In the wake of Governor Corbett's demand for "the biggest one-time percentage cut to state higher-education funds in history," Pennsylvania's shell-shocked university leaders and professors try to locate any solid footing on this shifting Marcellus-shale, gas-infused landscape of the ultimate pro-business/anti-education climate rolling across the U.S. one Republican governor at a time. Sitting here at Panera, blatantly ignoring the essays that need to be graded because I'm so depressed and in a bad mood that I don't want my students to suffer, I have other questions rising to mind.
Why do Republicans hate education? Specifically, public education? And in Corbett's case, state-supported higher education?
Before tackling some of the potential answers to this question, let's take a look at the mission statements and student body statistics of two tax-dollar-supported Pennsylvania higher education institutions to see if therein exist any clues to Republican disgust.
Kutztown University's Mission statement for 2009-14: "Kutztown University’s mission is to provide a high quality education at the undergraduate and graduate levels in order to prepare students to meet lifelong intellectual, ethical, social, and career challenges." Our student body consists of approximately 9,600 undergraduates, who are mostly PA residents, about 880 of whom are enrolled part-time, and who return for a second year at a respectable 78% rate (retention). The majority of our undergrads major in business and education, with the arts, psychology, and English following as the top majors. Over 80% of our students receive "some type of financial aid" to attend KU, despite having the low, state-supported yearly attendance cost of approximately $19,000.
Let's take a look at one of our 14 sister schools, Bloomsburg University, whose mission statement says, "Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania is an inclusive comprehensive public university that prepares students for personal and professional success in an increasingly complex global environment." Eighty-nine percent of BU's 8,900 undergraduates come from Pennsylvania, and who return for a sophomore year at the rate of 80.9 percent (retention). Major programs of study on this campus include education, the sciences, the arts and humanities, health care, and business and approximately 79% of BU students receive financial aid to offset the modest cost of attendance, another far cry from the $50,000+ price tags on our Republican "leaders'" undergraduate experiences (more on this in a moment).
Now let's examine some specific PA state representatives and senators to see if their backgrounds provide any clues to potential hatred of public education.
This man "represents" me. I put "represent" in quotes for a reason. Unless he comes out publicly against these asinine and unnecessary cuts to public and higher education in my state and for taxing the PA natural gas companies who are ruining our natural world (as just one potential revenue-generator), then he is not representing MY interests and is, therefore, not MY representative. He represents the interests of the people who elected him...who have the same anti-education mindset presumably. I frankly don't hear a lot of dissension over this proposed budget coming from regular voting Republicans. In fact, quite the opposite. My parents both think Corbett is doing just a delightful job and I haven't seen any right-leaning friend or colleague disputing the sensibility of his plan. That's pretty strong proof of acceptance to me.
Silence, in this case, speaks volumes of approval.
Back to PA representative Republican Douglas Reichley, attorney and father of two kids. Where did Doug get his undergraduate education? Lo and behold - not a state school. Rather, an expensive, small, private liberal arts college that costs over $50,000 a year to attend, which is more than I make in a year. This is also beyond the reach of my students, who get a liberal arts education from equivalent-quality faculty, but at publicly-supported state tuition rates. Maybe he dislikes public education because it doesn't fit with his private education values. Or maybe our kids just aren't good enough, so deserve to be outside looking in. Go work in a mine, kid. "The world needs ditch diggers, too."
Let's take a gander at "my" state senator, Patrick Browne. Did HE attend a state school? That would be no. He got his undergraduate degree at a large, private, Catholic college that costs over $55,000 a year to attend. I'm sensing a trend here. Both of my state "representatives" attended private colleges that cost more to attend per year than I make as a public educator. Perhaps their wrath against public education is because they have no experience with it or with the people who benefit from it. Perhaps their privileged view of the world is more akin to Scrooge than Crachit.
Finally, what about Pennsylvania's new governor? Where did he get his undergraduate degree? Not at a state school. He attended a small, private liberal arts college that costs about $39,000 a year to attend. Considering the heights to which he has risen, one would assume this man to be a champion of higher education, but clearly, the divide is public vs. private higher education and this man firmly stands on the anti-public-education side of the fence.
To call Corbett's budget and Scott Walker's anti-union agenda anything less than class warfare with a blunted weapon is to not be able to see the forest for the trees and to be so blind to reality that you get your perception of reality handed to you in a silver teacup paid for by Rupert Murdoch. In other words, if you don't see that this IS class warfare, you have your head firmly embedded up your ass (and maybe it's comfortable there), or perhaps you're retired and just don't give a shit anymore about the rest of us.
Perhaps the reason Republicans hate public education is because they are itching for a class warfare battle of Biblical proportions and see public education as the perfect battleground. Kill public education, win the favor of big business. Oddly enough, I don't agree with this attitude. Big businesses should be equally appalled and up in arms at the Governor's (and his ilk) attack on public education because businesses need educated workers...and most of these workers cannot afford to attend private colleges with $50,000 price tags each year.
According to Corbett's campaign promise, "Pennsylvania is home to 185 higher education institutions and nearly 5,000 philanthropic endowments and foundations. The next decade will be marked by significant technological changes – new materials, green energy sources and technologies, personalized medicines, telecom, information technology, new industrial processes and significant advances in computing. Tom Corbett will work with higher education and philanthropic organizations to ensure that Pennsylvania is prepared to not only capitalize and support these changes, but also to lead them." (emphasis added by me) Anyone else find it ironic that his answer to "working" with higher education is to gut our funding? Anyone else bothered by the bold, outright LIES that he should have been honest about when he was running for this office??
Maybe businesses in Pennsylvania ought to wake up and smell the gunfire.
In solidarity.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
One Professor's Counter-Attack
Let me just preface this post with an unfortunately necessary disclaimer: I am fully aware of how hard the non-union people in the middle class and working poor in the private sector work. But this isn't about them. This is about me and the people in my position (or similar) who are being attacked by a certain element of the Republican Party and their sympathizers in the general public. These are the people attacking me and my fellow teachers. And I have had it.
The attack:
Teachers' Unions 101: A is for Agitation
Wis. Teachers Ready to Help--But Not Forfeit Rights
President of largest PA faculty union calls Ohio bill 'poor governing'
Wisconsin Liberals Starve Children
Protecting bad teachers [note the last sentence...most teachers are incompetent]
Conservative groups rally behind anti-teachers union legislation
Tea Party Holds Counter Rally Downtown
Michele Bachmann weighs in on Wisconsin teacher sick-out: "It's a dereliction of duty"
And before you start to protest by saying, but wait, the conservatives and radical Tea Partiers are attacking teachers' unions, not teachers...consider this: An attack on the existence of my union IS an attack on ME.
I am angry at the Tea Party, conservative talk show hosts, and their conservative counterparts in the general public for thinking that I make a good target for fixing budget problems. Indulge me a moment and I will show you why this attack is unnecessary.
To set the record straight, I do pay taxes, I do vote, and I do work year-round. I do NOT have an easy job. I do make $50,000 a year/gross and I am represented by a union. I do have about 100 new students across four classes every semester, plus my department, university, and community service requirements, committee work, scholarly research, and assisting former students with recommendation letters and graduate school and job and scholarship applications.
I am not rich and never will be. I will never make over $100,000 a year. I may never make more than $75,000 a year. I do have $60,000 in student loan debt on top of all of my other bills, moving expenses, and other expenses associated with moving and starting all over in a new location.
I am not married, do not have kids, and cannot afford to buy property, so receive none of the tax benefits from being in this class.
If my governor and the Republican legislators in my state attack my union (and hence, attack me and my right to negotiate for health benefits, sick leave, grievance policies, classroom size, and control over curriculum design, in addition to my salary), you damn well better believe I would attend a sick-out with my fellow faculty, despite being a first-year junior faculty member. And that is NOT a dereliction of duty...it is PART of my duty as a faculty member in a unionized university system.
We are one. Together, we can protect our rights. Divided, we will be run over and decimated, reduced to mere cogs expected to do a lot more for much, much less. And yes, our students will suffer, almost as much as we will.
I do work hard and my job is made more complicated by both the administration and the students. For instance, imagine if a large percentage of your annual review came from your company's interns. And that carried equal weight to your supervisor's opinion of how effective you are at your job. That is equivalent to what we, as faculty members, must tolerate. Our students' opinions about how well we do our jobs (despite not being trained or qualified to make this judgment) are weighted heavily in our yearly reviews - and are included in our tenure files. Therefore, if I want to be a tough teacher with high standards and expectations, demanding more academic rigor and critical engagement from my students, I may well pay the consequence in bad student evaluations because many students don't want to work hard or be challenged in any serious way, which then affects my ability to KEEP MY JOB.
Still think my job is easy? Ok, let's continue then.
I do not plan on retiring. Ever. I fully anticipated this even before I became a professor (my third career, so trust me, I'm NOT incompetent), so the argument that union people all retire at 50 is a malicious LIE. And those who believe this are drinking the Tea wholesale without first thinking about or investigating the truth.
I do pay dues to a union that expects me to work hard, do my job, or pay the consequence by being fired - my union does NOT exist to guarantee the employment of unethical slackers - that's in our CONTRACT.
To demonstrate all of these abstract ideas, here is a brief rundown of two typical days for me as a junior faculty member...and it should be known that once I do achieve tenure (if my present university continues to reappoint me for five years and my student evaluations aren't too bad for five years and if the tenure committee decides to grant me tenure - not a guarantee), then my responsibilities INCREASE. Once a faculty member is tenured, she must do MORE, not less. She must become the barrier, the target, the protector of junior faculty, the person standing between unfair administrative expectations and the new faculty member's struggle with figuring out the landscape and realities of the job. She must also step up and participate in more difficult committees with more serious decision-making responsibilities.
What my first two days last week looked like:
Monday. Rise at 7:30, answer student emails, review documents and prep for observation of temporary faculty member. 10 - 11am, observe instructor, taking notes the entire time on netbook. 11-12 meet with students to discuss their project one progress. 12-1 department meeting to discuss which temporary faculty to roll over into tenure-track positions. 1-2 cover class for officemate. 2-3 meet with students, then begin assessment memo draft (I am one of the two "assessment experts" in the department because of my prior experiences - both of us are junior faculty). 3-5 teach my one class for the day. 5-6 casual conversation with fellow department faculty re: internal dept. issues, plus responding to several student emails. 6pm - leave campus. 6:30-7 dinner and reading student blogs. 7-9 various personal phone calls. 9-10 watch MSNBC and read student blogs. 10pm - go to bed/sleep.
Tuesday. Rise at 6am and prepare for day. 8-11 teach my two classes. 11-12 full department meeting. 12-1 meet with students, unable to eat lunch. 1-3 teach my class. 3-5 continue drafting assessment memo, email faculty in other departments for necessary information, respond to student emails, respond to fellow faculty emails, read student blogs, research and select readings to assign to my students in the next classes. 5pm- head home. 6-8 dinner, respond to student emails, continue research readings and TED talks for use in classes, read student blogs, read academic article on assessment. 8-9 personal phone calls. 9-10 watch MSNBC and read student blogs. 10pm - go to bed/sleep. (Sensing a pattern here?)
You get the point. Do other people work hard? Yes. Do other people have the variety and complexity of tasks and responsibilities that I have in the course of my job? No. Not in the same way.
Do any of us deserve to be vilified as people who don't work hard, who don't work enough, and who aren't worthy of a decent salary with benefits and the ability to negotiate (when we make an average of four to 11 percent less than people working in the private sector)? No. As a professor who has elected to "take the summer off" so that I can work on my other job responsibility of publishing an academic article as opposed to teaching, I condense 12 months of work into nine...and then work another three months at a more relaxed pace.
Does this make me worthy of vilification and scorn? Absolutely not.
Please think before you agree with the fallacious and untrue arguments coming from the political Right. Research and investigate (beyond Fox News). Ask a teacher what her days are like before you rain down your judgment and assumptions based on nothing more than weak-ass Tea delivered in a broken teacup.
In solidarity.
The attack:
Teachers' Unions 101: A is for Agitation
Wis. Teachers Ready to Help--But Not Forfeit Rights
President of largest PA faculty union calls Ohio bill 'poor governing'
Wisconsin Liberals Starve Children
Protecting bad teachers [note the last sentence...most teachers are incompetent]
Conservative groups rally behind anti-teachers union legislation
Tea Party Holds Counter Rally Downtown
Michele Bachmann weighs in on Wisconsin teacher sick-out: "It's a dereliction of duty"
And before you start to protest by saying, but wait, the conservatives and radical Tea Partiers are attacking teachers' unions, not teachers...consider this: An attack on the existence of my union IS an attack on ME.
I am angry at the Tea Party, conservative talk show hosts, and their conservative counterparts in the general public for thinking that I make a good target for fixing budget problems. Indulge me a moment and I will show you why this attack is unnecessary.
To set the record straight, I do pay taxes, I do vote, and I do work year-round. I do NOT have an easy job. I do make $50,000 a year/gross and I am represented by a union. I do have about 100 new students across four classes every semester, plus my department, university, and community service requirements, committee work, scholarly research, and assisting former students with recommendation letters and graduate school and job and scholarship applications.
I am not rich and never will be. I will never make over $100,000 a year. I may never make more than $75,000 a year. I do have $60,000 in student loan debt on top of all of my other bills, moving expenses, and other expenses associated with moving and starting all over in a new location.
I am not married, do not have kids, and cannot afford to buy property, so receive none of the tax benefits from being in this class.
If my governor and the Republican legislators in my state attack my union (and hence, attack me and my right to negotiate for health benefits, sick leave, grievance policies, classroom size, and control over curriculum design, in addition to my salary), you damn well better believe I would attend a sick-out with my fellow faculty, despite being a first-year junior faculty member. And that is NOT a dereliction of duty...it is PART of my duty as a faculty member in a unionized university system.
We are one. Together, we can protect our rights. Divided, we will be run over and decimated, reduced to mere cogs expected to do a lot more for much, much less. And yes, our students will suffer, almost as much as we will.
I do work hard and my job is made more complicated by both the administration and the students. For instance, imagine if a large percentage of your annual review came from your company's interns. And that carried equal weight to your supervisor's opinion of how effective you are at your job. That is equivalent to what we, as faculty members, must tolerate. Our students' opinions about how well we do our jobs (despite not being trained or qualified to make this judgment) are weighted heavily in our yearly reviews - and are included in our tenure files. Therefore, if I want to be a tough teacher with high standards and expectations, demanding more academic rigor and critical engagement from my students, I may well pay the consequence in bad student evaluations because many students don't want to work hard or be challenged in any serious way, which then affects my ability to KEEP MY JOB.
Still think my job is easy? Ok, let's continue then.
I do not plan on retiring. Ever. I fully anticipated this even before I became a professor (my third career, so trust me, I'm NOT incompetent), so the argument that union people all retire at 50 is a malicious LIE. And those who believe this are drinking the Tea wholesale without first thinking about or investigating the truth.
I do pay dues to a union that expects me to work hard, do my job, or pay the consequence by being fired - my union does NOT exist to guarantee the employment of unethical slackers - that's in our CONTRACT.
To demonstrate all of these abstract ideas, here is a brief rundown of two typical days for me as a junior faculty member...and it should be known that once I do achieve tenure (if my present university continues to reappoint me for five years and my student evaluations aren't too bad for five years and if the tenure committee decides to grant me tenure - not a guarantee), then my responsibilities INCREASE. Once a faculty member is tenured, she must do MORE, not less. She must become the barrier, the target, the protector of junior faculty, the person standing between unfair administrative expectations and the new faculty member's struggle with figuring out the landscape and realities of the job. She must also step up and participate in more difficult committees with more serious decision-making responsibilities.
What my first two days last week looked like:
Monday. Rise at 7:30, answer student emails, review documents and prep for observation of temporary faculty member. 10 - 11am, observe instructor, taking notes the entire time on netbook. 11-12 meet with students to discuss their project one progress. 12-1 department meeting to discuss which temporary faculty to roll over into tenure-track positions. 1-2 cover class for officemate. 2-3 meet with students, then begin assessment memo draft (I am one of the two "assessment experts" in the department because of my prior experiences - both of us are junior faculty). 3-5 teach my one class for the day. 5-6 casual conversation with fellow department faculty re: internal dept. issues, plus responding to several student emails. 6pm - leave campus. 6:30-7 dinner and reading student blogs. 7-9 various personal phone calls. 9-10 watch MSNBC and read student blogs. 10pm - go to bed/sleep.
Tuesday. Rise at 6am and prepare for day. 8-11 teach my two classes. 11-12 full department meeting. 12-1 meet with students, unable to eat lunch. 1-3 teach my class. 3-5 continue drafting assessment memo, email faculty in other departments for necessary information, respond to student emails, respond to fellow faculty emails, read student blogs, research and select readings to assign to my students in the next classes. 5pm- head home. 6-8 dinner, respond to student emails, continue research readings and TED talks for use in classes, read student blogs, read academic article on assessment. 8-9 personal phone calls. 9-10 watch MSNBC and read student blogs. 10pm - go to bed/sleep. (Sensing a pattern here?)
You get the point. Do other people work hard? Yes. Do other people have the variety and complexity of tasks and responsibilities that I have in the course of my job? No. Not in the same way.
Do any of us deserve to be vilified as people who don't work hard, who don't work enough, and who aren't worthy of a decent salary with benefits and the ability to negotiate (when we make an average of four to 11 percent less than people working in the private sector)? No. As a professor who has elected to "take the summer off" so that I can work on my other job responsibility of publishing an academic article as opposed to teaching, I condense 12 months of work into nine...and then work another three months at a more relaxed pace.
Does this make me worthy of vilification and scorn? Absolutely not.
Please think before you agree with the fallacious and untrue arguments coming from the political Right. Research and investigate (beyond Fox News). Ask a teacher what her days are like before you rain down your judgment and assumptions based on nothing more than weak-ass Tea delivered in a broken teacup.
In solidarity.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Third party blues
Confession time. I am a Libertarian. Yes, it's true...my party has absolutely NO chance of winning the 2008 Presidential election. Sigh. But I won't grouse. If you want to know what Libertarians stand for (besides legalizing marijuana, sheesh), check out the party site: http://www.lp.org/
Third parties get a raw deal in this country. Myself, I think we need a strong third party to challenge the sick bird that controls politics (one wing red, one wing blue, sharing a diseased, misguided body).
But that's grousing. Ahem. I hope you will join me in watching the first Democratic Presidential candidate debate tonight on MSNBC - 6 - 7:30 pm central time. My dad (a STAUNCH conservative Republican die-hard) thinks the only idea that will come of this debate is "it's all George Bush's fault."
Not sure how sound or logical that is, but we shall see. For all the pomp and circumstance of the Dems taking over both Houses of Congress, they really haven't done much - they are treading the political lake, hoping not to screw up so they can increase their chances for electability in '08. Think about it. If they were to take a strong stand on ANYTHING, the Republicans and right-leaning media would tear them apart. And in this age of "one wrong move and you're toast" a la the Howard Dean scream, no politician (no matter HOW good their ideas) is going to want to stick his or her head on the chopping block.
Power begets more power begets more power. And on, and on, and on.
Meanwhile, we the people are waving our arms desperately from shore, hoping anyone will give a shit enough to send over the life raft. Better wages, better health insurance access, more affordable everything, more say in what our elected leaders do. Alas. This government has become a bloated, inefficient, cold, calculating robot (think Terminator) with one goal in mind - become more bloated.
Barack Obama impresses me immensely, but is he for real? And more importantly, if he is really a good man with useful ideas and a plan of action, can he withstand the bloated political machine that spits out good people into the garbage heap of history? We shall see.
If you are brave enough to suffer through the canned sound bite responses, the meaningless promises, the endless "hopeful" but toothless rhetoric, the plying of warm fuzzies to gain your emotional support, I hope you consider watching these debates.
And then join a third party. Encourage your friends to do so too. Think about it. The only way we the people can regain control over the government is to FORCE change. In our current system, our options are a) take over by violence or b) take over by voting...and we don't really win with a blue or red candidate because they're all in cahoots. (Yes, I said cahoots. With a straight face.) Nominating a strong, sensible third party candidate has forced the two big parties to re-evaluate themselves in the past...it can happen again.
I dream of the day...
Third parties get a raw deal in this country. Myself, I think we need a strong third party to challenge the sick bird that controls politics (one wing red, one wing blue, sharing a diseased, misguided body).
But that's grousing. Ahem. I hope you will join me in watching the first Democratic Presidential candidate debate tonight on MSNBC - 6 - 7:30 pm central time. My dad (a STAUNCH conservative Republican die-hard) thinks the only idea that will come of this debate is "it's all George Bush's fault."
Not sure how sound or logical that is, but we shall see. For all the pomp and circumstance of the Dems taking over both Houses of Congress, they really haven't done much - they are treading the political lake, hoping not to screw up so they can increase their chances for electability in '08. Think about it. If they were to take a strong stand on ANYTHING, the Republicans and right-leaning media would tear them apart. And in this age of "one wrong move and you're toast" a la the Howard Dean scream, no politician (no matter HOW good their ideas) is going to want to stick his or her head on the chopping block.
Power begets more power begets more power. And on, and on, and on.
Meanwhile, we the people are waving our arms desperately from shore, hoping anyone will give a shit enough to send over the life raft. Better wages, better health insurance access, more affordable everything, more say in what our elected leaders do. Alas. This government has become a bloated, inefficient, cold, calculating robot (think Terminator) with one goal in mind - become more bloated.
Barack Obama impresses me immensely, but is he for real? And more importantly, if he is really a good man with useful ideas and a plan of action, can he withstand the bloated political machine that spits out good people into the garbage heap of history? We shall see.
If you are brave enough to suffer through the canned sound bite responses, the meaningless promises, the endless "hopeful" but toothless rhetoric, the plying of warm fuzzies to gain your emotional support, I hope you consider watching these debates.
And then join a third party. Encourage your friends to do so too. Think about it. The only way we the people can regain control over the government is to FORCE change. In our current system, our options are a) take over by violence or b) take over by voting...and we don't really win with a blue or red candidate because they're all in cahoots. (Yes, I said cahoots. With a straight face.) Nominating a strong, sensible third party candidate has forced the two big parties to re-evaluate themselves in the past...it can happen again.
I dream of the day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)