Translate This Page

Showing posts with label The Chronicle of Higher Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Chronicle of Higher Education. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Latinos in the News (aka This Again?!?)



My friend, colleague, and fellow Mexican Intellectual, Frank Gaytan, wrote recently about the behavior of writing and referenced a piece from The Atlantic that discussed the connection between writing and running.  No sooner had I shared with him that article that he shared with me an op-ed from The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Regular readers know that I have written before.  They know also that I have written about the scholarly purposes that inform why some academics begin a blog and take such care with it.  In the “3 Rules for Academic Blogging,” however, David Perry, associate professor of history at Dominican University, provides some practical advice of why academics should continue to blog, much of which is relevant to my own – and I think Frank’s - efforts.  In discussing “Rule 3: Write for the sake of writing,” Perry states “Today, a blog becomes a piece of the conversations you are already having on social media.  You are most likely to use a blog to preach to choirs and attempt to convert the already converted.  But it’s fun to preach to the choir.”  I would add also, it does not hurt to try to convert the unconverted.  After all, a free exchange of flowing ideas was one of the promises the Internet offered.  It is in this spirit I wish to share the following experience.

Recently, I have been preoccupied with the issues of racism and free speech developing on some of the nation’s college campuses.  The highest profile of these events occurred at the University of Missouri and at Yale University, the latter of which coincided with Halloween.  Indeed, much of what occurred at Yale began with a discussion about the potential of racially insensitive Halloween costumes.  While Yale students argued with administrators about racial insensitivity, the President of the University of Louisville took matters to an entirely different level, posing for a photo with other administrators and staff all deck out in sombreros, serapes, and handle-bar mustaches as they attended a Mexican-themed costume party.  In the wake of the backlash and protests the photo engendered, President James Ramsey publicly apologized and vowed to improve the racial climate on Louisville’s campus.  One way he vowed to do so was to “[r]ecruit more Hispanic and Latino/a for faculty, staff and administrative positions.”  Another was to “[a]dvance efforts to build Hispanic and Latino/a scholarship and financial aid” for students.


Photo from and available at Latino Rebels

Seeing this story in a news outlet I follow on Facebook, I opined:
If Louisville's President wants to make amends for offending Mexicans, shouldn't he strive for more Mexican representation among faculty, students, and staff specifically instead of more Latinos generally as his press release states?  Such a declaration still demonstrates a lack of cultural awareness by assuming all Hispanic and Latino groups are the same, which they certainly are not.

My comment struck a chord with some people.  As of this writing, 14 people, all of them complete strangers to me, “Liked” what I said to this shared post.  My comment also garnered replies from others, also complete strangers to me.  Most of them, however, overlooked the point I made about differences among Latino and Hispanic groups to discuss costumes in and of themselves.  I say most because at least one person took exception to my idea, writing:
So you're saying some...Hispanics /Latinos are not the same? So you think you are better than what? Your opinion does not represent the majority because even Latino Public Figures state Latinos/Hispanics we are all the same one language, one culture here in USA...struggling for the same American Dream. I'm not sure how intellectual or scholarly etcetera you pretend to spill but I know one principle for sure...to a white you are a pinche...Latino/ Mexican no matter where you came from...period. And they see you as a threat at many levels. ...economic power, political, community based, state, and the National/and Judicial level...they know...we will chip away at intolerance, institutional racism, and some now realize that the new generation of hispanics/Latinos are becoming leaders of this great nation and play a key role in its future [sic in toto].

Not wanting to reply in the heat of the moment, I let what this person said sit for a while, rereading what I wrote and what he wrote several times to ensure the clarity of the point I was making and to find the basis of his reply.  I considered letting go of the entire matter, but after several hours I replied with the following, addressing him by name (which has been redacted):
You don't know me, you don't know the first thing about me, so please do not try to force your orthodoxy on me like some kind of school yard bully.  I did not say anyone was better than anyone else, I said we are different from one another.  Mexicans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans - the three largest Hispanic and Latino groups - have different historical and cultural heritages that should be acknowledged and celebrated.  They also have different paths to how they got to the United States, have different reasons for being here, and have different citizenship statuses among them.  The case is similar among other Latin Americans in the US.  There is nothing wrong with differences among people.  It is also known as diversity, which is an idea most progressives like me champion.  Hispanics and Latinos saying all Hispanics and Latinos are the same only makes it easier for white people to say we are all the same and gives white people their justification for discriminating against us in all the same ways.  This is all I will say about this as I have no desire to get into a flaming war with a complete stranger.  I wish you well.

I have written before about this issue, most notably here and here.  As an academic, ideas are important to me.  As an historian, ideas of how the past informs our present are no less so.  On one hand, I feel a tad guilty responding to another's idea and then cutting off that interaction.  On the other, however, I feel worst about circumstances that made me feel that I had to cut off the interaction out of some sense of self-preservation in light of such a vulgar ad hominem.  It is difficult to conduct reasoned and rational discussions about important issues on-line or in person when emotions run high and passions are inflamed.  I wonder, if not worry, about the chilling effect on discourse and problem solving that the current temperature on some college campuses will have in both the short- and long-term.

I hope cooler heads will prevail.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Free Speech Under Fire? - The Case of Steven Salaita



Earlier this year, The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof used his column to call upon academics to engage a wider public beyond their usual audiences.  Kristof argued that our society needed the best and the brightest among us in order to solve some of the vexing problems we currently confront, noting the misfortune that “[S]cholars have periodically submitted meaningless gibberish to scholarly journals — only to have the nonsense respectfully published. ...” while concluding, “So, professors, don’t cloister yourselves like medieval monks — we need you!”


Kristof’s views raised a number of objections from many academics who essentially countered that many scholars already are engaging a broad public through their teaching and their writing, which often appears beyond professional scholarly journals and in outlets like the op-ed pages of major national newspapers, blogs, and other alternate venues.  While Kristof’s opinion may have been valid in spirit to some extent, he and some of his critics ultimately missed a major point about the current climate on contemporary college campuses – namely how academics increasingly are being discouraged if not out rightly punished for speaking publicly on important topics of the day.


One needs to look no further than the case of Steven G. Salaita.


Image Steven G. Salaita from Inside Higher Ed

For those unfamiliar with this situation, here are the basic facts.  Dr. Salaita was offered a tenured professorship at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC).  Ultimately, UIUC Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise voided Dr. Salaita’s appointment when she refused to advance his nomination to the University’s Board of Trustees, which was to vote on Salaita’s joining the UIUC faculty.  Chancellor Wise cited Dr. Salaita’s public comments via Twitter about the ongoing violence in Gaza – comments some characterized as uncivil at best and as anti-Semitic at worst.  During the subsequent weeks, the UIUC Board and Chancellor received criticisms that their actions and their justifications of them on the basis of "civility" are tantamount to an attack on academic freedom, freedom of speech protections, or both.


Writing for The Chronicle of Education’s blog "Vitae", Georgia Perimeter College Associate Professor Rob Jenkins discusses the chilling effects punitive actions such as those taken by the UIUC administration can have, stating:

I’m not denying that academic freedom is taking a beating all over the country.  But what is even more endangered, it seems to me, is the right of faculty members to speak their mind outside of the classroom, off-campus, and apart from their contractual duties.  In return for a paycheck, faculty members are increasingly expected to surrender their personal beliefs on controversial topics, lest—God forbid—they say something that might “embarrass the institution.”

My point here is not to weigh whether or not Dr. Salaita’s Twitter comments constitute anti-Semitism.  Rather, I wish to express my own concern about the broad application of so-called civility and similarly vague or ambiguous dispositional characteristics as the basis for punitive actions against scholars and academics by the institutions they serve or by the administrators responsible for the integrity of those institutions.

We must consistently bear in mind that colleges and universities are institutions founded on the free exchange of ideas.  Many scholars do what they do in order produce and advance knowledge for the benefit of all of society.  As such, practitioners of the various academic disciplines should challenge conventional wisdom and speak truth to power.  Indeed, this was a motivating factor for me in becoming an historian.

In his brilliant primer, History: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2000), John H. Arnold addresses this idea, writing:

[H]istory is an argument, and arguments present the opportunity for change.  When presented with some dogmatist claiming that “this is the only course of action” or “this is how things have always been,” history allows us to demure, to point out that there have always been many courses of action, many ways of being.  History provides us with the tools to dissent (page 122, original emphasis).
As Dr. Salaita’s case demonstrates, punitive institutional actions against those charged with producing and disseminating knowledge can take tremendous tolls on both the professional and the personal levels.  Yet, I believe it is the work of academics and scholars - the producing and disseminating knowledge and speaking truth to power - that can serve as a corrective to such aggressions.