Total serendipity. I was looking for a distraction while I count down to when I have to leave, doing a search on states that have cohabitation bans, because you know, that's relaxing. So anyhow, I came across this and while there is the not entirely unexpected decline into the potty humor realm later in the song, some of it at least early on made me laugh out loud. Not hard hitting social/political commentary, just something that was unexpected, stupid, and funny.
Graduate Employees at NYU have voted to strike!
In response to the NYU administration's refusal to negotiate on terms of a contract, the graduate employees at NYU have voted to strike. It is important to know that NYU had a graduate employee union with a contract. Then in 2004 when the National Labor Relations Board overturned its 2000 ruling regarding graduate employees at private universities, NYU's administration no longer was legally obligated to recognize the grad union. There was nothing stopping them from continuing to negotiate in good faith with the union, but the did not have to. They chose not to. So much for the liberal universities I hear the neo-cons whining about.
I have a more complete summary of this chapter of academic labor history which I'll post when I'm not so busy. For now, some musings prompted by the recent NYU developments.
The strike was coming for a while. The NYU grad employees have been working without a contract since August 31. In late October, with knowledge that a strike vote was pending, deans at New York University sent a letter to tenured faculty. The letter is typical of the disappointing habit of union busting behavior and rhetoric on the part of universities' adminstrations. What bothers me most about this letter is here:
"Tenured faculty have a special, additional responsibility not to do anything or say anything that could be construed as encouraging untenured colleagues, graduate students, or administrative staff not to fulfill their responsibilities, thus placing inappropriate pressures on them."
WHAT? I'd be mightily pissed if I were tenured faculty at NYU right now.
This is so disappointing. The edifice of academic free speech is showing some serious cracks these days. When a university adminstration can send out a letter like this...I mean, read it again for just a second: "not do or say anything that could be construed as..." How would you feel if you got a letter like this from your employer?
And can you imagine howthis would be enforced?
Provost: Drs. A, B, and C, you understand what actions or words brought you here for disciplinary review today?
Dr. A: Um...I gave a thumbs up sign to a lecturer who I saw on the picket line?
Dr. B: Well, I did emit an extremely derisive snort while our department head was reading your letter at that ridiculous mandatory faculty meeting.
Dr. C: Why I'm here? I really don't know. What did I do? Maybe when I said "the poor ain't so bad" at a colloquium dinner last week...
Ok, enough hypothetic and hyperbolic. How about some concrete?
You'll hear complaints about censorship from the neo-cons so let me clarify that the source of their complaints is (usualy) a bit different from what I consider institutionalized censorship. Typically what gets their boxers all in a twist is that David Horowitzian type views are extremely offensive to some people; that while some might accept creationism is "valid" as a belief system, a belief system is not a fucking scientific theory (the philosophers can help me out here...can something which has as a premise that it cannot be proved true, only accepted on faith, even be evaluated for validity?); that statements like "queerin' don't make the world go round", while certainly memorable, are not the sort of pithy social commentary one would have every right to expect at a university sponsored discussion of public attitudes and policy.
Unpopularity, public criticism by peers/community, protest, peer led boycott, student petition, debate, and I'd say even refusal to accept pay for promotion (newspaper ads, radio spots) - all of those responses are crucially different from what I mean when I say institutional censorship. I propose this term relatively closely describe a situation where we find limits or constraints imposed on perceived execution of individuals' constitutionally granted and completely reasonable personal freedoms, which limits originate at or near the top of the official institutional hierarchy (or a hierarchy in which the institution is embedded, such as state or federal government), and which have direct or implied threat of reprisal to back them up. When I speak of the loss of academic free speech, this institutional censorship is the necessary context.
Some examples:
At my own university a few years back, there were cuts to Grad Assistant (GA) health insurance as part of a truly foul state budget proposed by convicted ex-governor John Rowland. GAs agreed they wanted say in how the health insurance cuts would play out, but found themselves shut out of administrative discussions about GA health care priorities. During this time, a GA was interviewed on a local commercial radio station about the cuts. The GA said he thought that our university had been involved in some kind of deal with the governor which included cutting the state's subsidy to our health benefits.
The very same day of the interview, the GA was called by a top university adminstrator who asked him to come to a meeting to discuss GA health insurance. At the meeting, the administrator and a dean took turns yelling at this student. The administrator swore quite a bit and knocked over a chair in her rage. As if the tone and setting was not hostile enough, the GA was also subject to vague threats from both administrators.
Still not convinced that free speech is a becoming a bit of a sick joke at the academy? Consider the crusade against University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill who was investigated by the university for having written an essay which expressed his opinions, conclusions, believes, analysis, etc. about a sensitive and socially complex matter in that annoying baby boomer style. Was it an annoying obnoxious essay? YES. Did I strongly dislike this essay and do I think Churchill is just another blowhard? Yep. Was what he did something the Colorado state government should hunt him out of office for? No. As a nice point of contrast, consider Harvard University president Larry Summers' statements which suggest he, as someone in charge of faculty recruitment and hiring, might have a belief women have natural, biologically inevitable intellectual deficiencies to men in certain areas. Application of such an attitude in Summers' judgment could damage equal employment opportunity at one of the nation's most prestigious universities. Summers' statement opened him up to criticism from his peers in academia and yet people reacted as he were the subject of a witch hunt. Where were the cries of witch hunt when U Colorado administrators were encouraged by the government to sift through Churchill's personal and academic history for cracks into which they could drive the chisel to pry him loose from his tenured position?
In a much larger scope (and much more creepy) example of the loss of freedom of expression in the academy, we have the immediate post September 11th Lynn Cheney/Joe Lieberman academic blacklist. The document had an "appendix" with a list of names, places, and dates where individuals on college campuses had said anything "unamerican" in the days just after the 9/11 attacks. The criteria for "unamerican", as you can imagine, was rather liberally applied and included things like "Lindsay D. Etudiant, 3rd year undergraduate political science major at peace rally". I read this in the unadulterated version, before the ACLU made them take out the names. I can't tell you how utterly chilling it was*.
So the deans' letter to the NYU faculty is not that surprising in this context. Still, I wonder how these folks think of themselves. Do they see where they fit into this movement of limitation? Do they notice that they are "the man" (and I don't mean that in an even remotely good way)? Most people see themselves as good people. You do. I do. Think of how your life might feel if you didn't. I've felt it. It is intolerable. So what do the deans tell themselves in order to maintain the belief they are inherently good people? When college presidents make salaries in the hundreds of thousands, when top level academic administrative positions are multiplying like wet mogwai, when fully compensated staff and faculty positions are being replaced with temp, part time, and other contingent positions, when graduate employees and other workers in the contingent labor pool are so undercompensated that too many of them must choose between basic needs like health care and shelter - when these people sign their names to a letter saying ignore all of this and do what we say, what do they tell themselves so they don't feel like the monstrously huge assholes they effectively are?
*For a good list of references regarding civil liberties in the post 9/11 era, go here)
Arrgh. I have spent too much time on this now. I'll post now and come back to clean it up later. Don't mind the errors.
I'm staying home sick today so I'm reading the news. Lots of it.
- National 1
I read about the federal budget provisions proposed in the House - Big cuts to the federal student aid program (aka "only rich kids should go to college"), cuts to child support enforcement programs ("we care about life from the moment of conception to the moment of birth"),reductions in spending on food stamps programs ("fuck the poor, and really fuck the working poor").
I read about the federal budget provisions proposed in the Senate - $10 billion cuts to Medicare and Medicaid that may result in, among other things, limited access to generic prescriptions for Medicaid patients.
I read about how these cuts are necessary in order to pay for hurricane relief. And here I thought the cuts were necessary to help to pay for that huge corporate tax cut package that was passed in October of 2004.
Last Fall, the Washington Post reported that when Bush took office in January 2001, the government was forecasting a $5.6 trillion budget surplus by 2011. A surplus! So why is the economic outlook so bad that congress is considering these horrible cuts now? The republicans are correct to some degree. It is in no small part because we've been overspending. We overspent fighting a war that was predicated on lies. Meanwhile, we went and cut off our access to tax revenues. Where was the outrage when republican and democrat lawmakers joined together last year to squander our country's long term economic outlook on rewards to corporations who don't even have to promise to invest in creating domestic jobs? I'm also quite disappointed that the issue of the loss of tax revenue has not entered into discussion of the current federal deficit/budget. It seems like it at least warrants mentioning.
- National 2
One ambiguously nice item in the national news today: Bush is pulling his support for Supreme Court nominee and Bush Co. croney Harriet Miers. I'm not super psyched about this one because I think Bush will just look for someone who is as bad or worse.
- Local
I switched from the national to the more local. Very local in fact, college again. The news ripped from the campus paper headlines today is similar in type and scale to any of the state or national querulous neo-con based fiascos reported in the big press. Yes, I know "fiasco" is an overused term but it seems appropriate here. Any event involving Ann Coulter, prominent harbinger of hackneyed controversy, automatically deserves the title "fiasco". If it involves college students at a public university paying Ann Coulter over $16 thousand to grace the campus with her divisive, petulant, hate mongering, simple minded punditry* I think the event is elevated to Goat Screw.
* (thanks A! good word)
The announcement that our undergrad student government approved funding for the goat screw was given as a sort of after thought in the campus paper. Here's how it reads (late on page two): "In other business, the senate approved funding of $16,035 to the College Republicans... The funding approved will help to bring Republican Ann Coulter to U___."
$16,000 is 60% more than is given to any other group on campus for a speaker. If I were an undergrad and funds from my mandatory fee were being spent on this shit, I'd be fucking pissed, especially when we consider this expenditure in the proper context. That is, when we consider that the college republicans are making a habit of asking for student funding of outrageous punditainment which they justify as attempts to engender thought provoking discussions and debates. An excellent example of such a thought provoking event was ex-professional wrestler turned conservative speaker Warrior who the student republican club brought in last April.
It was billed as an "interactive discussion" but when it became interactive, Warrior was unhappy. His statements like "Queerin don't make the world go 'round" were not received as the insightful commentary they apparently had sounded like in the ex-pro wrestler's head. In the aftermath of the Warrior clusterfuck, students were angry their money had gone to fund this. The justifcation for using student fees to fund the Warrior event was that the college republicans had "...Wanted to host a thought-provoking discussion from an individual who, given his celebrity status, would appeal to a broad range of students." In the days just following the event, members of the college republicans said they were disappointed with Warrior's behavior because they had hoped his presence would "bring another view to add to respectful debates".
Having students pay to be insulted en masse by an inflammatory peckerhead is "thought provoking" the way throwing a drink in someone's face is "engaging". Inviting a vitriol spewing loser, paying him with money that is meant to provide non-exclusionary enrichment and social activities for the undergrad body as a diverse whole, and expecting the event to result in "respectful debate" is either simple minded or obnoxiously underhanded. I think it is the latter but you never know...
Today's report regarding the approval to pay Miss Coulter $16 thousand to have an argument went on: "According to Funding Board Chair Sen. Mike McKiernan, security has been accounted for, to prevent physical attacks. College Republicans hired a private security force for the event..."
I feel a bit uneasy about "a private security force". It could be the college republicans have some reason to believe they may not get the service they'd like from the university police. After having to defend the Warrior against the inevitable rabble his ignorant insults had succeeded in rousing, one of the campus police officers was quoted saying "How do you think I feel I have to protect him," April 5, 2005
And Ann Coulter promises to be about as intellectually engaging, thought provoking, and given to "respectful debate" as the Warrior.
Here's how the Editorial review at Amazon.com describes Coulter: "Ever combative, Coulter is unafraid to court controversy..." Publisher's Weekly says: "Never mind this book’s title (How to Talk to a Liberal - If you must); from the writings collected here, it sounds like Coulter has never talked calmly with anyone, much less "liberals." In her view, "liberals" aren’t even "sentient creatures.""
I can see how hard the college republicans are trying to add to respectful debates with this line up of speakers.
So does Ann Coulter need security to speak at our university?
One student senator cautioned that "In the last university event Coulter attended, students ran to the stage and threw pies at her..."
Oh dear.
I think we should have a bake sale outside and donate the money to organizations like Planned Parenthood, the AFL-CIO's Hurricane Katrina relief fund, and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. The Coulter event is planned for the first week in December, which is the holiday season. So many nice things to bake. Pumpkin pie, mincemeat pie, pecan pie (ouch!), coconut cream pie, and of course some cookies.
My sister and brother once posed the following question to me.
Hamburglar or Grimace? If you had to fuck one of them, would you fuck the Hamburglar or Grimace?
I had no idea where this came from. I still don't. It sparked a lively, revolting debate at the time. I thought of it again recently.
I was catching up on the news today, checking out the story on a certain conservative commentator's suspension from CNN. It caught my attention although I don't usually follow the TV news or I guess what I can only loosely refer to as popular media. I do the AP stuff, look up a story on Google if it interests me to see what else has been written on it. This one, I think the reason it caught my eye was because I feel like there's been a degeneration of what the public seems to be willing to accept as serious journalism. I know, another hint that I really am naive. You'd have thought life would have smacked that out of me by now. Golly, I don't know though. I remember little slices of TV news from childhood, and it just seemed like although there was always this sensational side of the news, everyone knew that this type of sensationalism was not to be confused with "serious news". There was a distinction. I don't think there is anymore. Not when a debate on CNN, not FOX, but CNN who at least when I still watched TV touted itself as this very respectable news source, ends with one member of the debate storming off the set in a huff and swearing - not that I have anything against swearing but the conservatives are the ones who are just crazy about the indecency. For a high profile political hobnobbing conservative commentator to swear on CNN, I mean that's like Bush getting video taped dropping one of his daughters off at a clinic to have an abortion or Lynn Cheney publishing a novel with homoerotic overtones.
So there I was reading this story about the CNN commentator, and a quote in it reminded me of another person I think needs to go on the "odious fuck" list. I won't put the name in because the assbag or his numerous dim disciples troll the web for his name I am sure. Assbag makes a habit of not just ripping on politicians, government officals, journalists, or high profile (paid) editorial staff online. He goes out of his way to find small fry private folks who are using indy media resources to express or discuss their views. Assbag seems to like to get all bunched up (and to encourage his readers to launch ad hom attacks in the name of journalistic inquiry) about even clearly very personal and non-pro blogs like this one. And while it might be kind of unique to have a bunch of crazy conservative birth defects' opinions on my health, school, and love life, I dunno, I guess I don't really want all of them to have a link to my blog bookmarked on their browsers.
If you follow internet political malarky of the mass media variety (journal), you'll possibly know who he is (street). I only know of him because this spring he made a habit of insulting someone close to me in his online column (wall). You know, you google your friend who writes editorials for her school paper and your results include christofascist web rants referring to her via some assbag's mass media journal publication. Those people are dangerous spooky psycho and it kind of pissed me off that this guy targetted someone dear to me in his big media smear column.
Well, I've given it some thought and after reading various bios on the assbag, I've decided that among other things, the man is entirely unfuckable. This may in fact be his problem. Perhaps I should start a campaing to send him sex toys? Make the world a better place?
So here are your choices.
If you absolutely had to fuck one of them, who would you have sex with?
a. Hamburglar?
b. Grimace?
c. This assbag?
