DNC Compromise?

I watched the Rules Committee meeting for as much as I could all day. I saw the drama, the heartaches, the passions, and the pleas and at the end of the day, I am still dumbfounded. I know Michigan and Florida violated the rules regarding primary elections to which Obama and Clinton honored the DNC by not campaigning in either state. Yet this "compromise" seems very bizarre. The delegates from Florida and Michigan will only count as 1/2 vote. I suddenly cringed at that thought because it harkened back to the days of the early republic when blacks only counted as 3/5ths of a vote. Now Florida's and Michigan's votes regardless of race only counts as 1/2 vote? That's the compromise? How is 1/2 different from 3/5ths? This compromise had the overall effect that weakened Clinton's possibility for a huge gain and increased Obama's chances to secure the nomination. But here's the kicker, some "reasonable" proportion of Michigan's "uncommitted" votes will go to Obama that is included in the compromise (???). That I do not understand. One person, one vote. How can votes be reappropriated to mean something else? I guess that's what the Rules Committee did, but I'm having a fairly difficult time accepting the rationale for it.

This discourse about "family" and "unity" is quite intriguing. The comments made by Mona Pasquil is an excellent example. If "family" is going to be used then I suggest a multicultural, immigrant, working class family with lots of extended family members. Watching the meeting televised on C-SPAN reminded me of the complicated and heavily politicized big family dinners back in my youth (I think 30-50 core members). There was a lot of posturing and politicking. There were people talking to, by, and past each other; there were some talking in words that no one knew. There was the patriarch of the family demanding order; there were numerous kids making a ruckus over everything (myself included). There were arguments, fights, and bickering and yet despite all the mess we still, for the most part, stuck together. There were the appeals to reason and compassionate pleas for unity. But I wonder about the extent of the fallout to the DNC and in particularly voters? How have they been alienated, ostracized, or left to fend for themselves without any help? I also wonder how mad will people be at the family and what are they capable of if they are angry enough especially when some feel as though the process was "hijacked" by less than transparent intentions? Despite these questions, the most basic and quintessential question remains and that is what is keeping this "family" together in the first place and is "it" -- whatever "it" may be -- strong enough to hold us together?

As vibrant and powerful as my extended family was, there were some wounds that were too deep to heal, some grudges too painful to let go, and an endless fountain of deep seated resentment. The last time the family got together en masse was over sixteen years ago at the funeral of my great grandmother. She was one of the main and last reasons that kept everyone together. Despite this loss, we generally still keep in contact with each other, albeit at a comfortable distance, but never totally out of touch. Like any family, the gossip was a good enough reason for any get together. But I can't call this extended family of mine as a perfect example of a strong union. Instead, our antagonisms continue to imperfectly and awkwardly form the reason on why we stick together. It's too easy for me to say "we're family" and that's why we stay together. But if "family" is about the day-to-day struggle of making it through then I can find the simplicity of it an apt fit.

Surviving a Zombie Apocalypse

57%

OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets

I found this link by way of The Other Dark Meat blog.

Yes, I have a 55% chance to survive a zombie apocalypse. There were some questions that I couldn't fudge like living in a metropolitan city and not owning a gun. My chances severely diminished because of that and I think for the right reasons ... somewhat. Being in a large city will probably yield a greater number of zombies roaming/running about while a small town will have less assuming it has any at all. But all you need is one zombie to start it all, that is, if you believe zombies are from passing a genetically engineered virus through some fluid transmission like saliva in biting, drooling, splattering blood, etc. Anyways ... so being in a small town can be just as bad as being in a large city if everyone in it was turned into a zombie. You can escape by leaving town, assuming the zombies are the slow lumbering kinds, but how long can you survive in the middle of nowhere? I'm thinking of Grinnell and it really is in the middle of nowhere. Now it is feasible that you could survive in a large city because of certain available resources that are no longer constrained by the rule of law. So choosing which building is important. Personally, I think the Pentagon might be the safest spot assuming that no one has been infected. But if you choose the wrong building, like a hospital, or you run out of supplies, then you're essentially trapped and your chances of surviving diminishes dramatically. That would be just as bad as being out in the middle of nowhere fleeing from a small town of zombies. It's just a different conception of being trapped.

I think not owning a gun lowers my chances to defend myself, but there are other weapons, strategies, and tactics that I can use. I do remember a question about my knowledge in making molotov cocktails, blunt weapons, and the like ... which incidentally increased my chances. But I think being in a large city might provide more resources to defend yourself if you have the opportunity to exploit them (i.e., food, weapons, shelter, etc.). Being in a small town, however, might diminish my chances especially if there are other survivors which will put a strain on limited resources.

Oddly enough, being holed up in a mall was somehow better than being at Walmart. I couldn't figure that one out unless it was some movie reference where some did actually survive in a mall. At any rate, I tried several times and my chances seem to hover anywhere from 54%-57%.

I can't believe I dedicated a whole post to my chances of surviving a zombie apocalypse.

In this corner, weighing in at ...

197 pages
56,723 words
1,164 paragraphs
5,371 lines
370, 433 characters

... is my final dissertation, complete with my committee's suggested revisions. I printed it out, ran to Kinko's to make a copy, and mailed it off to my dissertation advisor for her final say. If she gives the thumbs up -- in which I sure as hell hope she does -- then it's off to Kinko's again to print out two more copies to be mailed to Claremont with a check for printing, binding, and copyrighting. And then it shall be all done.

Perpetually Reading

I finally removed the link to my old photo blog and replaced it with a brand new page called "Perpetually Reading" which is all about my never-ending reading list. It'll feature what I currently and plan to read, recent acquisitions, and maybe some reviews and commentaries. I'm still tweaking with the design, but like many things in my life, it is a work in progress.

In re Marriage Cases

After quickly viewing the case on overturning California's ban on same-sex marriage, I came across this passage:

" ... we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual
orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion — a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple" (9-10).

Am I reading this right? Sexual orientation in the state of California is now a protected classification? The California State Supreme Court adopted strict scrutiny in its approach? It's taken me a couple of days for this to sink in but this is HUGE!!! By the way, my attention was putting on the final touches to my dissertation for the past several days. Anyways ... In a rational basis approach, the plaintiffs assume the responsibility to demonstrate to the courts that whatever law that was passed or a state action was undertaken was unconstitutional. However, strict scrutiny, which is historically applied to race, gender, and religion, assumes that the laws and actions of the state are unconstitutional and that the state has the burden of proof to demonstrate it has a compelling interest to regulate. So strict scrutiny shifts the focus of the case and its analytical approach on the government's purpose than the actual majoritarian interests of the people. This decision ROCKS!!!

It made me wonder about the upcoming heterosexual marriage only amendment vote in California's constitution this November. This vote is not only going to be about prohibiting same-sex marriage, but also about adopting a strict scrutiny standard for sexual orientation in the state of California. Holy crap this is amazing!!!

"Dublin Psychiatric Answering Machine"

Courtesy of my good friend Jessica.  Always hilarious!!!

From "Awesome!" to "GROSS!"

Just a quick post about two movies that I highly recommend watching.

The latest Marvel-to-movie adaptation of Iron Man is not only the best comic book movie but also the most enjoyable movie to watch in a very long time. It has a really tight narrative that isn't over-the-top or dumbed down, and it has the strongest cast of actors with Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, and Robert Downey, Jr., who plays Tony Stark/Iron Man. My girlfriend and I were extremely impressed with Downey's performance; he played the role of Tony Stark perfectly as the arrogant, super-intelligent industrialist. The visual effects were aesthetically beautiful and creative especially when Tony Stark was designing the suit on a visually stunning holographic/interactive computer interface. It was very clear to me that the use of cgi was there to strengthen the narrative instead of supplanting it.

And the suits rocked!

We also watched Super Size Me on dvd last night. I wasn't sure what was more difficult: the fact that a high fat/fast food diet has the same damaging effects on the liver as alcoholism, or watching Morgan Spurlock (the director, producer, writer, and star himself) endure an intense weight gain of 20 pounds, severe body illness, nausea, vomiting, depression, and a whole host of physical and psychological effects that come from eating 30 days of McDonald's foods. It was seriously gross but very critical of the fast food industry and the state of obesity, health, nutrition, and diet in this country. We also watched the dvd extra called "The Smoking Fry" which was a simple experiment on how fast McDonald's foods "deteriorated" compared to made-fresh burgers from a local vendor. Obviously, the real burgers took a week to begin to decompose. The other burgers took longer. But what was truly disturbing were the McDonald's french fries. They showed no signs of decomposition after 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and even as long as two months! Everything else had molds, fungi, oozing liquids, or what he called "mossy goodness," and the collective foul stench of rot. But the McD fries still remained the same. It made me think about how difficult losing weight was compared to how easy it is to gain it. If artificial ingredients and preservatives can maintain McD fries for weeks on end, then imagine what that does in your body? How long would it take to get rid of it?

UPDATE: The Washington Post has an excellent series on children and obesity.  Definitely one to check out.

Just when I think I'm out ...

... I get pulled back in.

This student just doesn't give up.

I'm sure you are sorry to hear from me again. I just figured I would try to ask you to reconsider your decision. I only do this because it is my belief that you have entered an incorrect grade. I have in my Microsoft Word 7 documents pertaining to the online assignments which were due weekly. To only have received credit for 5 of them is obviously in no small way my fault, but I think perhaps a small percentage of the fault lies with you as well. I mean you never posted a midterm grade for me and I never received my midterm back. There was never any official paper issued stating how we were doing in the class. I know I should have come and asked how I was doing, but I figured as long as I did well on the test i should be fine for the class. The fact that the online assignments count for so much I feel is kind of ridiculous. I don't want you to do anything you feel is underhanded or undeserved on my part, but I do ask that at least you consider the possibility that perhaps there are two assignments that somehow got lost in the shuffle. Thanks once again for any consideration you have put into this matter. Have a great summer.

I knew I should've just squashed this earlier like my instincts told me I should have. But now I can take my gloves off. Here's how I responded:

It's no bother at all but let me answer your central question from the start and that is I am not going to reconsider my decision.

In fact, rereading your emails raised additional questions that were quite puzzling. First, if you say there are missing assignments, then how come you did not bring that up when I sent out the weekly digests? The digest is there for you to not only read everyone's responses, but to confirm receipt of your submission. Did you not check? There were a few students who I indeed missed their assignments but only after they brought it to my attention. I do not recall any from you. Second, I understand the pressures of working on a job while still going to school and the reasons for taking one up mid-semester is none of my concern, but why did you not inform either your employer or me when it conflicted with the class schedule? Third, transferring to another institution requires some preparation and planning, but at what point did you find out you needed a better grade? This was equally puzzling. Fourth, I find the timing of your complaint about the weight of the online assignments rather suspicious. My syllabus describes the grading requirements that I covered on the first day of the semester. The online written assignments were the most easiest to accomplish and now you have a problem with the weight of it? I find this really amusing.

There was ample time after the midterm to check in with me, describe your goals and concerns, and I could've offered different solutions. There were quite a few students who were in some really difficult personal, professional, and academic situations. Two of them had close family members pass away suddenly. But they all took the initiative to inform me of their situations. I advised them, gave them options, and they were able to not only complete the course requirements but also did well for their final grade. In other words, all of this really boils down to a question of your personal responsibility. As a result, I fail to understand how your lack of initiative involves me.

For emphasis, I cannot and will not reconsider my final grade. But if you wish to continue to protest this then I suggest contacting the chair of PIA, Prof. Robert Dudley, to see if there are any additional options. Officially I have no further obligation in my capacity as an employee for GMU. But I'll be sure to forward our email exchanges to him for his record. Good luck!

A MILESTONE!!!

The Republican-dominated California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in In re Marriage Cases (2008) that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, making it the second state after Massachusetts to allow same-sex marriage (NY Time article).

I am overjoyed to have and know friends who wanted to get married but couldn't, can now do so in California. It's about damn time.

On the Warpath

My partner is on the warpath today. She was reading her last paper from her technology and contemporary culture course when she noticed a rather peculiar writing style. From her experience, she decided to google the first sentence of the student's paper and the results indicated that it was the first sentence from an abstract of a journal article about digital media. She read the abstract and the student's first paragraph and the similarities in structure, style, and order were irrefutable. This student copied the first paragraph. Now the question was how much of this student's paper was plagiarized from this article. It can mean the difference between a drop in a full letter grade or a direct action from the honor code committee that oversees cases of student plagiarism. Obviously, the drop in grade is more preferable than an action from the honor code committee which will maintain a record of this incident.

How do we know when a student's paper is plagiarized? There were a couple of signs that I picked up when I first read the paper. First, the sentence spacing was set to 1.5 instead of double-spaced. It's rare that a student will have too much to say in a research paper. Usually it's the opposite. Students will generally find ways to artificially expand the paper length instead of adding substance such as adding an extra break to a paragraph, increasing the margin size, adding 0.5 point to the font size, increasing the leading, etc. It helps to be a former graphic designer to know these particular tricks. In this case, it was a 12 page paper with tightly packed paragraphs, sentences, and spaces. Visually it stands out compared to other papers.

Second, word choice was another major indicator. Every discipline and field of study has their own indigenous vocabulary that we have to master. In common parlance, it's called professionalization. Every word is a specific reference to a theory, concept, or body of knowledge. Of course, the usage has to be contextualized with the field and the course. So for example, if I use the word "policing" or "surveillance" in a class such as global terrorism, it's going to have a specific reference to law enforcement, rights and protections of individuals, etc. However, in a class on , for example, "Postmodern Theories of Culture and Society," the words will mean something totally different that is about practices of regulation, knowledge/power relationships, etc. which are specific references to Michel Foucault. We use these words, concepts, and theories to discuss our research with other colleagues in the field as a kind of shorthand. As you can imagine, we don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining basic ideas when we could use these shortcuts to get to our main points and move our conversations forward and quickly. Anyways ...

So when the student uses words like "film apparatus," "ideological apparatus," "consumer interactivity," or concepts and methods in political economic critique, those are specific references in film theory, production, and criticism. Now in a class about film theory, it will be acceptable because the course would survey those concepts. But the class is on technology and culture and although the emphasis was on film, she didn't cover anything in regards to ideological "apparatus" or advanced readings in political economy that the student was using. So already, my partner was alarmed at this very specific usage of this theoretical language.

Third, writing is like your signature. It has a particular cadence, style, structure, and pattern that is easily distinguishable from one student to another especially when you have multiple writing assignments. My partner is in the English Department and so correcting papers is her main preoccupation and she knows by virtue of reading them that she can tell when a student is writing excellently or poorly, when it's a first draft or a well-thought out paper, and so on. As a matter of fact, anyone who assigns frequent writing assignments will see these patterns emerge. In this case, when a student has been writing at a decent level throughout the semester, uses a predictable sentence structure, remains at a general level of argumentation, and then all of a sudden writes a well-constructed, theoretically rich, and structurally coherent argument on par with a graduate paper, then something is definitely way off.

Fourth, your word choice and construction are your fingerprints. Like writing, words are another way of identifying your unique character, and by extension, declaring ownership of your work. I don't mean any word but specifically some authors develop their own terminology or combination thereof to describe a different usage of a concept or theory. For example, "governmentality" or "governmentalization" will automatically reference Michel Foucault. The concept is not only his, but also he created the damn word. The same with "simulation," or "simulacra/simulacrum" that automatically points to Jean Baudrillard and it is his creation. So when I read a student's use of those concepts there had better be a citation.

So taking all these factors, and I'm sure there are many techniques that other professors use, my partner felt that this paper could not have been written by the student. Her suspicions were confirmed when we found the original article which was published in the Atlantic Journal of Communication, printed it out, and lo' and behold not only was the abstract copied, but almost the entire article was taken by the student that included similar word phrases, theoretical concepts, sentence structure, argument structure, market data, etc. Some passages were substituted with different vocabulary words, but left the basic structure intact. Some were taken straight out from the article word for word! Even the student's bibliography was taken from the author's list! What's more is that the original author coined the term "consumer evangelist" in which she took for her own!! And the student never once gave credit to the author who she was stealing his research!!! At least footnote the original author somewhere! It might give us room to maneuver to say that you ought to properly cite the material and rewrite the essay. But to not acknowledge him and to take almost all of his article and concept verbatim is too intentional and, in the end, unforgivable.

This same student sent an email right before finals (which is always somehow a dead giveaway) saying how much she enjoyed my partner's course and that she was simply amazed at how much effort my partner put into her lectures and her working with the students (By the way, this same student had a quite a few absences which is why her email was met with some suspicion. Wouldn't you?). This very student who praised my partner is doing the most dishonorable thing by stealing another person's hard work for their own, and to lie to her face. It's a very disingenuous and dangerous game to play with our good will like that.

But that's not the worst of it ... My partner's course was offered in the Honors Program where enrollment is strictly limited to honors student. THIS STUDENT WHO PLAGIARIZED IS AN HONORS STUDENT!!!

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING GODDAMN MIND?!?!? DO YOU REALIZE HOW BAD THIS LOOKS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE?????

It would be too easy for me to say, these honors students are just like every other student who is under pressure to succeed, to get the good grade, and so on. My answer is "NO." They are not like any other student. They are exceptional students. They have earned the distinction of "honors student" suggesting not only an academic caliber above and beyond everyone else, but more importantly, a higher standard of conduct as a result. Admittedly, and in a very bad way, I kind of expect other students to pull a stunt like this because I've seen it happen all the time. I'm not kidding myself about that notion. But an honors student? Either you're desperate and you had no other option (which I find problematic) or you're just an idiot and don't care for the consequences. Either way, this student is screwed and thanks for fucking it up for everyone else.

I think my partner will send the student's paper to the honor code committee. She's reading and comparing the paper and the journal article line-by-line, paragraph-by-paragraph and the similarities are undeniable.

What a terrible way to end the semester.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: I came home and my partner was dropping F-bombs like crazy. She showed me a comparison of the student paper with the journal article and more than 95% of the paper is plagiarized. One of the things my partner can do is to recommend to the committee a failing grade for the course and to have her be kicked out of the honors program. She also made this interesting observation about plagiarism. The average student will use Wikipedia to copy. The honors student will use academic articles instead.

Also, check this out. Compare the original paragraph ...

Cinema began as a 19th century, industrial age diversion, an illusion created by mechanical means. Even as it matured into an art form, it remained tethered to the manufactured tools that made its existence possible, and to the cumbersome distribution and presentation apparatus that brought it to huge worldwide audiences. Every piece of the cinema process required capital investment: the manufacture and purchase of cameras, projectors, and film stock; the services provided by photographic labs, and the exhibition mechanism contained in theater houses.
-- James R. Irwin, "On Digital Media As a Potential Alternative Cinema Apparatus: A Marketplace Analysis" (2004).

... with her paragraph and the bolded sections indicating her "original" changes ...

Cinema began as a 19th century, industrial age entertainment, a fantasy created by mechanical means. Even as it matured into an art form, it remained closely connected to the standardized manufactured tools that made its existence possible in the first place. The distribution and presentation apparatuses that brought it to huge worldwide audiences remained the same as well. Every part of the cinema process required capital investment: the manufacture and purchase of cameras, projectors, and film stock; the services provided by photographic labs; and the exhibition mechanism contained in theaters. There were also significant labor costs and marketing expenses involved. It is not surprise, then, that the creation of the feature films - cinema's most popular, influential, and codified form - quickly became almost exclusively a corporate enterprise.

... and what do you get? PLAGIARISM!!! LIAR!!! CHEATER!!!

And get this, she's a criminal justice major. Un-friggin'-believable.

Videos of Grinnell

Here's three videos about the college and Grinnell, IA, that I found on YouTube. I keep seeing references to squirrels or "Grinnell Squirrel" as the bottom two videos will show. It must be something local or maybe it's just coincidence. I dunno'.

I remember at LMU the Hawai'i students always got excited whenever they saw squirrels roaming on campus. Why? Because there are no squirrels in Hawai'i.


Video Tour of Grinnell, IA (Grinnell Chamber of Commerce)


Picture Tour of Grinnell College


Grinnell International Students Movie (This one's really cute!)

More Grinnell News!

I am truly overjoyed that my partner accepted the position of Visiting Professor of Visual Culture for the Center for the Humanities at Grinnell College. She literally had her interview yesterday and she was contacted just moments ago today that the committee decided to offer her the position. WOOT! We're both going to Grinnell with our own jobs and it's going to be one exciting year!

And there's another one ...

I still have two outstanding items that are specific with GMU that I have to finish ASAP so that I can get on with finishing up my other commitments. It's two letters of recommendation for two students for the PIA Honors Program. But I got sidetracked with another student's plea for an extremely last minute grade change. Just like clockwork, there's always at least one student who thinks they deserve a better grade. I gave this student his grade breakdown. He scored an "A" for his midterm, but missed several online assignments, missed several class sessions, received average quiz scores, and scored a "B" for his final. His missing online assignments hurt him the most. I gave him a "C+" even though the numbers added up to a "C" for his final grade. He responded with this appeal ...

Thank you for the quick response. I really do have an issue in that I thought I only missed three of the online assisgments. I do concur that my attendence could be qualified as spotty, but I would maintain that I was only absent three times. As you can probably see in your attendence sheets i never missed a class before the midterm and the only reason why i missed so many after the midterm was that I got a job that has me working on Wednesdays sometimes. I avoided work as much as possible because I hated to miss class because, to be honest, your style of teaching works very well with the way I learn information the best. I hate to be petty, but if indeed somehow two of the online assignments were lost in the shuffle it does make a big difference. If would help at all I could resend them, assuming your even willing to consider it. Thank you again for your time. I would like you also to know that normally I would let bygones be bygones with this especially since you are very s
trong in the belief that I deserve a C+, but I'm trying to transfer and if there is anyway I possibly could've earned a B I'd like to explore that option.

Thanks Again

I knew my response would not be the end of it. I wasn't sure if I was aggravated with the fact that this was dragging on unnecessarily or that I had to place my other commitments on the backburner so that I can address his concerns. I think it was both. I immediately wrote an initial response ...

I'm really puzzled about one thing and that is why is this issue coming up now?

You had several weeks after the midterm to check in with me, describe your goals and concerns, and I could've offered different solutions. There were quite a few students who were in some really difficult personal, family, and academic situations, but they took the initiative to check in with me. I advised them, gave them options, and they all did well. In other words, there were all kinds of possibilities in the semester but it's your responsibility to come to me. Going to college is like a job.

I also have additional questions that were raised after reading your email. First, if you say there are missing assignments, then how come you didn't bring that up when I sent out the weekly digests? The digest is there for you to not only read everyone's responses, but to confirm receipt of your submission. Did you not check? Second, I understand the pressures of working on a job, but why did you not inform either your employer or me that it conflicted with the class schedule? Third, transferring to another school requires some planning and preparation, but when did you know you needed a better grade?

I appreciate you enjoying my course, but I have to be absolutely firm on this issue. My final grades are non-negotiable at this point. There is no time at the end of the semester. Furthermore, according to university policy, I can only change a grade if I made a mistake on the math, or I entered an incorrect grade (see pdf link). Neither of those conditions are applicable in your case. Therefore, I cannot accommodate your request for a change of grade. Nor can you send in assignments this late in the semester. My grades are non-negotiable.

I talked with my partner about this. She's in the midst of grading her student papers and she's mildly irritated with some of them though not as agitated as me. She basically pointed out that my response was too intense which might give the student the impression that I am attacking him.

I said, "What's your point?"

"Well he might go to the chair and complain about it, saying that this is evidence of a personal attack."

"And that concerns me how? Since neither of us are coming back what's the point? Who's problem is it anyway?"

She laughed and I thought she rolled her eyes again as she usually does whenever I become ... righteous. For a moment I imagined myself as Stewie from Family Guy screaming, "VICTORY IS MINE!!!" She said, "You should just make it short and simple and to the point. Just say no. Don't provoke him."

I kinda' sorta' wanted to. But she was right to say that it wasn't about the student. I remember something my advisor told me many times under his tutelage: "Be the good academic citizen." Simply put, don't create problems for your colleagues that they have to fix ... especially when you're about to leave. You don't want them to return the misery back to you years later. Better to be nice and leave on positive terms then to risk damaging your future. He was right. My partner was right. The academy may be a large place, but the politics of the academy can be very contentious and petty ... unless you're someone with a great deal of weight and power in which I do not have ... at least ... not yet ... There must be a line from Stewie about the chance for world domination but my memory fails me.

So I rewrote and shortened my official response a great deal ...

I appreciate you enjoying my course, but I have to be absolutely firm on this issue. My final grades are non-negotiable at this point. Furthermore, according to university policy, I can only change a grade if I made a mistake on the math, or I entered an incorrect grade (see pdf link). Neither of those conditions are applicable in your case. I know this is not what you want to hear and I am truly sorry. But there's nothing more that can be done. There is no more time at the end of the semester. Thank you and I do wish you luck on your future studies.

In hindsight, it does look and read better. Less provocative, conciliatory, yet resolute on my position without him taking it personally. I received an email in response saying that he understood my position and thanked me.

The end.

Goodbye GMU!!!

At last! Final grades have been turned in and I am officially done with GMU!

Here's the grade breakdown for my class:

• A+ : 9
• A : 24
• A- : 5
• B+ : 9
• B : 17
• B- : 3
• C+ : 3
• C : 1
• C- : 0
• F : 3

I assigned nine A+ marks for the first time ever. They absolutely deserved that mark just as three students deserved a failing grade from me. Every semester a few students somehow go out of their way to fail my course but that is not my problem any more.

WOOT! I'm outta' here! Grinnell here I come!

So you know that itch I've been having?

I was contacted this week from some very very old classmates from my grammar school about a 25 year reunion coming this October.

All of a sudden, repressed memories buried deep inside my psyche suddenly gripped my conscious mind ...

• freeze tag.
• kickball.
• dodgeball ... the real dodgeball. None of that movie crap.
• school uniforms ... maroon sweater, white collar shirt, and blue corduroy pants.
• afterschool basketball practice.
• being an altar boy ... the bread was good but the wine was better.
• my eighth grade teacher, Mrs. O'Reilly ... terror.
• my third grade teacher, Sister Michael ... compassion.
• choir practice.
• memorizing prayers.
• damn cliques ... yeah it was stupid.
• one afterschool fight ... which was kinda lame anyways.
• guitar lessons.
• taking public transportation ... it was 5¢ back then for one person.

And more to come!

There's always one ...

Just when I thought I was going to make it through the end of the semester without a hitch, I get this email yesterday before the final exam.

Hello Professor Leung,

This morning I had a relative pass away. We had been preparing for this for months, but it still seemed so sudden. I feel that taking this exam today would not be in my best interest. I was wondering if I could come in Friday or Monday. Please let me know what I need to do in order to complete your class.

Thank you

I call bullshit. And I was about to blow a gasket right before I gave my final exam. The timing of the email was so damn suspicious. Here's why ... This student had not been around since the midterm exam. She had not turned in an online assignment since Week 4. She had missed all the quizzes. No email or phone call. Nothing.

If in fact she had been "preparing for this for months," why did she not inform me earlier? I had three students who had family members pass away this semester, but they kept me apprised on their situations and still maintained their work in class. We worked out a different schedule so that they can keep up with the course material. This student had all the time in the world to inform me; that was ultimately her responsibility as an adult and she failed.

Maybe this was a very personal issue? Maybe it was really hard for her to talk about to anyone else? Maybe. I will concede that point. But would you disappear for several weeks without telling your employer about what's going on? If you had a seriously deep anxiety about discussing your private affairs openly, you might react that way. Fine. But for any reasonable person? I don't think so. You will get fired and if that consequence isn't enough to tell your employer about what's going on, then I really don't know what is.

Here's what I wrote in response:

I'm sorry to hear of your loss and I am sure it is a difficult time for you and everyone in your family. However, I don't think rescheduling your final will be any good to you at this point. According to my records, you've only turned in 4/10 assignments, I have no quizzes recorded, and you scored a 73% on your midterm. You also have not showed up to class since the midterm according to my attendance records. The numbers say that you will not pass my course even if you have a perfect score on your final exam.

In order to avoid a negative report on your transcript, I suggest contacting the chair of the PIA department, Prof. Robert Dudley, about dropping/withdrawing my course because of a prolonged family illness resulting in death. You would need official documentation in order to make your case.

I wish I could give you better news but had I known about this we could have worked out an alternate schedule to accommodate your needs. I do wish you the best.

It's a fair, honest, and practical response, no?

Every semester, and it always happens around the time of final exams, I get a few students with very similar records of prolonged absences, missing quizzes, even an absent midterm, asking for an extension or a rescheduling because of an "illness," "a family emergency," "a death in the family," or "stuck in Boston." I said I would allow it if you provided documentation: doctor's note, family physician, airline stub, etc. And each and every time no one has ever provided me the proof. It is the one action that I have as a professor to protect myself from any liability. Moreover, I hate being a jerk to students but I'll be damned if anyone takes advantage of my good will. In this case, there was no way this student could even pass even if she had a perfect score. She can still technically withdraw under extraordinary circumstances, but she still needs proof. That's the bottom line.

I have not heard from her since yesterday nor do I think I ever will.

Quick Thought

I was at the supermarket the other day when I saw the cover of the latest TIME cover featuring a split image of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton with the title, "There Can Only Be One."


By the way, the idea for that cover was ripped from the NBA's playoff campaign where basketball superstars are perfectly aligned side-by-side (see BenMVP.com for more). Their campaign called, "There Can Only Be One," seems to be a slight variation of a very popular tagline from the movie, Highlander (1986). The actual line is "In the end, there can be only one." Anyways, I digress ... again ...

I get the idea that the Democratic Party ought to choose a presidential nominee now but the race between Obama and Clinton is so tight that choosing one will be enormously difficult. Such a decision will come down to the nitty gritty details in order to make the distinctions clearer. Fine. I get that. But I remember back in late March of another cover from The New Republic of a morph between Obama and Clinton. I think TNR called it "HillarACK" which sounds like someone was saying Hillary's name before barfing his dinner out.

So this I also "get" but it's extremely problematic. Again there's a similar dynamic that because Hillary and Obama are extremely popular, very resourceful, strong candidates in their own right that making a decision is proving to be much harder than anticipated. There are consequence in the long run if no candidate emerges with a definitive lead especially for the Presidential race against John McCain. But through the beauty of morphing graphic technology, instead of choosing one, we can take the best of both candidates and create the super-candidate for the presidential nomination for the Democratic Party. What do we get when we blend Obama with Clinton?

A white guy. WTF???? So instead of embracing the specific identity of race through Obama or the identity of women through Clinton, this representation positions "white male" as not only the "best of both worlds" but also reinforces it as the default subjectivity for all matters regarding race and gender. This is more than an inability to choose between one or the other; it's a dangerously misguided and idealized representation about discourses of race and gender.

So what makes the TIME magazine cover so interesting, and subversive, in juxtaposition to TNR? We still have to choose between two candidates; it's a choice that is also intimately bound up in questions about race and gender. Either one will still be a political and historical exclamation point for the US.

But the TIME cover still uses the same visual strategy where the head, hair lines, eyes, nose, and lips are, for the most part, perfectly aligned, instead of morphing the facial elements together. There is still an echo of an idealized candidate though it is not as distinct as TNR's representation. Instead, the visual and political effect is more pronounced in TIME's cover and the tagline. Suture theory (Yes, I'm playing around with film theory) describes the process whereby subjects ( "us" ) are "drawn into" a film (identification), taking up positions as "subjects-within-the-film," so that our meanings and experiences become defined by the film's narrative. OK so the cover is not a film but it is a representation that demands textual analysis. I'm sure there's a communication studies theory that is applicable but I'm more familiar with film theory and suture theory is what popped into my head. I imagine hearing the anguish and utter horror from a psychoanalytic film theorist as I butcher a well established film theory. But I'm a cultural studies scholar and we're trained to use theory in less than traditional ways. So deal with it. Anyways ...

So if suture theory describes a process of subjectification then what the TIME cover has done was to not only force a character identification, but also a choice. It is a demand on the viewer (that is, "us") to choose a friggin' candidate. The world encapsulated in the representation of the TIME cover is the same world that we inhabit. This is the major difference from the TNR cover because the morph is an imaginary completeness that functions to disguise an inherent lack (Yes, this is my best use of psychoanalytic film theory). There is no demand on the viewer to do anything more other than to abide by a fictionalized narrative that is politically problematic as a discursive construction and as question of agency. The TIME cover on the other hand is not at all ambiguous or ambivalent about what is at stake. It reads as a kind of refusal to an idealized candidate and the misguided appeals to a race-less/gender-less utopic narrative. Instead, it compels a very pragmatic and deeply political act: choose one.

I thought that this was going to be a quick thought but apparently it went further than I anticipated. Oh well.

"I Swear"

No I am not talking about this group from way back when.

From The Chronicle of Higher Education, another faculty member was removed for failing to sign a loyalty oath upon employment at the California State University system. This marks the second time a faculty member was denied employment on this basis. The first was at CSU East Bay of a mathematics instructor, and both are Quakers and both, I believe, are adjunct professors. California's loyalty oath was added to the state constitution for the expressed purpose of preventing communists from taking public jobs in 1952.

Now having been an adjunct for nearly nine years, and aside from asking the obvious about religious freedom and the archaic practice of this particular loyalty oath, I have to ask these questions just off the top of my head:

• I wonder if any tenure track professor was denied employment on the basis of refusing to sign or altering a loyalty oath?
• I wonder what protections, resources, and advice are afforded to part-time lecturers?
• Do the CSU's counterpart, the research powerhouses of the University of California system (i.e., UC Berkeley, UCLA, etc.), also administer loyalty oaths to their tenure track and part-time lecturers?

I'm just curious about these kinds of institutional distinctions. I've always maintained that if a rule is in place, it must be applied equally across the board or none at all (well that's more of a guideline than an actual legal procedure but anyways ... ). When I was hired to teach a course at "Some University" in their "Pretty Cool" program, I had to sign a loyalty oath. It was a short document that looked as though it was printed in the 1950s with the ink from the mimeograph still fresh after all these years. It made me wonder if it literally was printed in the 1950s when questions about loyalty and the infiltration of communism (thanks to McCarthyism and the nationwide "red scare") inflamed this country, and again in the late 1960s when a very conservative California legislature enacted to strangle the state's university professors and their activism. I wasn't sure if that was because the school had not hired that many new faculty -- which could've explained why there was a distinct generation gap -- or that the school was not an attractive institution to work -- which is also plausible since some of the buildings were literally from the Stone Age and just being a professor is not a lucrative job. I was also tempted to inhale the document hoping that I could catch a whiff of the intoxicating fumes from the blue ink but I digress.

Anyways, I asked the administrator -- who looked as though he was there since the 1950s -- what would happen if I did not sign it. He simply said, "You won't get hired."

WTF???

"So there's no way around it?"

"None at all."

"Can I change some of the wording?"

"You can't do that."

"Because?"

"It's against the law."

"Really?"

"Yep."

"Can I sign it under a different name?" At this point, I was being somewhat of an ass, but he nevertheless maintained his composure. I could tell from his facial reaction that he either found me or the whole thing really amusing.

"Nope."

I took the pen in my hand and hovered over the "Sign here" section of the document. I looked up at him again with a concerned look on my face and he blurted out, "You won't get paid."

*GASPS* He got me. I was done for and so I signed the document, once again as the wretched of the academy I am so happy to receive pennies for my labor. I handed the abominable oath back to him and I could have sworn I saw a snicker, maybe a curl on his upper lip, as if I signed my soul away. Curse him!

But to complicate my story a bit further, "Some University" was not the only university that I taught for the California State University system. I had taught elsewhere in the system and none of them ever once asked me to sign a loyalty oath on condition of employment and payment.

Go figure that one out.

May 5, 2008

California State U. Sacks Another Quaker Instructor Over Loyalty Oath

Yet another Quaker instructor has been sacked by the California State University system for objecting to a state loyalty oath that clashes with her pacifist religious beliefs, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Wendy Gonaver, an American-studies lecturer at California State University at Fullerton, was fired the day before the start of classes because she would not “sign an oath swearing to ‘defend’ the U.S. and California constitutions ‘against all enemies, foreign and domestic’” unless she was allowed to include a statement explaining her views, “a practice allowed by other state institutions,” the reporter, Richard C. Paddock, writes. The university refused to grant her request.

Earlier this year, California State University at East Bay fired Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker mathematics instructor, for trying to add the word “nonviolently” to the state loyalty oath and for refusing to sign it when the university did not allow her to add the word. She was later reinstated.

See an item on The Chronicle’s News Blog for more details.

80s Music

I'm on an 80s nostalgia hunt and I came across this from Depeche Mode.

Charles Tilly (1929-2008)

Damn. I heard of Charles Tilly and his extensive research in sociology, urban studies, and political science. Off the top of my head, his article on article on war and state power as organized crime was very smart ("War Making and State Making as Organized Crime"). Some of his readings were on my "to read" list for the summer. His scholarship and research is vast and some engages in the kinds of questions about state power that interests me. He also exemplifies social science and interdisciplinarity research of the best kind, and more importantly, he was a great mentor who genuinely cared about students. Crooked Timber has a short post.