My Own Time Happens 24/7
The other day, a colleague sent me an article by Stanley Fish--"Save the World on Your Own Time." This article continues a conversation my colleague and I are having about activism and advocacy in the academy. A student activist in his own undergraduate days, he now finds himself part of administration, where politics requires, in his mind, a separation of personal position from institutional position. I remain skeptical of this compartmentalization though--caveat--I have never had to deal with a board, especially comprised of folks likely to be more conservative than me.
This blog post is a version of my email response to my colleague. It feels like a kind of conclusion to all the HJR-3 posts.
-----
The way Fish compartmentalizes the university, I find highly problematic and completely unrealistic. Let's just take the example of, oh, I don't know, say, diversity and inclusion. Now, according to Fish, these values can be championed and discussed, and faculty and administrators can take positions on them because they are "issues relevant to the educational mission"--at least, at Valpo, we have asserted they are. And yet as soon as we begin discussing what "collective and individual action" of these values should look like, we leave what Fish seems to consider academia proper--teaching, researching, publishing. He seems to imagine a bubble around the university with clear boundaries that can be patrolled. It's like trying to argue that students who attend Valparaiso University don't have to worry about the climate of the city and region because it doesn't carry academic merit; climate is not an academic pursuit. But if the university is "primarily a place for teaching and research," must it not also be a place that fosters and makes these activities possible? A hostile environment will compromise those pursuits. And, in my experience, micro-aggressions are as likely if not more likely to create a hostile environment than overtly xenophobic acts.
I heard you speak at faculty senate about why the university was not coming out against HJR-3. I certainly accepted the fact that those of us who wished to speak with an institutional voice needed to find another means by which to do so. But the administration's lack of action on this does not indicate a neutral "stand on [this] social, political, [and] moral issue." If you look at the institution's policies and practices, it actually, at best, reproduces the status quo and, at worst, bolsters and extends it. Alliance students had to fight for a place in OMP; LGBTQ alumni had to fight to print their family notes in Valpo magazine. We still do not have partner benefits for LGBTQ staff and faculty. We have not even been able to open a conversation on the matter. Where is the moral neutrality in this?
There is no way to disembed the university from the culture in which it resides. We are whole people living and working in community together--at least, that's the kind of university I signed up for when I came back to teach, and because the university, by and large, has affirmed the way I have integrated myself into the life of the campus, I can't help but think the institution sees itself as this kind of university as well. Do administrators really want faculty who "show up for their classes, prepare syllabuses, teach what has been advertised, [remain] current in the literature of the field, promptly correct assignments and papers, hold regular office hours, give academic (not political or moral) advice," and then go home? I, for one, am on too many committees if that's the case.
I do not think the professor's only or even primary role is to advocate for social justice, but I do think the professor's primary role is to model for students a whole person engaged in a meaningful life, and I don't see how you can leave "social, political, and moral issues" at the gate and do so.
One last thing. You have used this phrase--reasonable people all across the spectrum disagree--frequently as of late. I would only add that I do not disagree with that statement, but I do disagree with the implication. To me, disagreement does not mean we step away from action. Instead it means that, when the we take action (or decide against action), we provide opportunities to hear how people are impacted by those decisions. From there, we try to reconcile with each other any divisions if possible, and when that cannot happen, we acknowledge how we have hurt each other and we vow to hold the pain and sorrow together. I truly believe that this practice of bearing witness is the exact form of respect that an educational institution and any other form of community needs to thrive.
