The 2015 Official UW-System Faculty Exodus Update Part 2: The “Everyone’s Leaving” Edition

walker-education-reform

A few weeks ago I found out one of my closest colleagues will be leaving the UW Colleges for another job.  It’s a better fit for my colleague, she and her partner will be closer to family, but I will miss her dearly.  And if not for years of budget cuts and this last year from hell, I can’t help but think she’d have stayed.  We both got tenure last year and often talked about loving the student population we worked with.  But she’s not the only one.  The emails keep rolling in.  More colleagues leaving–not for better pay, not because they didn’t love their jobs, but because of uncertainty.  With the new regionalization model and now discussion of a merger of the Wisconsin Technical College System and the University of Wisconsin Colleges and Extension, we are living in a realm of uncertainty.  As Representative Katrina Shankland said, “Now that Republican legislators have decimated our public universities, we should get a freshman legislator with no experience in higher education to conduct a study on how we can ‘realign’ them,’ said no one ever.'”

My fellow colleagues who teach in the UW College system do so because they believe in the Wisconsin Idea.  They believe in being great teachers above all else, and are some of the finest colleagues I’ve ever had the opportunity of working with.

And now many of them are leaving.  Because they simply don’t know if the UW Colleges will even exist in one year or two.  And that is enough to put anyone on the job market.  As I stated in my letter to the Joint Finance Committee, “I simply can’t imagine what my campus and others will look like next year. Our mission is central to the Wisconsin Idea. The UW Colleges are the UW System’s open door, offering an affordable and accessible option for thousands of students. We offer the first two years of a liberal arts education with an Associate of Arts and Science degree, and six campuses currently offer a Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree-completion program. We have the lowest tuition in the UW System and offer students the opportunity to pursue a degree while living in their home community at our campuses, online, or through the UW Flexible Option program. We serve more part-time students, more adult undergraduates, and more first-generation college students than any other UW institution. In fact, 60% of our students are the first in their families to go to college. Students from the UW Colleges graduate from 4-year campuses at a 20% higher rate than any other transfer group, including those from technical schools, private schools, and 4-year campuses. And our students—the Wisconsinites staying within their communities, seeking a college degree to improve their lives and others’ in these communities—are the ones who will be most hurt by these cuts.”

The UW Colleges literally embody the Wisconsin Idea–the idea that everyone should have access to affordable, quality education.  And now we’re losing our best.  Those professors who stayed a few hours extra after classes to make sure a student who was struggling whether in life or in their class was ok.  Those professors who checked in if a student missed a few classes because more than likely, something pretty life altering was going on in their lives.  Those professors who cared so much that they would put the needs of their students above their own in every situation.

It takes a special kind of person to teach in the Colleges–I know many.  They are selfless, loving, and take joy in seeing their students succeed.  They see it as a failure of themselves if a number of their students are struggling and change up their pedagogy, syllabi, readings, teaching styles-anything to make sure their students succeed.

I taught a summer class for the past five weeks and on the first night I had a student who had been out of school for over 16 years.  This student was clearly overwhelmed with what was expected so I gave him a tour of campus.  I showed him how to use the computer lab.  I showed him where the library was and how to access his ID and password.  Why?  Because that’s what you do when you want a student to succeed and remain in your class.  That’s what you do when you believe in students who have never been told they’re worthy.  That they matter.  That it doesn’t matter if they are the first ones in their families to go to college because we’re here to help them navigate those waters.

We’re losing our best.  My dear friend was one of the greatest teachers, scholars, and genuine human beings I’ve ever met.  This fall, students in Wisconsin will never get to experience one day in her class.  They will never have their minds blown by her ability to break down the most complex texts and theories into digestible ideas.  They will never know her kindness and her brilliance.

There have been many sad days over the last year but when I found out she was leaving, reality really began to set in.  I keep thinking, who’s next?  Because who wants to work in a system that may not exist in a few years, that has been so crippled through defunding and divestment it’s barely able to function? Who wants to work in a state where tenure is an abstraction?  And who wants to work in a state that simply doesn’t value what educators do and instead demonizes them?

I predicted a mass exodus but even then I never imagined this.  And it’s not just in the colleges.  Openings in the 4 year institutions are everywhere–some even looking to start as early as January 1st to fill positions that will be left open by those who chose to take buyouts or simply left to work and live in a state and institution that valued them.

Classes start on September 2nd and I’ve never felt so demoralized.  Who’s next?  When will I be getting the next email from another amazing colleague informing me that they’ve found somewhere else to go because they just can’t take this anymore?  Classes will begin.  My students will continue to amaze me.  The semester will go on.  But not without deep sadness that the possible collapse of one of the most necessary institutions may become a reality.  I have no words of wisdom tonight, no amazing insights, just a deep sense of loss.  And I just don’t know what it will take to convince the citizens of Wisconsin that we’ve gone too far.  That the corporatization of higher education is not a model we should be looking to.

So to all my fellow educators who start in a few weeks, know my heart breaks with you.  Know I understand the sadness of losing your closest colleagues and friends.  And that I know we must, we have to do better.  This cannot continue.  We are powerless now but I still hold out hope that the people of Wisconsin will wake out of this slumber and realize the damage that has been done.  That they will fight back, vote for leaders who will restore whatever is left of the ruins of a once great system so that the generations who will be here long after we’re gone won’t ever remember a time when Wisconsin was run by a handful of legislators who were willing to strip access to higher education from the most vulnerable of our citizens.  When Wisconsin was run by a handful of legislators hell bent on destroying education for their own selfish purposes.  And when Wisconsin became a laughingstock that gained national media attention for such deep corruption and division.  I look forward to that day when this all becomes a distant memory.  Unfortunately, how many of us will remain to live amongst the ruins until that day comes?

An Open Letter to Those Who Hate Teachers

apple-books
When I graduated from college, I, like many graduates, had no clue what I wanted to do with my life.  I was medically cleared to go to West Africa to join the Peace Corps.  I’d applied to seminary and to graduate school.  Grad school took me first, I took it as a sign, and started on a path to get my Ph.D. and become a college professor.  At no time on this path did anyone warn me that at some point in my life, I would be hated, despised, loathed, and treated with contempt for the occupation I chose.  I don’t know that it would have made any difference, but a heads up would have been nice.

When I grew up, I loved my teachers.  I loved my professors.  I’ve been incredibly lucky to have been in classrooms with some of the most gifted teachers who inspired me, taught me what it means to teach, and were not only amazing teachers, but scholars and activists as well.  I truly learned from the best.  When I finally landed a job as a college professor, I was excited to pay it forward–to give my students all that I had learned during those years.  But once I actually began teaching, I was stunned and deeply confused at the very vocal resentment towards those who had chosen to work in the field of education.  When Act 10 was passed, to say it divided Wisconsin would be an understatement.  We were called lazy, overpaid, greedy, and undeserving of the benefits we had bargained for in lieu of lower wages.  At the time, I thought this was hurtful and it made me incredibly angry.  Then, Governor Walker got reelected and we saw an increase in the vitriolic rhetoric towards educators when they began to speak out against his proposed budget.  Admittedly, I have put myself in the spotlight through Facebook posts, tweets, and now through my blog posts, so I expected to get a few horrible comments thrown my way.  I was told I should be on a government watch list because I teach in the field of Women’s and Gender Studies.  I was called a communist.  I was told to “quit whining” and get a real job.  Some wrote:

“if you want to know why I seem angry, it’s because this “crisis” was a manufactured one ” much like the rape crisis you manufactured on campus. Watch, remove the gender studies courses and rape claims go way down;”

“so is someone going to start mocking and insulting her and telling HER to ‘quit your complaining and whining! omg! suck it up!” and all that?”

“Teach students something that will allow them to get a job and pay their mortgages, and then we can worry about your job and mortgage.”

All hurtful and frustrating but I had no idea how bad it would get.

Here are a list of things I have been personally called since I started blogging:
“Liberal union cunt”
“Dyke profesor”
“Lesbo cock sucker”
“Flaming liberal whore”

You get the idea. There are more. You won’t see these on my blog, because I have the ability to delete them, but they’re there.  Anonymous strangers who feel better about themselves by demeaning me.  Misogyny and ignorance at its finest.  And this is mild compared to some of the things other writers or those in the public eye have gone through–I don’t in any way want to diminish the very real death threats that have sent some into hiding for daring to speak out against that which they see as unjust. As John Oliver points out in a segment on online harassment this regularly happens to “any woman who makes the mistake of having a thought in her mind, and then vocalizing it online.”

Again, these were online comments.  And I’m clearly not the only one who’s experienced this. Just this week, a friend posted this:

Joel

Once again, none of these responses to his tweet were accurate (professors don’t teach children, tenure is not a job for life,) but that didn’t stop the immediate backlash against one tweet regarding the elimination of tenure from state statutes in Wisconsin and the very real ramifications of that.

Fast forward to two days ago.  I was at a gas station when a man approached me.
Man: “Looks like gas prices have gone up!”
Me: “Um, yep? I guess so?”
Man: (looks at my UW-faculty parking sticker) “If I had your kind of money, I wouldn’t be complaining about gas prices, bitch.”

I was dumbfounded.  A good friend noted, “Wow, eliciting sympathy purely in order to twist it around into mistaken and misplaced class rage. That is truly sociopathic.”  Agreed.  This man, this complete stranger, felt it necessary to make sure I knew how much he hated me.  I’ve never experienced anything like it, but I know it has happened to others. Example? One friend got punched in the face at a bar by a 70 year old man for simply trying to correct misinformation regarding faculty salaries.  Let me repeat that.  Punched in the face by a 70 year old man.

I posted my experience on Facebook, and perhaps most disturbing was the number of people who had reached out and told me they’d experienced similar interactions.  I don’t know when it became ok to physically confront someone and attack them just “because.”  Another friend pointed out, “The thing is – misconception aside – even if you were a billionaire it shouldn’t be commented on by a hateful stranger who would call you or anyone a bitch.”  Exactly.  And the fact that this is evidently happening more often and to more educators should call us all to take pause and ask ourselves, how did Wisconsin get this divided?  What happened in this man’s life, and what had he been told about educators that he felt entitled to speak his mind and let me know exactly how much contempt he had for me and everyone who does what I do?  It takes a lot of hatred and misplaced anger to behave in such a way.  And to know that this is not an isolated incident frankly both saddens and enrages me.

As I wrote in my Facebook post, I truly want to invent a sign that says “everything you know about college professors is wrong” and wear it daily.  As I pointed out in the letter I wrote to the Joint Finance Committee before they passed the budget, “I will officially make less now as a tenured professor than I did when I started in 2009. In most jobs, your pay is supposed to increase over time—not the other way around. And contrary to popular belief, I don’t make a six figure salary nor will I ever if I spend the rest of my lifetime working in the Colleges. Up until a few years ago, I was still eligible for the earned income tax credit.  Starting salaries of a professor with a Ph.D. remain at $43,000 and have stagnated. The highest paid professor with a Ph.D. at UW-Marshfield/Wood County, after 23 years of experience and service to our campus, makes $65,521.00. Most of my colleagues have second jobs, some at other institutions and others in any part time job available. Several who work full time on my campus and at other institutions are eligible for food stamps and reduced priced lunch programs for their children. They live paycheck to paycheck, working as line cooks and waitresses. They continue to pay off student loans and will do so for the next 25+ years at our rate of pay. Just the other day, a tenured faculty member asked if I’d be a reference on her application to Family Video. I bartended for several years during the summer to help pay off my student loans and make sure I didn’t find myself further in debt. As awkward as it was to have my students see me behind a bar, sadly, I couldn’t afford to leave that job because I made more serving alcohol than teaching in the UW System . . . . We are being asked, for yet another year, to do more with less. There is nothing left. State divestment in public education cannot continue. I get it. Defunding public education has become politically easy. As the Nation recently reported, ‘If states won’t raise taxes or cut back on mass incarceration, gutting higher education becomes the path of least resistance.’ But it’s a dangerous path we’ve been walking on for far too long.'”

So how did we get here? And what can we expect in the future? As Katharine J. Cramer writes in her piece regarding the politics of resentment, “Consistently conservative groups saw things differently, obviously. They wanted lower taxes and fewer government programs . . . and asserted that government programs —except for defense spending—should be as small as possible. They believed in bootstraps and lamented peoples’ apparent inability to use them. Besides spending on defense, they were also ok with funding for programs like the WPA [Works Progress Administration] and the CCC [Civilian Conservation Corps] that rewarded hard work. Notice how their support for government spending hinged on notions of deservingness. We have seen this theme before. In their eyes, government programs are only legitimate if they support deserving Americans. And this group, like others in my sample treated deservingness as a matter of whether or not the policy recipients are hard-working Americans like themselves (Soss and Schram 2007; Skocpol and Williamson 2012, ch. 4). They approved of government programs when they perceived the programs gave out benefits that were payments to people who had earned them, not handouts to the undeserving (Winter 2008). Hard work was a key consideration, not just for the consistently conservative groups, but arguably for the vast majority of the groups, including the groups who were ambivalent about small government. This is important. It suggests that support for limited government is not driven mainly by a principled belief in small government, but instead by attitudes about a particular program’s recipients (Nelson and Kinder 1996;Schneider and Ingram 1993) . . . Support for small government policies or candidates seemed motivated by something other than abstract adherence to the idea that smaller government is better, and was not a simple result of disliking government or feeling ignored by it. This is where the politics of resentment comes in. In the conversations, you can see how resentment toward target groups often served as the glue between anti-government and small government attitudes . . . . The blow-up over Governor Walker’s budget measures shortly after he took office in early 2011 illustrates these sentiments . . . Each of these groups was supportive of Walker’s proposal to require public workers to pay more into their health and pension benefits. As we saw in the previous chapter, they perceived that these benefits came directly from their own pockets and that as rural residents they worked much harder than the desk workers in state government. In addition, they perceived that the public workers in their own communities (especially school teachers) made salaries that were much higher than their own.”

The problem with this is that public sector employees like UW professors and public school teachers aren’t the enemy, nor have they ever been, and by placing the blame on them for everything from the recession to unemployment rates, we don’t focus on what actually blew up the economy. As Robert Reich argues, “Divide and Conquer tactics pit average working Americans against each other, distract attention from the most unprecedented concentrated wealth at the top, and conceal regressive plans to further enlarge and entrench that power.”  Similarly, Paul Krugman noted, “There is a better answer, and a teachable moment here, which gets at the real nature of inequality in America. It’s not about overpaid teachers. Let’s start by looking at the real winners in soaring inequality — the people who not only make incredible amounts of money, but get to pay very low taxes.  According to Forbes, in 2012 the top 40 hedge fund managers and traders took home a combined $16.7 billion. Now look at those supposedly overpaid government employees. According to the BLS, the median high school teacher earns $55,050 per year. So, those 40 hedge fund guys made as much as 300,000, that’s three hundred thousand, school teachers — almost a third of all high school teachers in America. OK, teachers get benefits, so their total compensation cost is higher than their wage, so maybe it’s only 200,000. But you should keep numbers like these in mind whenever anyone tries to shift attention from the one percent (and the .001 percent) to Americans who aren’t even upper-middle class.”

So why are we still blaming the wrong people for societal’s ills?  When will it stop? And how do we convince someone who only knows and truly believes that educators are the reason their lives aren’t where they should be–that educators and other public sector workers should be punished for “undeserved” benefits, and that their lives are truly better off because of the dismantling of public education–that all of these beliefs are based in false ideologies?

I have no answers.  But to those who hate me, who see no value in what I do, and who think I don’t deserve the privileges conferred by years of hard work and determination, I ask–if my job is so wonderful, so star spangled awesome, why don’t you do what I do?  If being a teacher is so easy, why not become one? If our benefits are so egregiously disproportionate to yours, what is stopping you from going to graduate school and obtaining your very own Ph.D.?  Because instead of dismissing my job, asking for (more) “shared sacrifice,” and belittling my career choice, maybe your time would be better spent becoming an educator, spending some time with people who live and work in my profession, and a little less time in the comments section of your local newspapers, on Facebook, on Twitter, or in peoples’ faces saying cruel and ugly things based on falsehoods, deeply rooted misplaced resentment, and ignorance.

Update:  this piece has been posted in the following places.  Thank you all who have shared:

American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP) Academe blog

Blogging Blue

Monologues of Dissent

Say no to Vouchers Facebook Page

An Open Letter to Those Who Still Stand With Walker

scott walker bumper sticker
Dear Walker Supporters,

I doubt we have much in common.  In fact, I’d bet money on it.  And I wish this were a dia-blog so that this could be a conversation, but given the medium, this will have to serve as a letter to you, to those who still, after every policy this governor has proposed, support him, his policies, and perhaps even see him as a frontrunner for the next Commander-in-Chief.  Because I know you exist.  I know you love this man.  You see him making “tough decisions” and “sticking it to” those you feel caused you financial pain or somehow wronged you in this life.  I want you to know I respect your opinion to support him, defend your right to vote for him or whomever you feel best represents the best interests of you and your own, but I also need to know, truly and honestly, why.  Why you still support him.  Because for the life of me, I can’t think of one justifiable reason anyone who isn’t directly benefiting from him financially (i.e. giant corporations), feels as though this governor and his policies are making their lives better.

As I stated in a previous blog, “To my friends who voted for Governor Walker, all three times, I often asked and still do, has your quality of life improved?  Does me having to pay more for my healthcare make yours any better?  Does weakening my job security strengthen yours?  Did my pay cut help to get you a raise?  Usually I get blank stares, but the point is that the reasons for voting for Governor Walker in the first place run much deeper.  One of the most effective messages Governor Walker used against public sector employees was to tap into the deep resentment that many people feel/felt toward those they perceived to be an elitist class apart.  As he stated, it was a fight between the ‘have-nots’ vs. the ‘haves.’ To many who voted for Walker, it wasn’t about making things better for your fellow Wisconsinites, for Wisconsin’s economy, or improving misguided policies.  Walker supporters wanted to even the playing field through shared misery.  Instead of working together to get better healthcare, job security, and pay in the private sector, instead, voters wanted some kind of justice where everyone suffered equally.  Public workers were and still remain an easy scapegoat with our ‘Cadillac benefits’ and ‘job security for life.’  Even though tenure is not job security for life and those ‘Cadillac’ benefits were bargained for in exchange for lower wages, most have no idea of those realities unless they know someone or personally work in higher education or in the public sector.”

I can understand why you voted for him in 2010.  I can even understand why you supported him in 2014–many of my conservative friends truly had no idea, nor had Walker run on the policies he proposed in his initial budget that have upended workers’ rights in Wisconsin, dismantled public education, and made history by putting Wisconsin on the map for all the wrong reasons.  But now?  I’d like to take a minute to assess the damage this governor has done to this state in an attempt to show you exactly how he has directly and indirectly negatively impacted you, your friends, your families, and your fellow citizens.

Many have called July of 2015 a historic month for progressives.  The United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, the Affordable Care Act survived its second Supreme Court test in three years, and the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 5.3%, its lowest level since April 2008.  But here in Wisconsin, it doesn’t seem as if we’re making the same progress.  It is, in fact, and has felt as though we’ve been living in an alternative universe for years now.  A recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that Wisconsin’s middle class — households earning between about $34,500 and $103,000 — has shrunk at a faster rate than any other state in the country.  As the Journal Sentinel reported in June, “Wisconsin was 35th out of 50 states in private-sector job growth over the four years of Walker’s first term, according to recently released government data.  The numbers came as no surprise. The state was 35th in 2011, 36th in 2012, 38th in 2013 and 38th in 2014, based on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Wisconsin has persistently lagged behind the nation and most nearby states during Walker’s time in office, and a sizable chunk of the state’s voters are aware of that trend, polls show. Walker’s unmet 2010 campaign promise of 250,000 new jobs and the partisan war over his governorship has turned Wisconsin’s employment picture into an ongoing political saga fueled by chronically tepid jobs reports.”  As Christopher Flavelle notes there has been low wage growth, job growth, and “state tax revenue increased just 4 percent between the first quarter of 2011 and the third quarter of last year, compared with a 20 percent increase for the median state. So the news this month that Wisconsin was skipping a scheduled $108 million debt payment, owing to an unexpected budget shortfall, only underlined a trend that’s been years in the making. Of the 40 states with general-obligation bonds, 25 have credit ratings from Moody’s that are better than Wisconsin’s.” In addition, he states that “measured by relative economic outcomes, Walker’s tenure falls somewhere between lackluster and a failure.”

Despite campaign promises to move Wisconsin forward and create jobs, Governor Walker has failed in every way imaginable.  But perhaps the most egregious abuses of power can be found in his budget (fiscal and non-fiscal policy proposals), that have put Wisconsin on the map as perhaps the most dysfunctional state in the union.  Take the budget recently passed by the Joint Finance Committee.  A comprehensive list of policy proposals is here, explained by Nick Fleisher here, and this budget has notably and arguably been labeled by those on both sides of the aisle as the “worst budget Wisconsin has ever seen.”  As Fleisher aptly notes, “It hardly needs repeating at this point, but all of these extremely damaging changes to the state of Wisconsin—the gutting of open records laws, the planned dismantling of the state’s largest school district, the elimination of tenure in the UW System, and much more besides—were developed totally in secret by the twelve legislators who comprise the JFC majority, and passed on party-line votes within hours of being released to the public (or to committee Democrats, for that matter). The open records changes have drawn the harshest and broadest rebuke, but they are emblematic of a broader pattern of brazen disregard for the public that this committee has exhibited throughout the budget process. Chris Abele’s aligning himself with this committee in its attack on Milwaukee Public Schools is unforgivable. UW administrators’ steadfast refusal to question this committee’s false narrative of budgetary strain and scarcity has predictably led to a dire outcome for everyone but those administrators themselves. Meanwhile, legislative leaders invoke cash balances amassed by UW administrators as an excuse for slashing funding, while in the next breath calling for those very same administrators to be invested with newly broadened powers. It is difficult to imagine a moral failure of leadership more absolute than the one we are now witnessing at almost every level in Wisconsin.”

What has garnered the most attention was the issue of open records.  As The Green Bay Gazette, pointed out, strange bedfellows lined up against the open records gutting in the biennial budget including the Center for Media and Democracy, WI Attorney General Brad Shimel (R), State Sen. Robert Cowles, (R-Allouez), The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, the Madison chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, One Wisconsin Now, the conservative think-tank, the MacIver Institute for Public Policy and the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.  Not shockingly, none of the lawmakers that slipped the measure in were willing to take credit for it.

Within a span of a few days and facing so much criticism, on July 4th, Governor Walker and legislative leaders announced they would drop the provision from the budget.  However, as State Senator Jon Erpenbach noted, “just the fact that they even tried to do this in the first place should bother everybody in this state.”

So, to you, dear Walker supporters, what will it take?  If a horrible economy, corrupt policies, and a sheer contempt for the state you live in isn’t enough, what will it take for you to stop supporting this man?  Because all of this comes down to voting.  And I fear, to many Walker supporters and many voters in general, facts don’t matter.  We like to create our own facts.  We like to watch news that merely reflects our existing opinions.  In the New York Times this week, David Leonhardt pointed out that “not only are people more likely to believe information that fits their pre-existing beliefs, but they’re also more likely to go looking for such information.”  And, in addition to seeking out information that conforms to our existing narratives, we accept language given to us by others rather than creating our own frames.  As Paul Fanlund points out, in many cases, progressives use the language of the GOP to frame our arguments. He states, “But here’s the thing: By focusing with such zeal on Walker, might we be bolstering his brand by allowing issue debates to occur on the GOP’s rhetorical turf?”  Yes.  Instead of reframing, or using new ways to talk about things like liberty, freedom, and other moral values, we accept and reinforce existing frames.

Citing George Lakoff, he claims, “Lakoff maintains that voters do not choose leaders based on the sum of a candidate’s positions but on this larger, moral frame. Issues must be tied together in this big frame, and conservatives have dominated the moral debate by consistently asking which side best stands for liberty. Progressives should effectively counter ‘liberty’ with ‘freedom,’ Lakoff argues, but have failed to do so. Here, in staccato phrases, is what he’s getting at:

If you get cancer or break a leg and do not have health insurance, you are not free.

If you can’t get a decent education, you are not free.

If you are a woman and do not control your body, you are not free.

If you cannot marry someone you love, you are not free.

If your work largely benefits only the wealthiest of the wealthy and not you, you are not free.

If you are treated with suspicion or disdain because of your race, you are not free.

If a few billionaires determine election outcomes, you are not free.

If you cannot easily vote, you are not free.

If you are not protected from harmful products and fraudulent business practices, you are not free.

If companies are allowed to foul the air you breathe and the water you drink, you are not free.

Get the picture? Government not as the evil enabler of a nanny state, but as an indispensable agent for freedom.”

This is not new.  Think of the ways in which we look at taxes.  The word “taxes,” has become synonymous with something Americans need to be “relieved from” since the phrase “tax relief” was first invented–yes invented–by the same people who decided it would be wise to start using the phrase “climate change” instead of “global warming” because it sounded more benign; by the same people who figured out more Americans would oppose the “estate tax” if it were relabeled the “death tax” because that sounded far more insidious. Language is powerful–so powerful that we no longer see the constructedness of these labels–they’re just a given. We see taxation as an affliction or burden and since there is no established frame or language that discusses taxes as an investment or a public good, we default to the idea that tax cuts *are* good–no matter how paltry or insignificant.

So when Governor Walker claimed he would hold true to his promised property tax cut that would amount to $10 over the next two years for the owner of a median-valued home, a savings of $5 a year for Wisconsin homeowners who meet this criteria, he made the mistake of including the actual dollar amount. When we hear we’re getting a tax break or a tax cut, the average citizen assumes they’re going to be saving hundreds or thousands of dollars per year. In this instance, many pounced on the idea that the dollar amount was so low, and that the cuts proposed were so deep, they’d gladly give back those five dollars if it meant saving jobs, keeping the UW System in tact, and if it meant not having to make cuts to programs around the state.

Lakoff in his book, “Don’t Think Of An Elephant: Know Your Values And Frame The Debate,” expands on the power of framing here:

“What is taxation? Taxation is what you pay to live in a civilized country-what you pay to have democracy and opportunity, and what you pay to use the infrastructure paid for by previous taxpayers: the highways system, the Internet . . . Taxation is paying your dues, paying your membership fee in America. If you join a country club or a community center, you pay fees. Why? You did not build the swimming pool. You have to maintain it.You did not build the basketball court.Someone has to clean it. You may not use the squash court, but you still have to pay your dues. Otherwise it won’t be maintained and will fall apart” (24-25).

A year ago, Wisconsin lawmakers approved a more than $800 million tax-cut package after budget forecasters projected a nearly billion-dollar windfall in unanticipated tax revenue. Now, the state will collect less than half of the projected $912 million that was the basis for the tax-cut package last year. The nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau projects the state will end the year with a $233 million deficit after starting the year with a $517 million surplus.

It is the idea that tax cuts will produce revenue, coupled with the idea the we need “relief” from taxes that allowed this to happen. We need to reframe the debate–to look at taxes as an investment, and tell your legislators and Governor Walker that they can keep your $5. That they can keep your $5 and use it to restore funds for counseling services on college campuses. That they can keep your $5 and use it to bring back study abroad programs, jobs, and cuts to public media. That they can keep your five dollars so Wisconsin can rebuild our economy, our infrastructure, and our once enviable educational institutions. 

Walker supporters, if you are not swayed by facts, by frames, by narratives, and by language, then let me attempt to appeal to your most base patriotic notions of what is good, fair, just, and democratic.  In an excerpt from a blog written specifically in regards to the Declaration of Independence and Walker’s policies in Wisconsin, the author writes, “‘Consent of the governed’ is a key phrase, because it implies that in the mind of the Founders legislators would have told the people how they intend to govern, and that people should have approved of the policies and actions that are taking place, likely through elections. Does that sound like this crew, who have governed by surprise and instituted numerous policies in this budget that they never ran on last November . . . .Think about the state’s secretive gerrymandering and numerous examples of the overriding of local initiatives and powers. These moves have skewed the makeup of the state’s legislature and laws to something that does not reflect the views of the state and local areas.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

The most recent example is the gutting of the state’s long-established open records laws last night, but it’s far from the only time Walker and his minions in the Legislature have ‘dropped the bomb’ on numerous initiatives without warning. These last four years have featured plenty of ‘special’ and ‘extraordinary’ sessions to limit debate on non-pressing issues, and this budget session has seen numerous omnibus measures be introduced into the Joint Finance with no formal hearing, no public notice, and little connection to the budget items scheduled to be discussed.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people….

This ‘manly firmness’ not only includes repressive laws against unions and women’s health rights, but it also goes back to the centralizing of power and overriding of local government, which Walker and WisGOP have done time and time again.”

In all reality, those of you who support Governor Walker and his policies will never read this.  But to those who do, I truly ask you to take a look at your life.  At your neighbors’ lives.  And ask yourself, am I proud of the state I live in? Is this the path I want our state to continue on? Is this the future I want for my children, my grandchildren, and for those who will reside in this state long after I’m gone?  Because elections are all we have left.  The damage done to this state was both preventable and is now irreversible.  Those who have all the power will continue to abuse it, use it for their own political and financial gains, and in the end we all suffer together.  History tells us that the pendulum always swings when any party in power is perceived as having gone too far in their overreach.  I have faith that history will repeat itself–that the backlash from so many ill-advised policies will spawn a win for Democrats in 2016.  I’m also a realist.  And I just don’t know what it will take for so many ardent supporters to finally see through this man’s agenda, his willingness to destroy his own state for political gain and a shot at the presidency, and for those supporters to stop voting against their best interests and start voting for those who want this state to thrive again.  Walker supporters, what will it take?  What will you do in the next election?  It is you we need now to turn this around.  It is you we need to step up, put aside falsehoods, stereotypes, misplaced bitterness and anger, and vote for candidates that will restore this state to her glory.  Without you, we continue to suffer together.  Without you, our state remains divided and broken.  And without you, those drunk with power will continue to drive this state and its people further into desolation and despair.

Point Break: The 2015 Official UW-System Faculty Exodus Update

Point-Break-Crop

Well, Wisconsin, it’s official.  You’ve made it so incredibly difficult to want to work in the UW-System, nearly everyone is now looking for jobs if they hadn’t been already.  They’ve finally reached their breaking point.  As Karen Herzog notes, “Already dismayed by prospective cuts to the University of Wisconsin System, higher education observers now suggest the state could become an academic pariah if the Legislature scales back two treasured tenets of academia — tenure and shared governance.”  Academic pariah.  Further, “The impact would be far-reaching if language in a GOP plan that expands the reasons tenured faculty could be laid off or terminated wins support of the full Legislature and becomes law, said Rudy Fichtenbaum, president of the American Association of University Professors. ‘That effectively will be the end of tenure in Wisconsin,’ Fichtenbaum said. ‘I’m not aware of any state that has gone this far. …I can’t imagine anybody taking a job there unless they can’t get a job anywhere else. People who can leave, would leave.'”

And yes, they are leaving.  So to you, dear readers, I offer a brief list of the current UW faculty who have gone on record now as saying they’re officially leaving or currently looking for better opportunities, and what Wisconsin will be losing in talent and funding due to their departures.  If I’ve left anyone out, please let me know and I will add them to the list.

Mahesh Mahanthappa: “Graduate school tuition has roughly tripled during his tenure, cutting into his research grants because he pays the freight for his roughly 10 student employees. Support staff have been cut, making equipment procurement and the training of junior researchers in using specialized equipment more time-consuming and difficult.  The combination of factors prompted the tough decision to move his family and his research lab — which brings in $600,000 a year in outside funding — to Minnesota.”

Frank Keutsch: who is “moving his atmospheric chemistry lab to Harvard University.”

Sara Goldrick-Rab: “‘They changed the conditions of our employment overnight,’ said Goldrick-Rab, a professor of educational policy studies and sociology. She said she is deeply disappointed in the roles UW System President Ray Cross and UW-Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank played in exposing such foundational tenets of the university to attack through their unsuccessful pursuit of the reorganization of the university into a public authority . . . . ‘I don’t feel like I’m going to be able to do my work in the way that I have,’ Goldrick-Rab said in an interview Monday. ‘I don’t’ feel like I’ll be able to teach freely, speak freely —  do the kind of critical scholarship that I do here. I’ve already done more than enough that an insecure chancellor would let me go.’  In addition, she claimed, ‘Those of us that have stayed in this crazy state with all of this political stuff and really low wages, considerably, have stayed because it was different and our voices mattered. And they’re taking that away.  I never wanted to leave. I have so many good reasons to stay. But I can’t stay where I can’t speak. And believe me, I cannot speak without tenure,’ she said. ‘I will be let go so fast and so many people in upper administration will be applauding because I challenge their systems every day.'”

Jesse Stommel: “‘I’m intensely loyal. I don’t abandon ship, but I looked around today and just saw water—no ship’ . . . ‘The current threats to tenure … change the institutional climate—making it even harder for new scholars and teachers to receive the support they need to go out on a limb with their own work,’ said Stommel. ‘The erosion of tenure makes University of Wisconsin a less desirable place to work and learn,’ he said. ‘Work in higher education, and in education more generally, depends upon the ability to have critical conversations. In our work as teachers and scholars, we must leave no stone unturned, and suddenly there are snakes under some of the stones. And, in order to do our work, some of us now have to put our jobs at risk.'”

Mark Karau “Along the way I have published two books and had an article selected for inclusion in a collection of the best naval history articles of the 30th century. I’ve done it all because I love my job. Which begs the question, why am I leaving? I do not have the heart or desire to watch this system that I love collapse so I decided, in March, that I would leave the system within the next year or two. In truth I decided back in February that if we ended up having to lose faculty because of the budget that I would volunteer to take the hit and be cut if I could save another’s job by doing so. I have spent many long hours agonizing over these issues in the last several months and, as of this past Friday, I had planned to return for at least one more year and perhaps two or, on the outside, three. The decision of the Joint Finance Committee to remove tenure from state law has changed my mind.

Shawn Conley:
Shawn (2)

Jeff Linderoth:
Jeff Lindroth tenure

Carey Applegate
Carey (2)

This list may seem short, but keep in mind these are only those who have gone public or on the record as looking for new jobs, or who have currently accepted positions elsewhere.  This does not include the many who are currently seeking other opportunities, dusting off their CVs, and quietly looking so as to keep the job they have. Nor does this include the many who have left in the years prior to 2015.  And this is just the beginning.  I leave you with this, dear readers.  A warning that what is happening in Wisconsin is currently coming to a state near you. As a good friend mentioned today, “I can’t help but think this is a testing ground for legislature (it’s often done in Florida and California) because of the symbolic nature of WI. The labor movement was sparked in WI. Other university systems are modeled after the UW system (SUNY and Penn to name a few). When you break the back of two public protecting institutions it sends a clear message to the United States. I can’t help but feel it’s going to get uglier before it gets better.”

Indeed.  As Mark Levine states, “It is not surprising, then, that conservatives — who have long attacked the notions of tenure, shared governance and academic freedom more broadly — would now set their eyes on Walker’s Wisconsin (it’s worth noting here that Walker did not graduate from college) as the moment to break the institution of tenure, based on the same corporate-dominated neoliberal principles that supported the near fatal weakening of unions a generation ago. In fact, as University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee English professor Richard Grusin wrote on his blog, Ragman’s Circles, the ‘daisy chain of Republican power‘ now extends from the governor to the regents he appoints, the system president they appoint and the chancellors he appoints. There is little doubt that, should Wisconsin succeed, corporatized boards of private universities and state legislatures in the majority of Republican-governed states will jump on the bandwagon and move with lightning speed to remove tenure protections, shared governance and, ultimately, academic freedom protections from their universities. On this 100th anniversary of the founding of the American Association of University Professors, when the principles of academic freedom were first expounded in the midst of another ‘great’ war that history looks upon with horror, the renewed threat to tenure represents not merely an attack on the minority of academics who today enjoy the privilege but also on the bedrock principles upon which America’s system of higher education was built. If faculties across the country don’t take a very public and aggressive stand in defense of their colleagues in Wisconsin, there will be little to stop the process of complete corporatization of higher education, with all the damage to the quality and diversity of teaching, research and knowledge production that this will produce. With the United States and the rest of the world facing so many unprecedented natural and human threats and challenges, destroying the one edifice that protects independent thinking and knowledge for its intellectual class could prove even more costly than destroying the unions upon which America’s unprecedented postwar prosperity was built.”

Expect this list to grow exponentially in the coming months.  And expect those vacancies to go unfilled as the dismantling of public education in Wisconsin continues. “‘It’ll be impossible for us to attract and retain people if we’re the only one that has such a weak protection of tenure,’ said Donald Moynihan, a professor of public affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who has been at the institution for 10 years and was among hundreds of faculty members in recent days to sign a letter opposing the changes.”  I wish I could leave on a more positive note, but there’s nothing positive about any of this.  It will take years to rebuild what has been done by this administration, and even longer to restore Wisconsin’s good name.  The worst?  Most of these professors have stated that they would have stayed here forever, but again, they, we have reached our breaking point.  Exit stage anywhere but here.

Getting Out of Our Bubbles and Off Our Couches: Mass Exodus, The Importance of Voting, and How All of This Could Have Been Avoided

vote-300x251

I will admit.  I live in a bubble.  I live in a world surrounded by family and friends who value public education, know how important tenure is within higher education, and who pay attention every day to what’s happening politically in my state. So it was with great humility when I was reminded by my very intelligent friend that there are many, many people in Wisconsin who don’t live in my world, who don’t see any inherent good in public education, and that the ideas that resonate with me do not so with a large portion of Wisconsinites.  In his post, he claimed, “To me, it feels like there are two obvious paths to understanding.  If these Wisconsin Ideas are no longer resonating with the people of Wisconsin, either people don’t have enough awareness of the benefits of these public institutions or the benefits are not tangible to enough of the voting public. Let’s start with the less popular possibility that these aren’t actually benefits to a significant percentage of voters.  There is a case to make here.  Think of our public universities or public radio.  For those of us that have engaged or do engage with these institutions, it is incredibly difficult to imagine a worldview that doesn’t see their value, but both of these institutions serve as a direct resource for a much smaller percentage of our population than many of us want to acknowledge.  In Wisconsin, as of 2013, only 28.8% of residents twenty-five or older had at least a bachelor’s degree.  While post-secondary education is of increasing importance for the next-generation workforce, this figure remains below 50%–41.3% in 2010–even when limited to the 25 – 34 age group. Educational attainment can be a dangerous segregator.  I have marveled myself at the world I occupy, in which a significant majority of my friends and family have graduate degrees.  I have to remind myself that my normal is made up of America’s educational elite (at just over 10% of the population and 3% of the world’s). Certainly this affects my perspective on education.”

In short, a large number of Wisconsinites do not think like me and either 1) have no idea what happened today, 2) don’t care, or 3) are cheerfully going about their day, happy that Governor Walker, the legislature, and now the Board of Regents totally stuck it to us lazy professors.  I can hear them now–“I don’t have job security for life–why should they?”

Reality check reminder 1:  Governor Walker got elected 3 times in this state.  3.  And he’s running on that in his presidential bid, controversially claiming “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe.”  Those looking at his chances at the presidential nomination also claim this is a huge plus for Governor Walker.  “After a fierce battle, Walker prevailed on June 5, 2012, becoming the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall attempt. Walker’s tussle with unions – and his ultimate triumph – endeared him to the conservative base, and some analysts believe it could be his trump card in the GOP nominating contest, enabling him to keep his fans on the right from slipping away to another conservative candidate. ‘He’s the strongest anti-union republican in the bunch, and that’s an issue that resonates both with average Republicans, but also with business Republicans that give a lot of money to the party,’ said Zelizer. ‘It defines him.'”

To my friends who voted for Governor Walker, all three times, I often asked and still do, has your quality of life improved?  Does me having to pay more for my healthcare make yours any better?  Does weakening my job security strengthen yours?  Did my pay cut help to get you a raise?  Usually I get blank stares, but the point is that the reasons for voting for Governor Walker in the first place run much deeper.  One of the most effective messages Governor Walker used against public sector employees was to tap into the deep resentment that many people feel/felt toward those they perceived to be an elitist class apart.  As he stated, it was a fight between the “have-nots” vs. the “haves.” To many who voted for Walker, it wasn’t about making things better for your fellow Wisconsinites, for Wisconsin’s economy, or improving misguided policies.  Walker supporters wanted to even the playing field through shared misery.  Instead of working together to get better healthcare, job security, and pay in the private sector, instead, voters wanted some kind of justice where everyone suffered equally.  Public workers were and still remain an easy scapegoat with our “Cadillac benefits” and “job security for life.”  Even though tenure is not job security for life and those “Cadillac” benefits were bargained for in exchange for lower wages, most have no idea of those realities unless they know someone or personally work in higher education or in the public sector.

Reality check reminder 2:  Voting matters.  In a statement today put out by Jason Rae who is currently running for chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, he stated “The Regents’ unwillingness to stand up to the Legislature and the Governor today will have a devastating effect on the quality of the UW System. In a state where job growth has consistently trailed the national average, the likely exodus of the best and brightest faculty will only impede our chances at a stronger recovery. This is why elections matter. We have to put people in office who will fund higher education and ensure we govern the university in the right way. Attacking tenure and shared governance takes us in the wrong direction. It’s time to turn Wisconsin around.”  Exactly.

Elections matter.  Voting matters.  Immensely.  None of this would be happening right now had voters shown up at the polls.  Many of my friends believe that our government is so corrupt and broken that voting is pointless.  Let’s call this the Russell Brand ideology behind voting.  As he claims, “I have never voted. Like most people I am utterly disenchanted by politics. Like most people I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites. Billy Connolly said: ‘Don’t vote, it encourages them,’ and, ‘The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever being one.'”

I have many issues with this line of thinking.  One, not even all Americans have the right to vote, so to not use that privilege because you’re “disenchanted,” in my opinion, is criminal.  As John Oliver claimed in a piece reminding his viewers that Americans living in the island territories don’t have the right to vote, he pointed out that despite the lack of that right, “Guam’s registered voter turnout is actually higher than the rest of America.”  We have a long history of people literally dying for the right to have a voice in their elections.  This argument doesn’t bode well with me, but it’s also illogical and selfish.  I get it.  You don’t care to get off the couch and vote because you feel those running don’t represent you and that the system’s broken.  But when that happens, guess what? All of those other people who turned out get a say in what happens to you, your family, your friends, your state, and your country.  To not use your voice allows others to make important decisions for you, is irresponsible, and frankly, unconscionable.

john oliver (2)

I make no apologies for the strong language because as the title states, all of this–all of this could have been avoided had people shown up to the polls.  The Governor didn’t win because the overwhelming majority of eligible Wisconsin voters agreed with his policies.  He won because his opposition decided to check out.  And yes, you can blame the Democratic party for weak candidates, you can blame Republicans for redistricting and their endless work to suppress voting rights.  But at the end of the day, I blame us.  Myself included.  Because even though we shouldn’t have to convince people that teachers aren’t the enemy, that public education is a public good, that dismantling education hurts businesses, our economy, and our state, clearly those messages aren’t getting through to a large portion of Wisconsin voters and it’s why this Governor has been able to do insurmountable damage making us the laughingstock of the nation.

I do want to make clear that in many ways our government and the election process is broken.  A new poll suggests that “Americans of both parties fundamentally reject the regime of untrammeled money in elections made possible by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and other court decisions and now favor a sweeping overhaul of how political campaigns are financed, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. The findings reveal deep support among Republicans and Democrats alike for new measures to restrict the influence of wealthy givers, including limiting the amount of money that can be spent by ‘super PACs‘ and forcing more public disclosure on organizations now permitted to intervene in elections without disclosing the names of their donors.”  But demanding changes to campaign finance reform so that we have freer and fairer elections and working to change the system through voting and being civically engaged is very different from being disenchanted and removing yourself from the political process.

So what is the answer? Get out of your bubble.  Talk to people with whom you disagree–about the importance of public education, the Wisconsin Idea, and how so many of these policies will affect their friends and families.  And as angry as you may be regarding the countless injustices being placed on the people of Wisconsin, I ask that you be tolerant of the intolerant and careful with your words and criticisms.  To be clear, I am 100% guilty of doing this, but making fun of Governor Walker’s intelligence or mocking him for his lack of degree is not only counterproductive but feeds into the narrative that educators are elitists.  Calling those who voted for Governor Walker “morons,” “idiots,” etc., doesn’t help, either.  As my marvelous advisor in graduate school said, “Kelly, no one is evil.  They may just be incredibly misguided.”

And I don’t think Governor Walker is evil.  I don’t think those who voted for him are evil, or hell-bent on destroying my life and my livelihood.  We’re all just so disconnected that we feed on stereotypes and abstractions and when those aren’t challenged, when our news media gives us “stories” that merely reflect our already existing opinions, we never get out of our bubbles.  And neither do those with whom we disagree.

I’ll leave with this.  What happened today will cause many great and talented professors to leave this state.  As Chuck Rybak points out in his “UW Struggle: Real People Edition,” many already have and we will see a mass exodus in the coming months.Mass Exodus

Governor Walker’s policies have hurt many in my life, but sadly, I’m not mad at him.  At this point, I’m not even shocked by his policies or those proposed by Republicans in Wisconsin.  But I fear these policies will drive the Russell Brands in Wisconsin further into their couches, overwhelmed by the power this government has wielded over this state.  I fear that Instead of fighting back, they and others will retreat into the land of apathy and we will have even less of a voice over what happens to our lives, our families, and our loved ones.  I fear those who have fought against this administration for so many years now will finally give up.  I fear good people won’t run for politics, and that the ones who currently serve will be so daunted by the helplessness they must feel going to work everyday, they will soon find other career options.  And when that happens, the “incredibly misguided” voters will rule us all.

Standing with Wisconsin Women: Mandatory Ultrasounds, 20 week abortion bans, and the Ideology of Reproductive Rights Legislation

cdc_ultrasound-1

Today, the Republican-controlled state Assembly approved a bill that would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape, pregnancies resulting from sexual assault or incest, or severe fetal anomalies, and would threaten doctors who perform an abortion after 20 weeks with up to $10,000 in fines and 3½ years in prison. As Todd Richmond notes, “The fetus’ parents also could sue the doctor for damages.” Yes.  You read that correctly. I wrote this back in June, but now it awaits the governor’s approval and will most definitely go into law.  Whenever a bill like this is passed or even proposed, I think of all the women and families that will be hurt by this, including one of my good friends who courageously posted today, “I had a terrifying 20 week ultrasound with Nevin. He is fine. I am grateful. But I’m so, so angry about what is happening in the legislature right now. The VAST majority of abortions performed between 20 and 24 weeks are due to fatal fetal anomalies in wanted pregnancies.‪#‎StandWithWIWomen‬.” 

I want to re-post this because the ideology behind these and similar bills hasn’t changed since June.  As WPR reports, “The bill’s Republican supporters argue fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, says evidence suggests that’s not possible until the third trimester begins at 27 weeks.”  Regarless of the justification for this type of legislation, these types of bills hurt women, hurt families, and I hope those who read this get a better understanding of the realities of late term abortions and all anti-abortion legislation.

Original post below:

With much of the focus in Wisconsin right now on the Joint Committee on Finance’s sweeping changes to long term care and public education, many have overlooked the fact that Republican lawmakers plan to move quickly on the passage of a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks.  The bill would ban abortions at the point when some believe a fetus is capable of experiencing pain, which the bill says occurs 20 weeks after fertilization. The governor plans to sign the legislation which would offer no exemptions in the cases of rape or incest.  Other states have used this same line of reasoning to support similar bills, though the science is dubious at best, has been widely medically disputed, and those who put out the research have been outspoken as to how their research is being misused.  Currently 11 states have 20-week bans in effect, according to the Guttmacher Institute, with West Virginia becoming the most recent state to enact their version.

The media has also diverted our attention away from this bill and onto Governor Walker’s recent comments during an interview with conservative radio host Dana Loesch, defending a bill he’d signed in 2013 requiring women seeking abortions to undergo medically unnecessary ultrasounds stating, “I’ll give you an example. I’m pro-life, I’ve passed pro-life legislation. We defunded Planned Parenthood, we signed a law that requires an ultrasound. Which, the thing about that, the media tried to make that sound like that was a crazy idea. Most people I talk to, whether they’re pro-life or not, I find people all the time who’ll get out their iPhone and show me a picture of their grandkids’ ultrasound and how excited they are, so that’s a lovely thing. I think about my sons are 19 and 20, you know we still have their first ultrasound picture. It’s just a cool thing out there.”

Major media outlets and advocacy groups pounced on the governor’s remarks:

Gail Collins: “Let’s leap, temporarily, past the fact that Walker was conflating the vision of happy parents getting their first glimpse of their baby-to-be with what’s appropriate for a woman who has made the stupendously profound and private decision to terminate a pregnancy . . . . we have here a potential president who justifies a law on how doctors treat their abortion patients by citing what we know from watching TV and movies. Seventeen months to go. Lord knows what’s next.”

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards: “Women are very clear that forced government ultrasounds are not ‘cool.'”

Ann Merlan: “As for Walker’s contention that everybody’s out here showing him fetus photos on their iPhones, one might argue that there’s a world of difference between looking at an ultrasound of a wanted pregnancy and having a foreign object inserted into your body against your will as a punitive measure to make you feel bad about needing an abortion. Not Scott Walker, obviously, but someone might.”

Kaylie Hanson, the DNC’s director of women’s media:  “No, Scott Walker, mandatory ultrasounds aren’t ‘cool.’ And Republican attempts to undermine women’s health aren’t ‘cool’ either.”

Steve Benen: “Walker, who’s either playing dumb or is genuinely confused by a simple controversy he helped create, can’t imagine who’s ‘opposed to an ultrasound.’ The answer is, no one’s opposed to ultrasounds in general, but plenty of people are opposed to state-mandated, medically unnecessary procedures imposed by right-wing politicians who choose to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship as part of a larger culture war. It’s really not that complicated. As we discussed the other day, the problem, whether Walker can understand this or not, is that politicians shouldn’t be in the business of dictating ultrasounds’ use. If he finds this bewildering, perhaps he’s in the wrong line of work. One need not be ‘deranged’ to see Walker’s policy as ridiculous.”

As Media Matters reports, Walker quickly defended his remarks and lambasted the “liberal media” by saying his quote was taken out of context.  Walker claimed “This is a typical example of the left — not just leftist organizations, but some even in the left in the media —  take out of context comments out there . . . . Well they’re pushing back on it, saying I said it was cool. Well, I think ultrasounds are cool. And they tried to mischaracterize our law, says, simply put, if someone is going to go in for abortion, we require the provider, whoever is doing that procedure, has to provide access to an ultrasound, a traditional ultrasound, not the kind they planned out there, because we believe as someone who’s pro-life, I believe that if someone has access to seeing that information, if they can look at it, not forced to, but if they can look at it if they so choose, if that’s available, chances are they’re going to pick life. They’ll pick the life of that unborn child. I think that’s a great thing. And if they don’t, under the law, they don’t have to. But the reality is, I think those on the left are afraid of people actually having information. They say they’re pro-choice, but they don’t want an informed choice.”

And here is where we get into the realities of Walker’s claims.  First of all, there is no evidence to suggest that those who are forced to receive medically unnecessary ultrasounds will “choose life.”  In a recent study, nearly 99% of women subjected to mandatory ultrasounds went ahead with an abortion after voluntarily viewing an ultrasound image of the fetus beforehand.  In addition, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that “To force a physician to recite a scripted oral description of the findings if the pregnant woman declines is abusive. The proposed requirements do not make abortion safer for women, but do create unnecessary bureaucratic barriers and add both emotional and financial stress to an already difficult decision.”

And, as PR Watch noted, “While the bill does not specify that the mandatory ultrasound be transvaginal, medical professionals testified that in the first trimester (when most abortions take place), it can be difficult to detect a heartbeat with an abdominal ultrasound, thus making an invasive transvaginal ultrasound mandatory. Many lawmakers and citizens expressed concern about the adverse psychological impact of a mandatory transvaginal ultrasound, particularly for women who are seeking an abortion after being the victim of a rape or after learning that their pregnancy is not viable.”

Wisconsin isn’t the only state to pass a law like this.  As of May 1st, 2015:

  • 12 states require verbal counseling or written materials to include information on accessing ultrasound services.
  • 23 states regulate the provision of ultrasound by abortion providers.
  • 3 states mandate that an abortion provider perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion and requires the provider to show and describe the image.
  • 10 states mandate that an abortion provider perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion, and require the provider to offer the woman the opportunity to view the image
  • 9 states require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image if her provider performs the procedure as part of the preparation for an abortion
  • 5 states require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image.

And on May 13th of this year, the House passed legislation that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.  Most would insist that these lawmakers are vehemently passionate about protecting all life, and that any legislation that would make it more difficult for a woman to receive access to abortion is merely working to protect that effort.

But could there be a deeper reason?  Many have argued that the motives for passing reproductive rights legislation is much more complex.  In a recent interview between Gloria Steinem and Jennifer Aniston, Aniston asked Steinem why the word feminism was so complicated.  Her answer included the role of reproductive rights claiming, “Because it’s a big revolution. Feminism, or Womanism, or whatever it is you call it, is taking away the single biggest unpaid labor force in the world, the single biggest underpaid labor force in the world. And it’s taking away control of reproduction. And reproduction is even more important than production. So it is a serious threat. It’s common sense — most people believe it. But it isn’t in the power structure. Some people are against it because they don’t know what it means. Some people are against it because they do know what it means.”

In a similar vein, comparing the culture wars on marriage equality and reproductive rights, Katha Pollitt writes, “Marriage equality is a wonderful thing, an important civil right that brings dignity to a previously excluded group. Over time, it may subtly affect the gender conventions of straight marriage, but it won’t fundamentally alter our social and economic arrangements. Reproductive rights, though, are inescapably connected to the larger project of feminism, which has already destabilized every area of life, from the bedroom to the boardroom. What might women demand, what might they accomplish, how might they choose to live, if every woman had children only when and if she wanted them?”

Sounds conspiratorial? Perhaps.  But allowing women the freedom to have a say over when they want to have children–the choice to plan that part of their lives–is still a revolutionary idea to some and is still seen as an incredible threat to many in positions of power who want to maintain inequality and hierarchy.  As Steinem also famously said, quoting a taxi driver she met while working with Florynce Kennedy, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”  Simply put:  legislating something you will never have to experience is, well, easy.

I know Governor Walker has never personally needed an abortion, and I would put money on the fact that he has never met anyone who has either.  You see, it’s easy to make sweeping generalizations about what’s “good” for an entire demographic of people when you yourself have never been in a position where you’ve needed those types of services.  It’s easy, for example, to say we should go to war with another country when you aren’t on the front lines.  It’s easy to say we should drug test welfare recipients and make sure they’re not wasting your hard earned taxpayer dollars on twinkies and lobster bisque if you’ve never needed government assistance.  It’s easy to say abortion is wrong and should be outlawed under any circumstance, even in the case of rape and incest, if you’ve never needed one.  And It’s easy to see abortion as murder, to assume the women who get them are irresponsible and just using the procedure as a form of birth control if you’ve never sat with a grieving friend who would do anything to keep the child she has, but decides to terminate because she found out her baby wouldn’t survive outside the womb.  We don’t have a culture war problem in this country: we have an empathy problem.

In Gretchen Voss’s “My Late Term Abortion,” she writes a heart wrenching story about her struggle to decide to terminate her pregnancy–a child she and her husband desperately wanted–but was informed during a routine ultrasound “that the baby would certainly be paralyzed and incontinent, that the baby’s brain was being tugged against the opening in the base of the skull and the cranium was full of fluid — was awful. What they didn’t know — whether the baby would live at all, and if so, with what sort of mental and developmental defects — was devastating. Countless surgeries would be required if the baby did live. None of them would repair the damage that was already done.”  It was during this time President Bush had just passed the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” making an abortion like Gretchen’s illegal since she was so far along.  Partial birth abortions or late term abortions account for fewer than one-fifth of 1 percent of all abortions in this country, yet the bill made it seem as if these were irresponsible women killing healthy babies.  And the change in language from “late term” abortion to “partial birth” made it easy for this type of legislation to be passed.  After all, partial birth abortion sounds gruesome and barbaric even when the procedure is not.  As Voss states, “They created a nonexistent procedure — partial-birth abortion — and then banned it. They then gave it such a purposely vague definition that, according to abortion providers as well as the Supreme Court, which ruled a similar law in Nebraska unconstitutional, it could apply to all abortions after the first trimester.”

But perhaps one of the most important quotes of her story reads, “Everyone said, of course it’s the right thing to do — even my Catholic father and my Republican father-in-law, neither of whom was ever ‘pro-choice.’ Because suddenly, for them, it wasn’t about religious doctrine or political platforms. It was personal — their son, their daughter, their grandchild. It was flesh and blood, as opposed to abstract ideology, and that changed everything.”  When ideas and abstractions become your daughter, your family, or yourself, those ideologies change.  In addition, there is still such stigma around those who choose to get an abortion, we forget just how many women need it. As the 1 in 3 campaign reminds us (based on the statistic that one in 3 women will need an abortion in their lifetime) “The 1 in 3 Campaign is a grassroots movement to start a new conversation about abortion—telling our stories, on our own terms. Together, we can end the stigma and shame women are made to feel about abortion. As we share our stories we begin to build a culture of compassion, empathy, and support for access to basic health care. It’s time for us to come out in support of each other and in support of access to legal and safe abortion care in our communities. The 1 in 3 campaign builds on the success of prior social change movements, harnessing the power of storytelling to engage and inspire action and strengthen support for abortion access. By encouraging women who have had abortions to end their silence, share their stories, and start a new and more personal conversation about abortion in our society, the 1 in 3 Campaign will help create a more enabling cultural environment for the policy and legal work of the abortion rights movement.”  Ayen-Tran_BAUMGARDNER

Because when we live in a culture of silence, when we don’t talk about having these procedures, we assume they don’t happen.  As a rape survivor, I can count the numerous times I’ve told my story to strangers, friends, or family members who never knew it happened to me, and responded and shared with me an equally traumatic experience.  Because rape happens, too.  Too often.  Yet when we are assaulted or when we get abortions, there is no setting on Facebook for those types of life moments.  Our news feeds are filled with happy announcements:  engagements, marriages, new babies.  We only share the good.

So what have we learned?  Mandatory ultrasounds are not, in fact, cool.  At all.  In any way.  They don’t serve the purpose intended which is to make the mother rethink her decision to have an abortion.  The motivations behind making policies regarding a woman’s legal right to an abortion are complex. And those who tend to make these types of policies and others likely tend to base their decisions not on personal experience but on abstract ideologies.  The right to terminate a pregnancy is still legal in this country, but those rights are being chipped away at year after year after year.  Young women today don’t know a time when abortion was illegal–when their friends and loved ones died to have the procedure done, and I fear it’s led to complacency and an assumption that that right will always be legal and guaranteed.  For many, at least for the students in my classes, they aren’t paying attention to the legislation being introduced, and they certainly aren’t fighting against it.  Just this past semester one of my students asked, “do you think we will have to lose all of our rights and protections to start paying attention and realize what is happening in our nation?”  Sadly, in this case, the answer might be yes.

I wish Governor Walker knew Gretchen Voss, or other women who have had to make such utterly heartbreaking decisions.  I wish Governor Walker had had the experience of driving a friend, a niece, a co-worker, or any loved one to an abortion clinic to realize the reality of what that woman goes through during and after termination.  I wish he could live one day in the life of a woman who has needed an abortion but could not get one due to lack of economic means or access.  I don’t believe Governor Walker is evil.  Nor do I think he believes his comments were cavalier or offensive.  But I do believe had he had those lived experiences, “cool” would be the last word he would use to describe any of this.

Yes, Changes to Tenure are a Big F**King Deal: An Idiot’s Guide to the Tenure Process

kermit the frog
Yesterday, the Joint Committee on Finance passed the University of Wisconsin System Omnibus Motion.  I was going to talk about each questionable provision in the bill like the changes to shared governance that would allow administrators to raid fund balances from student organizations (32 and 37), the deletion of the current law that permits the Board to deduct contributions from the salaries of football coaches for a pension (47), or allowing universities to use students’ social security numbers as their student ID numbers (63).

However, even though much has been focused on changes to tenure, it’s unclear to those outside the system (and to some inside) just exactly what that means.  So, to you, dear readers, I offer a breakdown.

First, the changes:

12: Tenure: Approve the Governor’s recommendation to delete the definition of a “tenure appointment” and language establishing the conditions under which the Board of Regents may grant a tenure appointment to a faculty member. Delete current law specifying that a person who has been granted tenure may be dismissed only for just cause and only after due notice and hearing. In addition, delete the definition of “probationary appointment” and provisions limiting the length of such an appointment to seven.

This has been probably one of the most extreme measures in the bill, but also the one most likely misunderstood.

As the Wisconsin State Journal points out, Wisconsin is the only state that has job protections for tenured faculty written into statutes, a primary reason faculty find System campuses a desirable place despite comparatively low salaries. “The GOP motion calls for the Board of Regents to determine whether to have tenure and what it would entail.”  Quickly, System President Ray Cross and the Board of Regents swooped in to save the day, claiming “the board would approve a measure to enshrine tenure in Regents policy at a meeting next week — as they’d promised when removing tenure from state law was first floated by Walker in his 2015-17 budget proposal in early February.”  We will see if this promise is, indeed, kept when they meet next week.

However, “Putting tenure in Regents policy carries less weight, especially symbolically, than having the ironclad protection of state law, said Noel Radomski, director of UW-Madison’s Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education. He said the loss of tenure will have immediate impact. ‘If I were other universities, I’d be poaching as many of our top faculty as possible,’ he said, noting that ‘star’ faculty typically have lucrative research grants that travel with them. ‘It’s going to be open season.'”

Here is the thing about tenure.  It’s a dirty word.  When most think of tenure, they think of the one teacher they had in high school who put off retirement to collect a paycheck, or the professor they had who could barely teach, but with the ironclad protection of tenure, was “unfireable.”

Here are some common myths about tenure and how it’s granted.

As the National Association for Education notes, “Faculty members win tenure because their senior colleagues are convinced they can perform with excellence and a great deal of independence. Tenured faculty are, in fact, successful, highly self-motivated people with a great deal of professional pride. Due process is a civilized value; the right measure of job security makes people more productive, not less. To reach the educational standards we all want, we need to have a corps of full-time, experienced faculty in charge of the academic program and committed to the institution. To keep up quality for the next generation of students, we need to keep up opportunities for the new generation of faculty. In the final analysis, who is in the best position to put academic standards first and shelve other considerations? College administrators? Elected officials? Professors are not perfect but they are educators. If it’s solid education we want, tenure matters.”

Myth:
Tenure is a lifetime job guarantee.
Fact:
Tenure-track professors routinely get observed by faculty in their departments every semester, sometimes by two different faculty members. Those observations are intended to maintain integrity and make sure the teaching that occurs in their classroom is up to par. If it is not, the university has the right to not retain them.

Faculty members are assessed by student evaluations in all classes, in all semesters, so that if there is a negative pattern, the university has the right to not retain them.

Faculty members are assessed by the amount of community and professional service in terms of how they positively add to their communities. If they lack in this area, the university has the right to not retain them.

Faculty members are assessed by their professional development in the form of conferences, publications, and other forms of research. As a tenure-track faculty member, even at a non-research 1 institution, it is assumed you will publish, regularly, in peer-reviewed academic journals (most with a 3% acceptance rate if they’re a national journal in that field) as well as conducting research in other areas and in other mediums. If that faculty member fails to publish, or publish in credible arenas, the university has the right to not retain them.

In addition, faculty members are still assessed in the form of post tenure reviews. In fact, most universities have instituted more stringent post-tenure review processes, generally about every five years.


What does that mean? Tenure does not mean one is immune from termination. Having tenure does not protect one from being laid off especially if they don’t continue to excel in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.  Tenured professors get fired every year for legitimate reasons. Others get fired for illegitimate reasons.  But the idea that it is “impossible” to fire a tenured faculty member is just patently false.

So, why do we have tenure, when did it originate, and what was its original purpose?

In David R. Loope’s “Academic Tenure: Its Origins, Administration, and Importance. South Carolina Commission on Higher Education Staff Position Paper” he states “By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, colleges and universities in Germany and in the United States were striving toward a comprehensive establishment of academic tenure, or the contractual agreement with faculty of continuous employment (Bok 1982, p.5). In the wake ofVanderbilts,Rockefellers, andStanfords who forged new universities with their amassed wealth, an empowered faculty, who were themselves now making important contributions tothe industrialization of western society, needed a shield toensurethe integrity of their teaching and research. American faculty increasingly saw tenure as theultimate guarantor of free speech in the classroom and in the laboratory and as a practice that would ‘prevent the university administration from establishing officialortthodoxies that it might use, directly or indirectly, to inhibit professors from expressing unsettling ideas and unpopular opinions’ (Bok 1982, p. 5). With these ideas in mind, a group of influential faculty members, led by professors from the Johns Hopkins University, formed the American Association of University of Professors (Metzger 1973, p. 135).  By 1915, theAAUP, as flue association became known, had developed a codified set of regulationsregardingthe attainment of tenure and its application on campuses throughout the United States (pp. 151-52). Between 1930 and 1950, with major research institutions and selective liberal arts colleges leading the way, tenure became pervasive throughout the American higher education system (pp. 155-57) and became the benchmark against which most scholars measured their professional success in the academy.”

The “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” states that “Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights.Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society.”

In 2015, do we still need tenure as a way of preserving academic freedom and firing without just cause?  I would argue yes.  Take the case of Dr. Steven Salaita.  Or Professor John McAdams.  Or the cases at the University of Oklahoma, Felician College and the University of Southern Maine.

But even if I haven’t convinced you that these job protections are necessary, that they make universities stronger, let me provide you with personal experience.  As an untenured faculty member since 2009, I’ve held my tongue during committee meetings or departmental meetings for fear of angering the wrong person sitting on my evaluation committee who determines, year after year, whether or not I can be retained.  As an untenured faculty member, I can be and have been exploited by senior faculty and filed no report for fear of termination or retribution.  As an untenured faculty member, I would be less likely to speak publicly regarding these budget cuts and policy changes.  As an untenured faculty member, I wouldn’t be blogging right now.  Tenure isn’t just about job security–it’s about having a voice.

Without tenure, professors everywhere would have little incentive to do controversial work or research, question their own administrators, or file grievances against those who are mistreating them either in terms of harassment or gross misconduct.  I highly doubt Professor Richard Grusin would have called for System President Ray Cross’s resignation had he not had the protection of tenure.

In addition,  if tenure is eliminated or even weakened, who in their right mind will want to work in Wisconsin?  As Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab claimed in a recent Facebook posting, “How does one fight without any rights or protections?? The new provisions make it very easy to close my tiny department and the Lab.”  What she is referring to is the Wisconsin HOPE Lab, the nation’s first translational research laboratory aimed at identifying new and effective ways to minimize barriers to college completion so that more students can reach their full potential. As Inside Higher Ed notes, “Goldrick-Rab said she passed up a center directorship at an institution in another state several years ago, fearing that shared governance there wasn’t as strong as it was at Madison. But now she’s actively pursuing opportunities elsewhere, she said. ‘I can’t work in an institution without genuine tenure protections and I will not work in academia without shared governance. We cannot protect students’ interests without it.'”  For those not familiar with Professor Goldrick-Rab, to say she is a “star” is an understatement.  She could work anywhere and is currently a Professor of Educational Policy Studies and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  To lose her and any of the immensely talented professors in Wisconsin due to this policy change would be criminal.

Lastly, tenure is not just handed down by the tenure fairy.  It is *earned.*  I cannot emphasize that enough.  As Chuck Rybak, Associate Professor of English and Humanistic Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay states, “Let me put this,  another way, and again, forgive me for the personal tone and reference: tenure is not a perk for me. I did not erroneously stumble into tenure. It was not ‘awarded.’ I earned it. Twice. But more importantly, it is a symbol of my work, skill, and accomplishment. In my professional life, tenure is a source of pride not because I get to sleep on a state yacht, but because it signifies nearly two decades of my life: the study, training, job searches, students and their triumphs, individual and book publications, teaching awards, community work, institutional work, etc. Twenty years of my life and dedication, wiped away with a grudge and a brushstroke. I’m demoralized and, like many of us, wondering, ‘What was all the work for?’ In short, the only people who have done their jobs, who lived up to the promise of the UW, are faculty and staff. This is how we are rewarded. President Cross has said he and the Regents will ‘reinstitute’ tenure. Maybe in name, but not in any form that fulfills the promise and commitments made to us upon being hired (see item #39 in the bill). This is betrayal and it hurts. It has taken its toll on me, my mental health, my ability to focus on my job, my relationships. Have I failed in some way? President Cross, Robin Vos, Alberta Darling, I sincerely ask, where did I go wrong?”

Another faculty member, Mark Karau, Associate Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Sheboygan stated, “The process to get to tenure is so ridiculously onerous that I feel quite confident in saying that most people who would abuse that privilege will never earn it in the first place. First of all, you have to be willing to spend roughly a decade of your life in graduate school, which is NOT remotely like undergrad. Those who think grad school is just hiding in school for more parties and drinking have NO idea what they are talking about. A doctoral program in particular is an extremely rigorous and difficult journey. There is a reason that the vast majority of those who start such a program never finish it. Then, if you are one of the lucky few who land a tenure track job you are in for another six to seven years of extremely difficult work where you have to, in effect, justify your existence to your department every year by compiling massive amounts of documentation demonstrating your skill in the classroom, your development as a scholar etc. At any point along that spectrum you can simply be let go. All tenure really means is that you no longer have to do that. You are still evaluated on a regular basis, or should be if your school is functioning properly, and can absolutely be removed for negligence or failure. But most people who have successfully navigated that nearly 20 year journey are the kind of people who don’t the need the fear of job loss to do their job well. In fact I will go so far as to say that if you actually do end up having to fire someone who has earned tenure it was your institution that failed. That person most likely should never have earned tenure in the first place.”

So, to be clear, when you see faculty freaking out about the elimination and/or weakening of tenure, please understand we have very good reasons.  You don’t just get tenure by existing for 6-7 years on a campus.  As my partner can attest, I am much happier to live with now that I have tenure, and I worked extremely hard to earn it.  I feel free to speak out against injustices happening in my state or on my campus without fear of losing my job.  I can speak on behalf of untenured colleagues, students, and staff who don’t have those same protections.  Since 2011 and the passage of Act 10, we have seen colleagues resigning from UW institutions at astounding rates.  To say we are hemorrhaging faculty and staff would be an understatement.  My colleague keeps a list of all the faculty and staff who work on our campus on the back of her door.  At the end of the year, she puts an X through the pictures of each who have resigned or retired far before their time.  The list grows every year.  And with these policy changes, that list will grow exponentially.  Vacancies won’t be filled and we will be scrambling to find anyone to teach and work in this state.  That is why yes, my friends.  Changes to tenure are a big f**king deal.