester. In particular, I am thinking about the issue of Rep Council members not having any idea about the possibility of a vote of no confidence—or the public discussion of the possibility of a vote of no confidence. I’ve looked back over my own notes and have found reference to several members who raised the issue. I can also recall several occasions in which the issue of no confidence was raised and discussed. I can’t square the two positions. That does not mean that I think anyone is lying about what they remember. Nor do I think that anyone who has raised questions about this process has ill intentions. I am beginning to think that perhaps the “way things have always been done” has had a deeper impact on our discussions at Rep Council than I expected. I’ll return to that in a moment, but first I want to share what I recall from Rep Council.
<o:p> </o:p>

• Back in April/late March, as part of the announcements portion of a Rep Council meeting, APSCUF-KU President Mike Gambone told the entire Rep Council that he was approached by the Board of Trustees with concerns they had about developments on our campus. In particular, he shared that they asked him to come to a special meeting and provide them with an evaluation of President Cevallos’s job performance. While we were not given copies of the document Gambone gave to the Board of Trustees (in part because he did not want to raise this issue publicly if there was an opportunity for positive change by working through the Trustees). Gambone did say, however, that one of the key things he stated explicitly in the document was that several issues need to be resolved or there would be an increasing push toward a vote of no confidence.
• I do remember, as some of the previous emails on this subject contend, that the issue of no confidence was brought up as part of other discussions during Rep Council.
• During strike preparations (and in our General Membership meeting over the summer) some members raised the issue of no confidence again and Gambone explicitly said that that will be an issue we may have to consider if we do not see progress.
• Over the summer, when the administration failed to call meetings of the ELC Task Force to generate solutions regarding the long-term stability of the ELC, we ran into the same pattern of inaction. Again, the issue of no confidence was raised.
• Finally (and this is by no means a complete list) Rep Council passed (with, if I remember correctly, one “no” vote) on October 11, 2007 a resolution on the ELC that explicitly called for accountability on the part of President Cevallos. You can see the full resolution here.

<o:p></o:p>So, when I say I can’t square the different “rememberings” about whether or not Rep Council members were informed about the question of no confidence in the president, I am not simply playing games. But, nonetheless, I do believe some members of Rep Council when they say do not see the above list as meaning the same thing as I do. So, what does one do with this? Well, again, it would be easy to dismiss different “rememberings” and engage in finger pointing. But, c’mon, who really has any interest in that. So, I want to share what I think may have contributed to these differences.

<o:p></o:p>There was a time when the word did not matter—
or at least, was not of serious consequence

<o:p></o:p>One of the things that I noticed early in my career here is that many faculty did not put a whole lot of stock in the words of APSCUF-KU leadership or the Administration. I remember listening to the protestations of previous members of APSCUF-KU Exec and hearing colleagues say “they always say that and still nothing happens.” Or, the administration would say it was invested in program A or policy B and colleagues would say “I’ll believe it when I see it.” In other words, I heard a lot of distrust or dismissal of people’s words—ironic for an academic institution in which words are supposed to mean. And if people do not believe in what other people say—if they cannot trust their words—then it makes sense that claims, statements, and arguments would be dismissed or not seen as worthy of notice. It’s actually almost a cliché representation of academics and academic discourse—that words have no connection to actual practices, that words are only used for posturing or making idle threats. Have you ever read the book Straight Man, by Richard Russo? A colleague of mine gave it to me my first year here and told me it should be “required reading” for all new faculty members at Kutztown. As each year passes, I am more and more aware of how true that book rings.

In any case, I am beginning to think that the culture of words-without-meaning may have had a part in some members of Rep Council not reading our words as amounting to very much. That is, I can imagine that if I had been at Kutztown for 20 years and I had gotten used to not believing words, on what grounds would I believe Gambone, or me, or APSCUF-KU Exec? It’s not as if the culture of words-without-meaning is gone after all. I remember in the Fall of 2006 when Dean Hanna came to our department meeting and told us all that once the Academic Forum went on-line in the Spring 2007, one of the larger classrooms in Lytle would be taken off line and converted into office space. Now, no one in our department was thrilled with the Academic Forum, but there was hope that at least we would have offices for new faculty. In August 2007, just a couple of weeks before the beginning of the semester, the Forum was on-line, but we did not have any converted office space. Instead, I came to campus to find that our copy room was being dismantled and half of the History department’s seminar room was being taken over in a last ditch effort to provide faculty with offices. And it was faculty and staff members who were doing that work. Again, none of this is new. At the LAS College opening day meeting, I raised this very issue to Hanna. I asked, in effect, “what happened?” He said that it would have been irresponsible for him as a manager to invest money in converting office space when Lytle will be torn down. “When will it be torn down, I asked?” Seven years.

I remember feeling kind of stupid at that point. I asked myself, “why did I actually believe his words in the fall of 2006?” Colleagues chimed in: “it’s par for the course.” In effect, it was a pedagogical moment. That is, I was being taught not to believe words. I was being instructed in the literacy of a culture of words-without-meaning. I can imagine that after a while, I would get worn down. I would accept despair. I would come to the conclusion, “that’s just the way things are.” But that would have significant, additional consequences. I would stop believing what people say. I would have to determine that what other faculty members and administrators said had no significance in real life. That’s a dangerous path—especially for someone like me who teaches writing and how to do things with words.

Having words

Something that I think all of us on the current APSCUF-KU Exec have tried to do is to make good on our words. I can remember in the past, sitting though Rep Council meetings when the former president would report on Meet and Discuss. He would tell us that APSCUF-KU demanded a resolution to X or additional information on Y. The administration would consistently reply “we’ll get back to you.” But they never did. The next Meet and Discuss report was like watching a re-run of the previous report. “We’ll get back to you.” But no one seemed to really expect that we would actually get an answer. And there was no consequence. It was like a ritual dance that the actors performed for the sake of ceremony. When Gambone became president and Ken Ehrensal took over Meet and Discuss, they had to contend with this ritual. Gambone’s answer was to give the administration time lines. Instead of “we’ll get back to you” meeting with a nod, it was met with a deadline: If you do not get back to us by next Meet and Discuss, we will file a policy grievance. Management called what it thought was a bluff. The grievance was filed. In other words, words meant something again. For over a year the pattern repeated, until finally (maybe) it started to become clear that words would continue to mean something in that context. And when words have meaning, we can actually start talking about trust again.

So, to bring this back to the point, I think I can understand why the arguments, information, warnings, suggestions about no confidence that I’ve listed above may not have meant the same thing to some people as they meant to me. I can also understand why Rep Council members would not lend credence to other members call for a no confidence vote. After all, in a context where words were divorced from practice and action, there would be no reason to care or connect the dots between statement A and statement B.

Perhaps we have an opportunity here to reclaim the word. To trust that we say what we mean and mean what we say. And, further, that we will follow up on our words with practice. Frankly, that’s what I saw us doing on APSCUF-KU Exec. But we were cautious as well. We did not recommend to Rep Council that a vote of no confidence be taken. We raised the issue publicly as a point of discussion. Faculty members need ample time to consider this issue. Faculty members need time to consider the supporting documents on our local website http://www.apscuf.org/kutztown and on the blog http://cevallosnoconfidence.blogspot.com. Department Representatives need to have time to talk to members of their department to get their input. When Department Reps come to Rep Council on February 14^th, they will have had the benefit of all this discussion and can represent their departments well. Then Rep Council will decide what to do. Is a vote of no confidence in President Cevallos a possibility? Yes. But that is only one possibility. This discussion has to happen in the open—not just in hallways and closed offices—but openly. We are, after all, thinking through the future of our university.

An Election Year

<o:p></o:p>I also know that there are some faculty members who are not happy with the current APSCUF-KU Exec leadership. I take that as a given. It seems to me that cultural and structural change is not easy. Not everyone will be happy with the direction of change. But I want to remind everyone one of this: APSCUF-KU elections will be held this spring. Up for election are President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer. In addition, three Delegate seats are up for election: my seat, Paul Quinn’s seat, and Kristin Bremer’s seat. If you are not happy with the current leadership, run for a position. Put together a slate of candidates for that matter. I think that would be incredibly healthy for the future of this union. I would further suggest that we could have a public debate leading up to elections. That kind of involvement in our local would be incredible.

When election time comes around, I will make my case. I will respond to any questions people have. I will offer my services to the union and the university once again. Unless something unforeseen happens, I will run again. You have my word.