Petition Against Tuition Scaling

A quick post today; Governor is attempting to scale tuition increases based on major, with non-STEM majors paying more tuition. This proposal is built on faulty grounds. Increasingly, our economy is driven by creativity and innovation. The humanities supply these abilities; hence why, for thousands of years, higher education has sought to educate the whole person rather than focus on a few select skills. No one in education supports this movement--it is the product of the worst kind of politics.

Please take a moment to sign this petition against Scott's proposed plan. Feel free to copy/paste my response (above).

Red Sox Hot Stove

With the exception of the postseason, hot stove is my favorite time of the baseball year. This off-season is particularly important to the Red Sox, after the Valentine debacle and the great salary purge. This year has a very weak free agency class, so the Sox will likely have to be creative with solutions. Here's the positions they need to address.

Catcher

Jason Varitek's loss most directly impacted the pitching staff--which felt increases of over a run a game across the board. Couple this with Salty's apparent deficiency behind the plate, and you've got a great need at catcher. They just signed David Ross, who is solid behind the plate and mediocre against both right and left handed pitching. I've read that the Sox are still interested in Napoli and are actively trading Salty. There's really nothing on the market outside of Napoli that could impact the roster. Minor league wonder kid Ryan Lavarnway had a terrible showing in September, but he could factor into the mix at first base or catcher (.295/.382/.511 in 2 AAA seasons).

First Base

This could be the biggest whole to fill--or the place where the Red Sox make the biggest mistake. The free agent market is quite thin this year, and only mediocre players like Swisher or LaRoche topping the list. If the Sox are able to get Napoli, then I'd prefer them to give Mauro Gomez the at bats in a platoon. His minor league numbers (.307/.363/.551) suggest he'd at least provide replacement level production, and his small MLB sample size last fall supports that projection (.275/.324/.422).

Left Field & Right Field

This will rest on Ross's asking price; he is a serviceable offensive player with a proven track record. But let's not get crazy--this contract shouldn't be more than 3 years, 30 million dollars. Given the shallow pool in free agency this year, Ross could see his offer sheets growing to Jason Werth territory. Buyer beware.

What puts the Sox in a bind with their outfield is the loss of Josh Reddick last season. Granted, I was a huge Reddick fan (he is the king of Spring Training, after all), and we don't know yet how effective a healthy Andrew Bailey could be in Boston. But the minor league cupboard seems pretty bare at the moment--Daniel Nava is clearly just a replacement player and Ryan Kalish hasn't returned to the form that anointed him the next coming of Trot Nixon in 2010. Kalish figures to get a chance here, but he's probably competing for Nava's job, not the starting right fielder position.

I've heard the Justin Upton rumors, too. I am torn. On the one hand, Upton is a proven hitter, with a manageable contract. But, while 2 of Upton's last 4 seasons have been incredible, the other two have been merely good (respective war: 4.8, 3.0, 6.4, 2.5--would you pay 20+ million a year for 2 and a half wins?). I won't cry if we acquire him, but its not like he's the second coming of Man-Ram.

I'm hoping that the Sox bring in Torii Hunter on a 2 year deal. They've got the money to over pay a bit, without locking into the kind of 5 year deal that Nick Swisher will command. I also wouldn't be too surprised to see the Sox throw a bid at Michael Bourn. We all know Ellsbury is out of Boston after this year, so they could move him to right field next season and have an elite defensive center fielder in place for the future.

Shortstop

I thought the only bright spot about Epstein's departure was that I wouldn't have to hear about Jose Igelsias any more. Seriously. I realize he is (supposedly) the greatest glove since Ozzie Smith. But he hit .118 last season. Oh, that was only 77 at bats you tell me? Fine. he split .266/.318/.306 at AAA, and .235/.285/.269 at AAA the year before. Again: .235/.285/.269. At AAA.

Losing Aviles to acquire Farrell means shortstop becomes a central area of concern. Stephen Drew is the only "name" out there, but he comes with some injury question marks, and is a Scott Boras client, so the price in years might be too steep for the Sox to commit.

There's the possibility of Japanese import Hiroyuki Nakajima, although the track record on offensive Japanese infielders is very, very bad. Given how weak the market is this season, I might say roll the dice. Otherwise, give the job to Pedro Ciriaco (and recognize that he will never hit .293 again).

The good news here is that the Sox's best prospect, Xander Bogaerts, is only a year away. So, starting in 2014, the position should be locked down for the foreseeable future.

Starting Pitcher

On paper, Zach Grienke seems a must. But there's questions as to whether his personality and psyche would match up to Boston. I would roll the dice. He's the lone All-Star calibre pitcher available this season and the cost will be high--but the Sox desperately need someone else at the top of this rotation; assuming:

1. Lester
2. Buchholz
3. Free Agent
4. Morales
5. Lackey/Doubront

Grienke could slide into the 2 spot, giving the Sox at least hope of competing in the now ridiculously strong AL East. Morales was a pleasant surprise last seasons; a .262 BABIP suggests he should regress a bit next year (his xFIP was 4.19, only slightly higher than his 3.77 ERA).

There's also 3 very strong prospects in the Sox's system--but I don't know if any project to have "top of the rotation stuff." There's Matt Barnes, Allen Webster, and Rubby De La Rosa. De la Rosa is 23 and likely ready for the majors, Barnes and Webster, who pitched in A and AA respectively last season, likely need more minor league experience. De La Rosa was the only asset the Sox acquired in the mega-deal with the Dodgers. He spent most of 2012 recovering from Tommy John surgery; he threw 60 MLB innings in 2011--striking out 60 but walking 31. He could make strides and develop control, but, then again, he could be heading to the bullpen.

In reality, however, the Sox's immediate future rests on John Farrell's relationship with Lester and Buchholz. They are the core of this franchise; their best seasons came under Farrell's leadership. If anyone can make up for Varitek's departure, it is Farrell (I hope). If the once young wonder twins are merely mediocre, as they were last year, then the Sox cannot compete for wild card spots, let alone championships.

The Sox are set at second base, third base, dh, and center field, but virtually every other position is in play. I'd love to say that I'm optimistic about next year--but I don't see this pitching staff returning to form. If they do, then I'll readily admit I was wrong. I know that the clubhouse was a disaster last year, and the change in atmosphere could lead to a change in performance. Comparing our pitching staff to the rest of the league, it better.

CUNY and salvaging the "doomed project"

And just like that pedagogic expertise is crushed by economic and political efficiency. At CUNY Queensborough the administration has sought to reduce composition to a 3 hour course, instead of its traditional 4. The faculty refused, on the grounds that composition requires 4 hours. Apparently, to increase systemic efficiency, the state has adopted what they call the Pathways plan, "designed to create a curricular structure that will streamline transfers and enhance the quality of general education across the University." In short, from what I can tell, this requires any course to have the same number of credits and class hours from school to school.

When faculty refused to adopt this change, citing student need, they were hit with a letter from Queensborough's vice-president, which made its way to the Internet via the Student Activism blog. The letter threatened to freeze all hiring, terminate all adjuncts, and cut up to 19 of the departments 26 full-time faculty. A shot across the bow.

Today, the Chronicle reports that the president has stepped in and called off the dogs of war:

That message set off alarms that continued sounding over the weekend. On Sunday, however, the college’s president, Diane B. Call, said in an e-mail to faculty and other leaders that Ms. Steele’s letter was meant as a “worst case scenario—one we are prepared to work mightily to avoid.”

“It is my belief,” Ms. Call wrote, “that through continued communication and collaboration with our faculty, a constructive resolution to ensure student learning will be achieved.”

Of course, another reason for the president to soften the situation is that the vice president's threats clearly overstep their legal limits. But, as Aaron Barlow of the Academe Blog put it:

None of this would be happening had the CUNY administration shown respect for the faculty and had worked to build a Pathways program with the faculty, instead of in spite of the faculty.

For those who believe Universities should operate like businesses, (top down hierarchy, competitive environment), the faculty probably look out of touch. For those that believe Universities should operate like educational institutions (bottom up development, cooperative environment), the administration look incompetent and draconic. Given our economic woes, it is natural to expect Universities to look for cost cutting measures. But cutting credit hours and increasing class sizes should be the last thing on the board. Working with faculty to develop solutions should be the first.

The incident reminds me of the discussion of professional University administrator's in Academically Adrift, particularly their assertion that "contemporary higher education administrators experience institutional interests and incentives that focus their attention elsewhere" (11). In CUNY's case, their president has educational experience, but one has to realize that reducing the credit hours for a composition program that serves a large number of underprepared writers is disastrous. Even under the best of circumstances, FYC can be considered a doomed project (Sirc's essay comes immediately to mind, but I know there are others out there too). Teach students, many of whom come from secondary systems that almost entirely reduce writing instruction to a formulaic five-paragraph essay, to write lucid, structured, supported arguments in the span of 16 or maybe 32 weeks. Throw in research methods, citation styles, grammar, and, increasingly, new media technologies. A difficult, if not impossible, task indeed.

Last week, in my graduate class, we read Heidegger's essay "The Question Concerning Technology." In a class lecture, I claimed that our educational system, from kindergarten to graduate school, is increasingly realizing one of Heidegger's worst nightmares--that we would become so overwhelmed with the technological spirit, the desire for profit, efficiency, and utility, that "he comes to the brink of a precipitous fall; that is, he comes to the point where he himself will have to be taken as standing-reserve" (332). Grist for the mill. Raw material for the factory. I skeptical that education can find any way off of this path, especially given the rise of the for-profit University and disappearing industrial economy. But those of us who teach, and especially those of us who teach a vitalist, complex art such as writing, know that learning is a messy, inefficient process that takes time--time to try, to fail, to try again, to talk, to muster up the courage one more time.

First Day, Fall 2012

Somehow it is already the first day of classes for 2012. I am not sure where my summer went.
I am excited to teach a new grad class this semester, New Media Production. The course differs from the other grad courses I teach, where the focus is on traversing and networking a complex set of readings and ideas. This course emphasizes production--learning how to use tools to do new things. If I am nervous about anything, it is that the class has over 20 students in it, with different comfort levels regarding technology.

The course also seeks to historicize the term new media, defining in light of the convergence of postmodern theory and network technology. We're opening with two staple essays for me--Ong's "Writing is a Technology that Restructures Thought" and Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology." The Heidegger sets up our early work with Ulmer; I frame Ulmer's concept of electracy as an attempt to wrestle with Heidegger's provocation of technology/logos. (I flush out this strain of thought more in the syllabus' course description, "The Becoming of Electracy"). I've taught Ulmer's Internet Invention with undergraduates before, but I am really excited to teach the MyStory genre with graduate students.

I am also teaching an undergraduate Expository Writing course. Leahy and I completed a manuscript for Computers and Composition that outlines our rationale for teaching web writing. The abstract to that article reads as follows:

Collaborative digital tools, online communities, and the evolution of literacy create opportunities in which writing for an English class and writing for the "real" world no longer have to be two separate activities. We believe seizing such opportunities requires rethinking the desire to teach writing—a move toward what has been termed postpedagogy. We align the interactive and collaborative affordances of web writing with a postpedagogical model of learning focused on inventive practices grounded in kairotic interactions.

I'm going to give the students the article to read in preparation for our next class--the first half of the article is fairly theoretical, focusing on why institutions insist that writing (narrowly defined as academic essays) is "teachable." To rephrase Heidegger: "the correct instrumental definition of writing still does not show us writing's essence [...]" ("QCT" 313). The second half of the essay argues for organizing a class dedicated to the idea that writing cannot be taught, but can be learned. Learning writing requires attending to writing outside of the instrumental-institutional expectations. The dynamic, participatory web affords us opportunities to discover writing in the wild.
Working on the syllabus for both courses reminded me that I have a blog, and that it has been very lonely. Sorry blog.

Summer Reading

I know it is a bit late to be posting my summer reading list, but here's the things I have or will be reading this summer

• Alien Phenomenology, or What It's Like to Be a Thing, Ian Bogost
• How to Do Things with Videogames, Ian Bogost
• Inter/vention: Free Play in the Age of Electracy, Jan Rune Holmevik
• Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, Jane McGonigal
• Ambient Rhetoric: The Attunements of Rhetorical Being, Thomas Rickert
• The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything, Ken Robinson
• Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative, Ken Robinson
• Toward a Composition Made Whole, Jody Shipka

I've spent the last few weeks re-reading disciplinary essays on Levinas, particularly the JAC and P&R special issues. That project is (finally) almost over. The Bogost, Robinson, and Holmevik readings are for a piece on sf0, the real world-mmo community gaming site (I'm still working on language to describe exactly what this thing is). I collected research on student participation with the project last semester, and will continue that research with a graduate class in the fall. I came across the McGonigal looking at Alex Reid's syllabus for a summer course on games and the title is enticing for that project.

I've heard a lot of good things about the Shipka; I am interested in the book's emphasis on multimodal education and placing the impetus for rhetorical decisions on students. The Rickert is more for fun- I hope it is out so I can include it in my graduate Contemporary Rhetorics seminar in the fall of 2013.

Among the Republicans

Prepping for my role as a blogger during the upcoming RNC, I read Among the Republicans by V.S. Naipaul, a reflection upon the 1984 Republican National Convention. Interesting is the extent to which Naipaul focuses on the rising New Right religion, in a sense that resonates with Burke's identification:

The invocation was being spoken, by a rabbi; and the piety seemed correct. The occasion, with its magnification of man, had a feel of religion. Not religion as contemplation or a private experience of divinity; but religion as the essence of a culture, the binding, brotherhood transcending material need. That, rather than political debate, was what people had come to Dallas for.

Of course, the "transcending material need" anticipates Thomas Frank and Andrew Gelman by a few decades. And what does this new religion offer? How to explain its success?

The fundamentalism that the Republicans had embraced went beyond religion. It simplified the world in general; it rolled together many different kinds of anxieties—schools, drugs, race, buggery, Russia, to give just a few; and it offered the simplest, the vaguest solution: Americanism, the assertion of the American self.

This echoes what I wrote in my essay on the 2004 election; that Bush's rhetorical success rested on his ability to reframe complex problems in simple terms, and especially on his ability to draw on a powerful notion of a beleaguered but stedfast "us" righteously opposed to a debase, highbrow, and/or polyvocal them (a bunch of sophists, really).

Health Care Passes

I'm sitting in a meeting, prepping to be a live Blogger during the RNC (scheduled to be held in Tampa). And, during the meeting, I've been following the anticipated Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Healthcare Act (its being covered live here). It looks like a win for the poor, tired, and yearning to be healthy.

It is a good day to be an American.

UPDATE: A Plain English Interpretation by Anne Howe:

Amy Howe: In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.