Hey all, I was able to add the book Katina mentioned last night to the library’s holdings, here’s a link.

You can see the whole of the ebook while you’re online. It’s one of these one-person-can-read-it-at-a-time titles (sorry! I wish these did not exist!), but folks can also download up to 72 pages (total for each user) as well for offline reading, and/or you can always request a particular chapter via Interlibrary Loan if you’d like a PDF and have already used up that 72 page allotment.

I’m also thinking about creating a guide on the library website to collect resources like this–Katina’s great new book and others (during and after the graduate experience). Are there books or links I should include that have helped you? I’ll share a link when I get a few things together!

The Brian Lehrer podcast of course resonated with our discussions last week– the brick wall and perpetuation of White Supremacy in another form (a horse of another color), but it also led to me to consider another idea I’ve considered for a while: The University has become so large and responsible so much than it used to be. A place and source for knowledge and education, The University has now become a microcosm of society– students lead their lives in these places, and their existence is tantamount to their intellect. The trace of the growing size of universities can be linked-to Civil Rights, Affirmative Action, Reproductive Rights– as the world has become more aware of oppression and discrimination, the attempts to right these wrongs must be brought forth into The University because individuals subjected to discrimination in the real world have the same potential for discrimination there.

In a freshman Poli Sci seminar, the resident old-school neo-con professor disapprovingly discussed the need for more counselors in the counseling session. “They’re more counselors now than when I started at Kenyon in 1983.” He seemed to see it as a moral failing on the part of incoming students. Meanwhile, in another context, a sophomore put on a one-woman show about the shame around sexuality, and her advisor (a tenured American Studies Professor) discussed his experience being a young man in college and fearing intimacy. Has the daily plight of the college-aged student changed, or are we just having conversations we didn’t used to?

I ask this in part because of the prevalence of Title IX breaches on campuses. Due to alcohol, fraternities, the works, this is a well known threat for young people on campus. On the CUNY website it reads, “Enough is Enough: Combatting Sexual Misconduct” on the bottom of the website above the CUNY emblem. I don’t remember being told this was something I would have to deal with as a person at a college. I remember, in my senior year of high school, reading a first-person account of a student at Harvard who was assaulted in her dorm room. I was simply horrified, believing it was a one-off. Why did no body warn me about this, and why was the school un-inclined to take her side? Then question arrive if it’s even the job of the university to intervene. But if not them who? Is the University not the keeper of its inhabitants? Are there not implied rules of conduct?

Another contradiction, how schools deal with underage drinking. Underage drinking is illegal, but somehow a University is able to provide their own repercussions for underage drinking/drug use, separate from federal law, and the same is true of Title IX despite it being a federal law?

The overarching questions I have: Had conduct, in relation to other people’s civil liberties (race, sex, sexual orientation) changed, or are we just having conversations about it now? Have laws impacted how universities run culturally? Is it the university’s responsibility to ensure that students follow laws? How does a university contend with the larger penial context of America?

The pursuit of a PhD, in and of itself, seems like an incredibly daunting endeavor in any academic discipline, but reading in Rogers’ book that it takes, on average, nine years to earn a PhD in the humanities sounds mind-boggling. I have much respect for anyone who takes this path. Perhaps this datum is so surprising to me because I neither considered pursuing a PhD nor focused much of my academic interests on the humanities.

Rogers’ mention of the importance of mentorship in the higher education realm really resonated with me. When I started my undergraduate studies, I was determined to take no mathematics courses, even though that had been my strongest subject for my entire academic career. By my second semester of college, after a disappointing foray into philosophy, sociology, and a couple of other disciplines, I decided I would take one math course. I appreciated the professor of that course so much that I decided to take another class with him the following semester. By the end of my sophomore year, I had declared mathematics my major and that professor was my advisor. My undergraduate experiences with the mathematics department directly inspired my decision to pursue a graduate degree in mathematics, where I once again was fortunate enough to have an incredible advisor. Considering my experiences with my advisors, whom I also consider to be mentors, it is disappointing to see Rogers state, “The reality, though, is that good mentoring is difficult and often invisible work, and is not typically professionally valued in the same way that publishing or teaching are.” Reflecting, I recognize that there was never a forum and hardly ever any opportunities to praise my advisors for their great mentoring work and recognize their impact. Posselt writes, “…assuming the most accomplished applicants are the best candidates reduces doctoral education from a developmental process to a scholarly finishing school, and implies that mentoring relationships and learning environments matter little to students’ success” Perhaps if greater value and emphasis are placed on the mentoring aspect of professorship, that could directly impact how committees determine the criteria by which they base their admissions decisions. Unfortunately, it is difficult to ascertain if that would have a positive or negative impact on an already controversial, exclusive, and somewhat arbitrary admissions process.

Patricia Matthew’s interview on the Brian Lehrer Show brought me back to my observation of the brick wall in last week’s reading. Faculty of color are surely given the short end of the stick on all aspects of diversity in the university. They are burdened with the work of doing diversity yet it is not viewed as “scholarly” enough for tenure. I assume it is too far-fetched to think that the work faculty do for the university would be a major consideration in granting tenure. This is just another way to create the brick wall. 

Professor Roger’s chapter two in Putting the Humanities PhD to Work hits the nail on the head in this quote on diversity work in the university. 

• “No matter how many diversity initiatives a university launches, true equity will remain out of reach as long as the educational system as a whole continues to ascribe value to deeply conservative processes and outcomes, since the way to measure, success will always involve looking back toward those who have come before” (Rogers, 40). 

If the work faculty do for the university is not valuable, what is? Does the exclusivity of scholarly writing for the university make it valuable? Rogers’ discussion on scholarly work that extends beyond the university could not be more spot on! Making scholarly work applicable and accessible to the public are ways the university can be more diverse in its reach.  

• “If humanities programs were to emphasize this potential for connection, gainful employment, and meaningful applicability, it would represent a significant stride in reasserting higher education as a public good rather than a private and elite undertaking” (Rogers, 60). 

I enjoyed the Brian Lehrer show’s interview because it gave me a new framework to engage with the issue of inclusion work in diversity. I’m realizing more how linked it is to the gaslighting of people of color (particularly women of color) working in academic spaces. Lehrer mentions that DEI work often falls disproportionately on faculty/staff of color, even though they make up a minority of positions in universities. This is what I’m connecting to gaslighting.

This pattern effectively treats DEI work as POC issue that needs to be solved by people of color, rather than a pervasive system with history legacy and widespread detriments. I see the connection to language here as well. For example, “cultural sensitivity” is a phrase used by so many professionals, such as academics and therapists, and it’s used to convey a commitment to DEI. However, even the word sensitivity in itself implies a sensitivity (read: over-sensitivity) of those (read: poc/woc) who may comment on their experiences of racism. I’ve seen a switch by critical scholars to push for the phrase “critically conscious” instead. I like how this shift puts the accountability on those in power, demanding a consciousness that is informed and inclusive, rather than gaslighting those who may be “over-sensitive” to racism (and sexism and ableism, etc). 

I love the idea of innovative scholarly work that can reach beyond universities. Traditional peer reviewed journal articles present barriers to many people. New research often is unlikely to make its way into public conversations since there is little access the general public has to academic research. Scholars who devote time and resources into sharing their research through innovative ways definitely deserve professional recognition. Especially in a time of fake news, disseminating knowledge is critical. (SexGenLab is doing great work sharing research through social media)

There is a very limited view of what is considered valued and successful. Focus on merit results in rewarding those with the most privilege. The wage gap shows how women and racial minority’s work is undervalued in comparison to white men. Outdated gender ideology and inflexible policies result in the disadvantage for women in the U.S. There is this ethos of individualism and principles of personal responsibility that underlie the country’s social policies. Oppressed groups who face additional barriers are left on their own to achieve herculean tasks. Working mothers, for example, end up having to decide between family or their career advancement. However, countries outside of the U.S show that work and family conflicts are not inevitable.

——

As a first-generation student, I can confirm the struggle to discover the hidden curriculum to navigating graduate school. Has anyone uncovered the secret code?

            Higher-ed institutions have relied on superficial constructs of success when assessing both systems of inclusivity and academic scholarship.  Semesterly enrollment numbers of black and brown students usually serve as a litmus test of general diversity and equity efforts.  As several readings have mentioned, it’s going to take a deeper cultural change across faculty, staff, and administrators to make meaningful changes within campus spaces.  Colleges usually place a great deal of value in earning institutional designations, such as “America’s Top Colleges”, “Hispanic Serving Institution” or “Military Friendly” which are connected to some form of media publication (e.g. Forbes).  Substantial amounts of perspective students are taught by guidance, educational, and vocational counselors to seek out these designations because it means they’re a “good” school.  Unfortunately, we’ve seen time and time again publications engaging in unethical “pay-to-play” practices that divvy out institutional prestige and recognition which are then later arbitrarily factored into graduate committee member entrance determinations.  Should institutions stop engaging in prestige surveys due to the adverse impact that is has on alumni of public institutions applying to graduate programs?

            Another superficial assessment of academic scholarship has been demonstrated with the valuing of well marketed peer-reviewed journals.  Professors are being assessed by the number of journal articles, citations, and journal recognition in the process of securing job permanence (i.e. tenure).  In alignment with questioning the established status quo, can we reformulate a newer concept of tenure?  Would it be possible to create an innovative concept that places less emphasis on the “publish-or-perish” sentiment?  I envision a form of job permanence for faculty members that isn’t punitive, but supportive of avant-garde teaching and research.  I’d also like to question as to how the countless number of CUNY’s tech systems; CUNYFirst, Portal, DegreeWorks, EAB, Blackboard, Cloud Virtual Desktop,  Academic Commons,  Alert, Smart, etc., etc.,………….impacts the process of vibrant scholarship?

Through Professor Rogers’s book, Putting the Humanities Ph.D. to Work, I was able to understand the current structural problems of US universities and graduate schools: Many doctoral students and faculty members of “color” have been discriminated against by university’s systemic problems implicitly and explicitly. Some faculty members’ academic achievements are not acknowledged enough in academia only because of their races, ethnicities, and genders. In addition, many women adjunct professors even decide not to pursue their tenure-track but move into the administration-officer-track due to the role of caregivers for their families. Since a caregiver’s role is critical in a family, of course, we can’t blame their family issues. Instead, we should figure out things that can improve women faculty members’ status. I found the statistic data shown in the book regarding the gap between male faculty’s median salary and female’s one is also very interesting and surprising figures that cannot avoid criticisms.

Moreover, I totally agree with the idea that we should have professors who have diverse backgrounds in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender. Like Rogers said, “the professional mentors who have had the most significant impact on me later in my trajectory have nearly all been women,” I think there are unthinkable advantages of being mentored by the same gender and ethnic scholars because academic mentors who have many commonalities with you understand your backgrounds — mostly hidden — better than faculty members who have not. Also, students will be able to learn various perspectives and disciplines for their academic areas other than what white male faculty members have.  

Writing about academic opportunities for multicultural professors made me think about “multicultural students.” I think American-born students, who are mostly monocultural, also should take some lessons or be given some opportunities or experiences to understand international students in the US. Many American-born students do not know much about other cultures and languages (Maybe some bilingual students who are second or third generations are a little different but not much). Even when they think they know Mexican culture or Chinese culture, etc., I saw many of them actually did not know them well. Given that most American-born students have not experienced living in other countries, this phenomenon is inevitable. They only know American cultures and see other foreigners in their limited perspectives. That’s why I argue they should take some lessons to understand their international colleagues from other countries, their difficulties, their needs when many Americans are now speaking up for inclusivity. In this regard, for example, when one of my close friends studied in the UK, all the new students in his college had to take a short lecture assigned only for understanding international students better, such as their lives, their language difficulties, etc. I have not seen any of this effort in the GC except that it’s running an international student office where I’ve never been able to visit due to COVID-19. What if US universities and graduate schools provide international students with supplemental English classes or academic advisors? Because international students are the potential faculty members of university, these efforts may help international students get more opportunities and advance to faculty positions in the US.

Advising and mentorship, whether formal or informal, is an essential factor in student success at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. I found out many doctoral students, especially international doctoral students who just start their academic trajectory, don’t know how to do publication effectively and use their works for the public good. Therefore, graduate schools should make efforts to provide those students with useful information and resources to improve their students’ information accessibility to their academic fields for their career’s successes.

Rethinking classroom evaluations, fostering greater transparency in the tenure and promotion process, offering improved family leave and childcare policies, and more are all essential elements of building a healthier and more inclusive discipline in universities and graduate schools. In this regard, for example, I know some of the universities in Korea have started preschools and elementary schools in their campuses for the female faculty members and administration officers to help them continue their careers. This kind of change should continue to be made in every society.

Thinking across this week’s readings has been very helpful, and I’m particularly mulling over the humanities PhD, adjunct labor, diversity work, and funding in the university. A number of questions arose as I read Katina’s book in particular. 

Firstly, I was struck by her pushing back against the notion of a crisis or crises in the humanities. Though Mitchell and Boggs have critiqued the crisis consensus in Critical University Studies, it certainly looms large in much of the scholarship, as well as how people talk about the humanities and the university at CUNY today, including in political spaces such as students organizations and the PSC. What is gained and lost by using or rejecting the framing of crisis? 

Secondly, i am curious about the role of adjunct labor. While CUS has thoroughly documented histories of casualization and adjunctification from above as a means of cost saving and power consolidation in the hands of a rapidly expanding upper administration sector (and businesses, foundations, the government, etc.), i am curious about the radical possibilities for and histories of adjunctification from below. Is there a potential upside to this model as opposed to the traditional tenure model? I am particularly interested in this as someone who sees adjunct teaching as a central part of a more appealing career path than tenure track work, giving me the flexibility to work in a staff position and teach simultaneously, each improving my work in the other position. 

Finally, I am curious about different funding models. Much of Katina’s argument is about the importance of humanities for the public good, and the ways in which a humanities PhD has utility beyond the academy (and in the academy in previously unacknowledged ways and spaces). If that is the case, is the departmental funding model worth maintaining? Should the humanities embrace external funding in ways that resemble the sciences in the US academy? Should we look to universities in other nations for models for how to fund humanities PhDs? I think that government scholarships for graduate students studying art history and Latinx studies and queer theory and poetry sounds like a good idea. 

Thank everyone for the encouragement to do another audio clip