coldhearted scientist وداد

Epigraph: message from random faculty member in another college, re my final report to the committee I quit: “Thank you for your time and effort. I know it was not an easy task but you did it with such grace and professionalism, when many would not have.”

Now I have to practice what I will say to my colleagues, since I am about to publish something critical of certain activities here in another university’s publication. And that university is not just any university, it is our imagined oppressor and rival — and that, believe it or not, is a very serious problem. I appear to be one of the very few people willing to maintain a professional relationship with that university in an open way. Others have degrees from it, keep lovers there, and go to their football games, but I talk to them during business hours and this is the problem.

The above colleague’s message speaks right to the issue. The kinds of things I do to be professional are not courtesies everyone here even thinks of extending, and “professional” to them means something very different: obeying the Man and protecting the brand.

The difficulty with my piece is perceived disloyalty, and airing our issues abroad. To be “professional” would be not to speak up, and to allow those in power to do as they please. How can I possibly explain that the point of my piece is not to embarrass us — I do not even mention us, you would have to have inside knowledge to know I am talking about us — but to discuss a national issue, using some examples with which I am familiar? It is hard to explain because we lack the ground upon which to discuss the matter. My colleagues do not see these issues, they have a completely different background.

I would publish the piece here if there were a place for it but there is not, and there is nowhere to discuss these matters live, either. Thus I have no choice but to discuss them elsewhere. I can revamp the piece to publish somewhere truly respectable but as written it is targeted to our state, and it is in our state I would like it read first. So I have to practice, especially since one of the people whose activities my piece criticizes may become our Provost. Our Provost has the power to reduce programs, and could get me reduced (note that tenure here effectively means you get a year’s notice before dismissal, as opposed to three months).

I must say it is cumbersome to work for such an insecure organization. This is the very picture of dysfunction: insecurity on the one hand, bullying on the other, and the constant reminders, “Don’t tell anyone!”

What, then, is the best way to practice? One must not enter their game entirely. “I will be publishing this on this date, and I wanted to give you an advance copy so you will not be surprised. I am interested in entering the national conversation on shared governance in the changing institutions and this is an early piece in that work. As you will see, I mention some of the actions you may remember me disagreeing with here in AY 2012-2013. I hope you will see, as you read the piece, that its point is discussion of the broad issues, not our institution. If you have suggestions of ways for the piece to make this even clearer than it already does, I would welcome them.” Something like this. Que feriez-vous?

Axé.