New and improved! Now with more equity!

New and improved! Now with more equity!

Last week I formally announced two new opportunities in the Honors Program, both of which have been in the works for a while. I’m excited about both: one will offer tangible support to our Honors students who need a little help in getting important projects off the ground, and the other should help to foster greater equity between “traditional” Honors students who enter the program on Day One of their college studies and those (like transfer students) who come to the program a bit later on.

The former is a program offering modest grants to Honors students for scholarly and creative activities: students may submit proposals for support for travel to conferences, materials for creative projects, attendance of events relevant to their research, etc. The Great Ideas Grants (GIGs) will offer a small amount of funding for such activities, to the tune of $150 per awardee. It’s not much, but it’s a start: until now I’ve had literally no funding for such opportunities, so even this small bit is an improvement.

The latter is a new “certificate” to be awarded to Honors students who show continued and continual engagement with the Honors Program but who for one reason or another are unable to complete the somewhat stringent requirements of Distinction as a University Scholar, the recognition conferred upon students who bank 21 hours or more of Honors credits, maintain a 3.5 GPA in Honors and a 3.25 GPA overall, and finish at least two of our interdisciplinary special topics courses and an Honors section of LA 478. The new acknowledgement of achievement, Recognition as an Honors Scholar, will still require the student to take an Honors section of 478 but will require only 12 hours of Honors coursework, which must include only a single special topics course. I hope that this small measure of acknowledgement will encourage late bloomers to stay active in the program, even when they’ve no hope of meeting the requirements for Distinction. It should help to induce greater participation on the part of transfer students, as well.

Time will tell, time will tell. Meanwhile, I’ve got to get cracking on further equity-increasing adjustments to our admissions procedure. I hope to have these in place by this coming spring, when we’ll court a brand new class of outstanding students.

Coming soon: a long-promised guest post from an amazing former student and a discussion of an electoral exercise I tried out on my colleague Amanda’s political rhetoric class last night!

 

One week down…

One week down…

…a bunch more to go. The semester’s off to a good start, I think. There’ve not yet been any fireworks in either order theory or voting theory, but as we tread closer to Duverger’s Law and Arrow’s Theorem, the latter will likely light up, and the students begin presenting solutions to problems in the former, so there’ll be some excitement there, too.

My order theory class hit a little bump when I realized that a couple of the students in the class have not taken our intro to proofs course; though I’d advertised MATH 280 as a prereq, I don’t think I listed 280 as a formal prerequisite, so a few folks signed up for more than they might be able to handle.

Meanwhile, today in voting theory we examined paradoxical electoral outcomes, outcomes in which the will of the people (as expressed by individual voter preferences) is clearly misaggregated into a “flawed” social preference as determined by the electoral process. (The featured image above shows the students’ successful attempt at “breaking” the “count the A-grades” electoral system mentioned by Donald Saari on page 20 of his book Chaotic Elections!.) Having spent the first two classes designing their own electoral systems and running mock elections according to those systems, their next task is to “break” one another’s systems by showing that paradoxical outcomes are possible no matter the choice of system.

I think the most exciting goings-on this past week came outside of class:

  • I’ve met (in several different settings) Sidney, the new director of our service-learning center. He seems authentic, engaged, down-to-earth, and appreciative of our campus culture surrounding service-learning and community engagement. I think I’ll enjoy working with him. He and Tish, the woman who’s been tapped to oversee several programs that deal with the university’s engagement with the community, invited me to join them at a two-day Campus Compact “action planning” institute coming up in a few weeks in Princeton, NJ. Should be fun!
  • I’ve been in correspondence with the heritage preservation officer for the Lewis and Clark County Historical Society regarding the phenomenon of urban renewal in Helena, Montana, my hometown. After revisiting a wesbite I discovered when looking at urban renewal in Helena the first time I taught Cultivating Global Citizenship, and after spending a few hours working on a poem about the old Chinese masonic temple that once stood in Helena (in the 1870s, Helena’s population was roughly 1/5 Chinese!), I contacted Queshia, asking for more information on an exhibit I’d seen referenced a few times in the literature I was able to find online. She responded very quickly and excitedly, sending me several large files full of digitized documents that relate to that exhibit. I’ve yet to look them over, but I hope to have some good time to do so this weekend!
  • Relatedly, I’ve begun talking with a few folks (including Candace and Doreen) about teaching a course on urban renewal here at UNCA…maybe team-teaching with someone who has more of an idea of what they’re talking about…? I know some folks in History and PoliSci who’d be all upons. Meanwhile, Candace’s current first-year writing class is based on the theme “deconstructing Asheville”: she’s asking her students to critically examine Asheville’s national reputation as a tourist mecca, a foodtopia, a thriving arts and crafts community, a jade-green jewel of an outdoors community where everyone drinks good beer and poops out sweet-smelling shit. While the haves are quaffing craft brews from the comfort of their kayaks, Asheville’s working-class community is struggling to get by in a sprawling food desert plagued by tremendous income inequality and inadequate affordable housing. Just today we’ve begun thinking about linking her first-year writing course with a first-year seminar on urban renewal…could we make that work…?
  • In administrative news…I presented the idea of moving toward a letter-grade-free curriculum in the Honors Program to the members of the Honors Program Advisory Committee. There was tentative support from some and tentative resistance from others…just as to be expected, I think. I’ve only just begun to think about this move, and I’m sure the coming weeks will see much more work on that project. The advisory committee unanimously signed off on a proposed alternative recognition for Honors students who cannot meet the somewhat stringent requirements for Distinction as a University Scholar, the greatest recognition we grant for participation in our program. Many transfer students simply cannot complete the 21 hours of Honors coursework required of them before graduating, and I want to do all that I can to encourage greater involvement of such students in the program. “Recognition as an Honors Scholar” will require the student to complete only 12 hours in the program, and I hope this honor will encourage more transfer students (and others!) to apply for and take part in the program.

I could go on and on (it’s been a busy week!)…about my school’s move to require all new lecturers to teach 16 hours per term (instead of the usual 12)…about last night’s very well-attended reception for first-year Honors students…about the fact that roughly 90% of that group of students is female (an even more uneven distribution than usual)…about the wonderful work my Student Honors Advisory Committee is doing in mentoring first-year students and putting together outstanding social and academic programming…but I’ll leave it there.

Much more to come!

Stonecatching

Stonecatching

It’s been a fast summer, and one that’s certainly not slowed down as it’s neared its end. Next Monday, I begin my twelfth year of teaching at UNCA, and my eleventh since starting this blog back in the summer of 2006.

In many ways, this past week has been a microscopic version of those years.

Last Thursday and Friday I spent a couple of days with a few dozen colleagues at the University of South Carolina, Aiken. I’d been invited to give the keynote presentation and lead a few brief workshops for their second annual writing-in-the-disciplines faculty development program. Working with, and simply being with, faculty from biology, sociology, nursing, history, chemistry, mathematics, and all other corners of their campus, every one of whom was excited about writing in their disciplines, was enlightening and invigorating. Their school, newly added to the COPLAC roster of officially-designated public liberal arts colleges,  is very much like my own, and it was heartening to hear of successes and struggles that closely mirrored those at my campus. It was a lovely visit.

On Friday evening, I learned that the article my colleague (and partner in consciousness-raising crime) Samuel and I wrote on the workshop project we ask our HON 478 students to complete was accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed journal Honors in Practice, after spending roughly two weeks in review and receiving glowing feedback from its referees. I’m excited that this project, which we’re convinced has now helped over a hundred bright young students more fully form their thoughts about diversity, equity, and inclusion, may have an impact off of our campus.

Yesterday, Dorothy (the new Honors Program assistant) and I met for a short while with three colleagues who help me out as members of the Honors Program Advisory Committee. We talked about how we can structure interviews with prospective Honors students to allow them an opportunity to demonstrate academic excellence in nontraditional ways. We talked about how we can make more flexible (and less strictly dependent upon GPA) the means by which Honors students remain in good standing in the program. We talked, very positively, about the possibility of using the program as a place to pilot letter-grade-free classes, something I’d very much like to explore campus-wide during the next stage in my career.

And today I finished reading a wonderful book my colleague Doreen recommended to me, Bryan Stevenson’s Just mercy: A story of justice and redemption (New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2014). The “story” that Stevenson, a very successful civil rights attorney, tells is one of advocacy for some of our society’s most vulnerable members, namely its death-row inmates. For three hundred pages he recounts case after case of inequity and injustice in our criminal justice system, arguing persuasively in support of the felons he and his friends have defended for nearly three decades now. “Why do we want to kill all the broken people?” (p.288) he asks, about our treatment of the mentally ill, the intellectually challenged, the abused, the neglected, the merely adolescent who find their ways into our nation’s overcrowded prisons.

We are all broken by something. We all have hurt someone and have been hurt. We all share the condition of brokenness even if our brokenness is not equivalent….We have a choice. We can embrace our humanness, which means embracing our broken natures and the compassion that remains our best hope for healing. Or we can deny our brokenness, forswear compassion, and, as a result, deny our own humanity (p. 289).

In his book’s final chapter, Stevenson tells of an old woman who frequents the Orleans Parish Courthouse in New Orleans. Her grandson was killed at the age of fifteen, and she found no relief when other teenage boys were convicted for his murder. She speaks with Stevenson for several minutes, holding his hand and embracing him. At one point she tells him,

“I didn’t know what to do with myself after those trials, so about a year later I started coming down here. I don’t really know why. I guess I just felt like maybe I could be someone, you know, that somebody hurting could lean on….I decided that I was supposed to be here to catch some of the stones people cast at each other” (p. 308).

On Monday night Candace spent several hours cooking. She had volunteered to provide lunch for our colleagues in her department who teach in the first-year writing program she serves as associate director. While I helped her a little bit by tearing kale and cleaning dishes, mostly I just sat and sipped bourbon and kept her company.

“I never would have imagined ten years ago…maybe even five years ago…that my work would look like it does now. I can’t imagine that the fresh-off-his-post-doc assistant professor who was immersed in his pure math research and obsessed with publishing as many papers as he could would believe that in ten years’ time he’d be teaching writing and social justice.”

When I set Doreen’s copy of Bryan Stevenson’s book on my office table to snap a picture for this post, my eyes fell on the figs she gave me from the tree in her yard, and on the unusually-apt-today puzzle one of my favorite students once gave to me as her end-of-term reflection. I put them all in the picture, for they truly belong together, a harmony of brokenness and togetherness.

The semester’s nearly there. Let’s go catch some stones.

 

What does an ideal Honors student look like?

What does an ideal Honors student look like?

Today my colleague Nichola and I ran the half-day workshop on teaching in the Honors Program that we’d been planning for a few weeks now. We had a great group of people signed up, a good balance between those who’ve taught in the program before and those who haven’t but are interested in learning more about doing so. There were several good discussions, surrounding everything from grading in Honors (is there grade inflation? If so, what does it signal? and will inflated grades harm untenured-but-tenure-track faculty?) to criteria for Honors admission (how might we achieve the appropriate balance of traditional measures of academic excellence, such as high school GPA and standardized test scores, and less cut-and-dried metrics, like writing samples and performance in interviews?).

The most animated discussion, however, concerned the nature of Honors students: what characteristics, in our view, ought an outstanding Honors student to have? In fact, Nichola asked precisely this question, getting each participant to jot down the qualities their ideal Honors student would possess. You’d best believe I did some analysis of these data!

My 14 colleagues and I (Nichola didn’t take part in the exercise) offered 75 individual attributes between us (for an average of exactly 5 per person), often in the form of a single word (e.g., “respectful” or “bright”) but just as often in the form of a more complicated phrase (e.g., “motivation to learn for learning’s sake”). I compiled these and attempted to group them into disjoint categories; happily, only one of the attributes (namely “able to work independently on challenging problems”) did I deem sufficiently complex to warrant its inclusion in two categories (namely, the “challenging oneself” and “self-direction” categories).

Interestingly (to me, at least), this still left me with 27 categories, several (8) of which contained a single attribute and several more (another 8) of which contain two. Though this gives me a pretty messy data set, I hesitate to aggregate them any further, lest I conflate clearly distinct concepts or descriptors, like “respectful,” “humility,” and “kind.” I did, however, lump together a few “habits of mind,” each of which, namely “common sense,” “scientific understanding,” “think critically,” “objective,” and “logical,” appeared once each. While I acknowledge the thickness of these terms and the ZFG stance I’m taking in putting them in the same place, it simplifies the data a liiiittle bit.

Below are the categories I came up with, given in order from most-often mentioned, “curiosity,” to least (the numbers given after the category name correspond to the identifiers assigned randomly to each respondent):

  1. Curious: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
  2. Open-minded : 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14
  3. Passionate about learning: 1, 2, 3, 10, 14
  4. Intelligent: 5, 8, 10, 12, 13
  5. Willing to be challenged: 1, 4, 8, 12
  6. Engaged/purposeful: 2, 5, 13, 14
  7. Strong habits of mind: 7, 11, 14, 15
  8. Good communication skills: 8, 14, 15
  9. Community member: 2, 10, 11
  10. Conscientious: 5, 6, 9
  11. Ambitious: 8, 9, 11
  12. Empathetic: 14, 15
  13. Reflective: 1, 14
  14. Self-directed: 8, 13
  15. Resilient: 2, 14
  16. Positive: 2, 9
  17. Responsible: 2, 7
  18. Passionate: 7, 9
  19. Innovative: 6, 12
  20. Respectful: 7
  21. Kind: 9
  22. Outspoken: 1
  23. Emotionally mature: 9
  24. Good leader: 10
  25. Big-picture oriented: 13
  26. Humble: 2
  27. Collaborator: 2

This list gives us some idea of the traits folks are looking for, considered individually: curiosity, open-mindedness, a passion for learning, and intelligence are most highly prized. To get a better sense of the interaction between these attributes, we can create a concept map (mathematically, a graph) showing relationships between these traits by linking any two that are mentioned by a single person.

HonorsStudentAttributesAnalysis

Some care must be taken in interpreting this graph: the number of edges out of a given node doesn’t represent the number of persons mentioning that node’s attribute; rather, as I just mentioned, an edge between two nodes indicates that one person mentioned both of the attributes those nodes represent. Two edges between a pair of nodes indicate that two persons mentioned both of the corresponding attributes, etc. Thus we expect to see the greatest density around those attributes that are mentioned both frequently and frequently in conjunction with one another. Unsurprisingly, the greatest density is achieved around our top vote-getters, curious, open-minded, and passionate about learning. Strongly related to these are engaged/purposeful and good communication skills.

I appreciate this exercise for the insight it gives me into my colleagues’ vision for the program: before we can talk about what the program should look like and what opportunities it should provide, we need to first know what kind of students we want it to serve. It appears we’re looking for curious, open-minded individuals who are intelligent, purposeful, and passionate about learning, and who can articulate their ideas well.

Now to go get ’em! There was pretty widespread agreement among the workshop participants that in reviewing Honors Program applications traditional measures like high school GPA should be given considerably less weight, and all were in favor of scrapping standardized test scores entirely. There was almost unanimous support for replacing résumé-padding lists of AP courses and community service with more in-depth interrogations of single stand-out courses and single meaningful volunteer commitments. These are changes I intend to make in the online application this coming year, in conjunction with the introduction of some sort of interview process.

Next steps in program administration? Finishing up my program assessment for the spring, cleaning up the Honors website, orienting my new assistant (who will begin on June 1), and polishing off that article on the workshop assignment I’m working on with Samuel. You know. The usual.

HB2 update: my provost, unsurprisingly, is hesitant to comment on the university’s official response to the ongoing litigious crossfire between the State of North Carolina and the US Department of Justice. Go figure. More news at eleven.

Equally forthcoming, but disingenuously so, was the UNC system itself, who released a short statement yesterday regarding the false dilemma:

University of North Carolina leaders offered the following comments today after a special meeting of the UNC Board of Governors to consult with legal counsel regarding legal actions regarding federal nondiscrimination law and the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (HB2):

UNC Board of Governors Chairman Lou Bissette said:

The purpose of today’s Board meeting was to consult with our attorneys concerning the pending litigation involving the Department of Justice. We support all the actions President Spellings has taken thus far in leading the University and responding to HB2. The Board appreciates and values her ongoing leadership. As she said yesterday, the University is in a difficult position — caught in the middle between state and federal law. We are committed to resolving the legal issues in the University’s favor as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we are going to continue to focus on our primary mission of educating students.

UNC President Margaret Spellings added:

The University of North Carolina is about providing high-quality educational opportunities to all. We depend on federal funding to help provide this access. In fact, more than 138,000 of our students — representing all 100 North Carolina counties and all UNC institutions — receive some type of federal aid. Because of this, we take the legal questions surrounding HB2 and the related lawsuits seriously. We intend to remain in close communication with state and federal officials to underscore our shared interest in resolving these difficult issues as quickly as possible so that we can refocus our efforts on educating students.

I have an easy solution: tell the State and its governor where they can stick it and get on the right side of history. This is getting ridiculous.

Riches and rags

Riches and rags

I am rich.

I am rich for respect for the dozens of outstanding students whom we graduated two days ago. I am rich for the experiences I’ve shared with them these past four (and sometimes more) years, for the poems and prose we’ve written together and for the problems and puzzles we’ve solved; for the discussions we’ve had on sensitive subjects from food access to criminal justice and the programs we’ve started and strengthened.

I am rich for the pride I could share with my students’ parents, families, and friends, as I met them after Saturday’s commencement ceremonies: the love and support these people gave to my students was evident, and the pride they had for my students’ accomplishments matched my own. I am truly blessed to do what I do for a living.

I am rich for the honor of sharing the commencement stage on Saturday morning with local leaders in civil rights, art and art education, and journalistic excellence. I am rich for the privilege of celebrating the teaching talent of one of my university’s most incredible teachers, a woman whose intelligence, candor, and humility I’ve admired since I came here eleven years ago.

I am rich for the wonderful family I am soon to marry into, for the love they have for one another and for me, and for the time we had to share a delicious meal with one another on Saturday afternoon before we returned to our separate busy days. And I am rich for the physical health I enjoy, the health that enabled me to cap off an hour of yardwork after that lunch but before racing off to my next appointment, a wedding ceremony where I officiated at the marriage of two former students who honored me by asking me to share in their day. (I snapped the picture at the top of this post while walking from my office to our campus’s botanical gardens, where the wedding was held.)

I am rich, indeed!

But I can’t lie back and rest on my riches like a dragon on his hoard. Not when there’s so much yet to do.

I wrote all of the above except for the last brief paragraph on Saturday evening (though I’ve changed the reference to the day to avoid confusion), and since that time I feel that much has happened that’s worth commenting on. For now I’ll leave aside the minutiae of my conversations today with my colleagues on this coming year’s Honors Program Advisory Committee and with my colleague who’s helping me run a workshop on Honors pedagogy this coming Thursday. It’s not that these issues aren’t important; rather, I’ve written at length about many of them somewhat recently and I’ve no doubt I’ll give each issue significant space in this forum in the coming months.

More pressing is the existential issue raised today by the legal actions taken by the State of North Carolina and the US Department of Justice. Not hours after NC Governor Pat McCrory asked the federal court to rule in defense of the now-notorious House Bill 2, the DoJ fired back with a promise of legal action against the state, including a threatened revocation of federal funding for education. Indeed, the University of North Carolina system is specifically named as a defendant in the Justice Department’s suit, and billions of dollars in monies slated for scholarships, research grants, teacher development programs, etc., could be pulled from the state as the suit moves forward.

I should be able to make it for a few months with a smaller (or…*gulp*…absent) paycheck or without a stipend for helping to plan a workshop or perform my program’s assessment, but what about those in the university system less privileged than I am? What about that first-generation student whose continued enrollment depends on federal financial aid? The graduate student whose teaching assistantship is funded by federal dollars? The contingent faculty member whose three positions at three different institutions all will be cut if those institutions’ wells run dry? All of these folks are members of communities much more vulnerable than my own.

I’ve just sent an email to my provost and the university’s general counsel asking when we might receive more and more detailed information on the potential impact of these legal proceedings on our campus in particular. I’m curious to see how our community responds.

Further bulletins as events warrant.

(P.S.: to my knowledge, UNC President Margaret Spellings has yet to respond to today’s legal jousting.)

UPDATE. Not minutes after posting this initially, Spellings released the following statement to the UNC community:

Earlier this afternoon, the University responded to the U.S. Department of Justice’s letter dated May 4 by again underscoring the UNC system’s commitment to full compliance with federal non-discrimination laws and inviting greater dialogue with the Department to resolve concerns it has expressed about HB2.

Our first responsibility as a University is to serve our students, faculty, and staff and provide a welcoming and safe place for all. The University takes its obligation to comply with federal non-discrimination laws very seriously. We also must adhere to laws duly enacted by the State’s General Assembly and Governor, however. HB2 remains the law of the state, and the University has no independent power to change that legal reality.

In these circumstances, the University is truly caught in the middle.

As the Attorney General alluded to in her press conference today, we have been in regular contact with the Department about ways to constructively resolve its inquiry into HB2 and the University’s compliance with federal civil rights laws. Even though the Justice Department has chosen to file an action in federal court, we intend to continue to engage with further discussions with them on this issue.

We plan to review the Department’s complaint, and in consultation with our Board of Governors and legal counsel tomorrow (Tuesday, May 10) during a special meeting of the Board, to determine next steps.

We will continue to keep constituencies apprised as new information becomes available.

I hope that our BoG and our President get on the right side of history right quick.

Tiny bubbles

Tiny bubbles

Yesterday morning my Honors 478 students became the ninth section of their course (and sixth led by me) to put on a workshop on topics related to diversity, equity and inclusion in a modern multicultural society. Every iteration offers a different take on these topics. Some have chosen to focus on one aspect of personal identity (e.g., race), interrogating that aspect in various contexts and examining its interplay with equity, power, and privilege. Others have deconstructed identity into finer parts, considering several aspects but each less fully than if it had the stage to itself. I was curious to see what direction my students would head in, especially after Samuel’s students presented a new take on the project last week.

My students did not disappoint: in their very well-attended workshop, rather than deconstructing identity into its constituent parts, and rather than tackling diversity-related issues head-on, they chose instead to guide participants through a series of interactive exercises designed to help foster constructive conversation and dialogue with broader groups of interlocutors, getting folks to pop the “bubbles” they often find themselves forced into by Facebook algorithms and homogeneous social circles full of like-minded friends. One activity helped drive home the difference between sympathy and empathy while another helped us to cultivate mindful listening skills. Another challenged us to consider various kinds of service to the community: what’s the difference between charity and volunteering, and when does volunteering cross the line into service learning? And in any case, what party or parties are served? Several students references the course readings, crediting Chambers’s Whose reality counts? with helping them to adopt others’ perspectives and Alexander’s The new Jim Crow with helping them to recognize systemic inequalities.

This summer my colleague Samuel and I will continue to work on our article detailing the workshop activity, with the goal of wrapping it up and submitting it by the summer’s end.

In other news: yesterday I was delighted to learn that I have been recommended for promotion to full professor, appointment pending the approval of our campus’s Chancellor and the school’s Board of Trustees. I can’t imagine achieving this distinction without the tireless help of incredible students, brilliant colleagues, and loving and supportive family and friends. My thanks to all for helping me to make it this far. As I enjoy passing this personal milestone, I promise to stay ever cognizant of the privileges and powers promotion grants to me, and to redouble my efforts in advocating for educational access for all students and equitable treatment of all educators.

 

An intersectional day in the life

An intersectional day in the life

Do something.

You might not always feel called to anything in particular, so your way might not always be clear.

If nothing else, do what you can.

Yesterday I arrived at work to find a copy of Ghana must go resting on my desk, a gift from the Postcolonial Literature Fairy. No time to read more than the back cover (glowing reviews from Oprah, Sapphire, and Teju Cole) before my first meeting, the first ninety minutes or so of my day’s work on the search for a new program assistant. I was heartened that all four of us on the hiring committee came to pretty speedy agreement on our top choices, and that over the next seven hours I was able to slot all of the interviews in the middle of next week.

I returned to my office after our meeting and found one of our Honors students, Preeta, about to leave me a note regarding the four tiny tomato plants she was delivering. She’d asked a week or so ago if my partner and I would like them, and we’d said yes. They’re alive. They’re potent. They’re healthy and strong.

I set the plants in the window sill and spent a few minutes reviewing Honors Program candidates. A few withdrawals had left us with a couple of open slots to offer to other hopefuls. I hope that the news we sent these folks made their days.

Offer carrots, not sticks. You may run out of carrots. Resist the urge to pick up sticks.

In the early afternoon I met up with a former student, Sallie, to talk about life plans. A sudden turn of events (one that’s caused her to rethink the post she’d already drafted for this blog, by the way) has left her thinking about what’s next for her: a career change? back to school? new town, new state? She’s drawn to teaching, but isn’t sure yet. We talked about how easy it is to let school institutionalize you, how easy it is to do something because it’s the easiest next step.

Be intentional, but beware of best intentions; we know where those can lead.

We also talked about pets. She has a new dog. My partner, Candace, and I have two crazy dogs. And two cats. And two rabbits. And a snake.

Watching a roughly-two-year-old dutifully deliver scrap of paper after scrap of paper to the wastebasket while every adult in the room watched adoringly, we talked about children. “How are you feeling about being a soon-to-be-stepfather?”

“I’m loving it,” I said. I told her about how I’ve grown into the role, taking each step carefully, eyes wide open. I told her about how my partner has helped keep my eyes open, every step of the way, knowing that step-parenting is coming to me somewhat late in life.

On the way back to campus, I took a twenty-minute detour to seek out the resting place of Isaac Dickson, a local historical figure after whom Candace’s children’s elementary school is named. Dickson had come up in conversation the other night when Candace’s son told me that my university’s library has a copy of Dickson’s “letter of recommendation,” spurring me to think of ways one might bring this man to life for a group of third graders.

DicksonMarkerIsaac Dickson was a freed slave who played seminal role in the development of our city’s public educational system and in the foundation of the Young Men’s Institute, a local organization that’s advocated for black youth for over a hundred years now.

“We the undersigned citizens have bin acquanted with Isaac Dixon for years past and have ever found him to be an honest and upright man,” his rec letter reads, the above claims attested to by seven “persons of good character & standing” in Cleveland County, North Carolina.

Riverside Cemetery was peaceful, high old trees rasping the cloud-free sky. I wound down the hill, following the curve of the earth. Groundskeepers on riding lawnmowers kicked up clouds of dust. Around a sharp left bend near the bottom, I paused, knowing Dickson’s marker was near. It took only a minute or so to find it, a four-foot-high obelisk with a cross-gabled peak.

Urban renewal in the 1960s claimed Dickson’s home, near what’s now the eastern edge of downtown.

Coincidentally, Candace spent an hour or so this afternoon with her son’s class as his school took part in a demonstration downtown, Stand Against Racism. The procession to the demonstration site took them past the monument (a much taller obelisk, standing roughly seventy feet) to Zebulon B. Vance, Confederate general, politician, and slave-owner. Vance, too, is interred at Riverside Cemetery.

Resist the urge to pick up sticks.

My last task on campus was an appearance at the afternoon’s meeting of the Academic Policies Committee, one of the standing committees of our faculty senate. This body is charged with helping folks to shepherd curricular changes through the legislative process. I’d been called to testify in my role as the current transitional writing coordinator, a position created a few years back to help faculty in the changeover from the old general education writing requirements to the new ones. Writing intensive courses were scrapped, department-specified writing “competencies.” The latter term is, in practice, construed quite broadly.

When asked whether I felt my current position should be made permanent, I answered with an emphatic “yes.” I cited my concerns that assessment is currently patchy at best and nonexistent at worst, that once-jam-packed historically writing-intensive courses are not so jam-packed anymore, and that many departments, while intending to offer solid instruction in disciplinary writing, simply are not doing so.

Beware of best intentions; we know where those can lead.

As I left the meeting and walked off campus, I thought about how the tone of conversation had been civil, balanced, inviting. No mansplaining, though several men had been present. I thought of a comment I’d seen my colleague Will Banks make on one of his own Facebook posts earlier in the day: “If I could have a professional goal, it would be to stop [men from taking credit for women’s ideas in meetings], but I don’t even know how you’d start that project…maybe teaching is my best intervention on a future generation?”

Several years ago, I admitted to one of my calculus students (a wise woman a few years my senior who was coming back to school to jump-start a second career in engineering) that I felt frustrated by my seeming inability to make a macroscopic difference in society in my role as a math professor. “What can I do, really? Am I doing enough?”

“Of course you are!” she assured me. “You’re doing what you can, and you’re doing it well. Teachers have a greater impact that you think.”

Do something. If nothing else, do what you can.

 

slorp. slorp. slorp.

slorp. slorp. slorp.

Let it be said that summer colds suck.

Spare me the lecture on how it’s not yet summer, that it’s not even halfway into spring. The point is that it’s beautiful outside and I’ve got just enough of a cold to take the edge off.

Yet the end of the semester slows for no one, and the last few days have had me at various timely tasks, some more salutary than others, that have sucked up my days like one of those little algae-eating aquarium fishes.

slorp. slorp. slorp.

Salutary: I always dread completing my annual faculty record (my “brag sheet” of accomplishments throughout the past academic year), but in the end it never takes as long as I think it will, and it’s a healthy reflective practice. I’m always interested to see which of the goals I’d laid out for myself last year I’ve managed to accomplish, and which are still dangling, undone. (I swear that this summer is the one I’ll find time in to write up that paper…)

Salutary, too: I spent several hours yesterday and another hour today reviewing applications for the Honors Program Assistant position that will be vacated at the end of next month. Though, as anyone who knows her knows, no one can replace my current assistant, I now have higher hopes of finding a solid successor.

Salutary, too? You bet!: Two evenings ago we fêted our senior students graduating with Distinction as a University Scholar…and I actually managed to make it all the way through bestowal of the Distinction certificates, all the way through bestowal of our new award for Honors Program Citizenship, and 95% of the way through my statement on behalf of this year’s Scholarly Excellence awardee before crying. A new record! It’s truly been a wonderful experience to grow alongside this particular group of students these past four years. They are, after all, “my class,” the students who entered the program at the time when I was taking over as its director. I will miss them much.

Hmmm…now that I think about it, not much I’ve done the past several days has seemed purposeless or void.

Certainly not my colleague Samuel’s 478 students’ workshop on diversity, equity, and inclusion, which took place earlier this afternoon. These students adopted a somewhat narrower focus than students in most past iterations of the course, choosing to bring in experts to speak specifically on local racial inequities as manifested in the public educational system and food justice communities. Moreover, this was the first and only of so-far-eight 478 workshops, five run by my students and three by Samuel’s, to feature outside speakers. It made for some solid presentations, but it also raises the question: is this the intention of the activity? Do we short-change the students if we do not insist that they are the architects of the ideas shared in the workshop? Do we deny them authentic engagement with important questions surrounding diversity and equity should we allow them to rely on trained voices to carry the chorus? Ought we not ask that they, however inexpertly, sing along themselves? What, ultimately, do we expect our students to learn from this exercise? I have no definitive answer to these questions; I only wish to keep them in mind as I move forward in assigning this activity in future versions of this course.

Little remains between me and the end of the semester; my MATH 280 students are working through their third of three take-home exams, and my own 478 students are busy at planning their own workshop, to be run this coming Tuesday morning on the last day of finals. I’ve got one more meeting with my math students, and only a smattering of official meetings or events. Beyond, summer lies languorously, plump with juicy joys ranging from writing up my analysis of our WAC/WID requirements to the summer’s WNC Postcolonial Reading Group’s consideration of Taiye Selasi’s Ghana must go.

And rest.

For now, too, a bit of rest. I’m going to go and nurse this edge-dulling cold. If you need me, I’ll likely be lying under a cat or two.

 

Eero Saarinen, eat your heart out

Eero Saarinen, eat your heart out

Almost a year and a half after the project began, we finally got this damned thing together. About a third of it, anyway, two of the six arches we’d planned. Time will tell if we finish it. It’s big as it is, spanning about fifteen feet from base to base. Not very mobile. The pharmacy school that shares our floor has an event slated for this weekend, and they’ve already asked us if we might be able mask it behind a large black drapery they’re planning to bring in.

I don’t mind saying it was a pain to put together, and it took a team of several of us, typically at least three working at once, about three and a half hours to assemble the portion we finished. By way of comparison, the designer’s website brags that one person (the designer himself, no doubt) was able to assemble their prototype in seven hours, without propping.

We needed propping.

We also conjecture that he may have been using better materials and more slickly produced plates (made, no doubt, with a nice CNC router).

In any case, it stands, and it looks pretty nice, if you look past the mangling of the cardboard flaps that stick out every foot or so.

As scheduled, UNC President Margaret Spellings came by about halfway through our construction, flanked by our chancellor, a small security detail, and a dozen or so camerapersons. We chatted briefly about the project, and she got to meet a couple of the students helping with the construction, including Nehemiah. Our short conversation was tightly scripted, and I had no chance to say anything about HB2, the recently removed Board of Governors meeting that’ll take place over the next two days in Chapel Hill, or anything else controversial.

Many thanks to Nehemiah, Bert, and all of the other students who helped make this project a reality, and to Joe Gattas, the original Plate House designer. Your work was inspiring.

P.S.: President Spellings visited one of our spacious and clean all-gender bathrooms immediately before our meeting. No report on how it was received.

What do you get if you cross an origamist and an engineer?

What do you get if you cross an origamist and an engineer?

This past week’s spring 2016 Southern Regional Honors Council conference was a huge success. In my view, the organizers easily outdid previous years’ conferences in terms of organization, plenary speaker, and quality of presentations and panels. It’s going to be a tough act for me to follow up on next year when we host it up here in the mountains.

Of course, the mere act of placing the conference in North Carolina will likely have an impact on the event’s attendance and tone. Following the passage of the NC legislature’s HB2, numerous other professional organizations have recently scrutinized their decisions to host events in the state, several opting to cancel such events. The law, whose immediate intent is to strike down a recently-approved Charlotte referendum allowing transgender people the right to use public restrooms matching the gender they identify with, goes further, containing language that essentially legalizes discrimination on many grounds, including on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

“It occurs to me that we had best read some sort of a statement addressing HB2,” one of the other members of the SRHC’s Executive Committee mentioned to me near the close of our meeting this past Thursday. In the hour after that meeting adjourned and the start of the conference’s first presentations, I wrote such a statement, which I later read during the general business meeting the next afternoon, to considerable applause:

As many of you know, the North Carolina state legislature recently passed HB2, a piece of legislation that was quickly signed by Governor Pat McCrory. This bill’s effect is an unprecedented curtailment of the power of municipalities, counties, and other local districts to enact anti-discriminatory laws offering protections stronger than those provided at the level of the state. HB2 facilitates legal discrimination on the basis not only of a person’s gender and sexuality but of any other characteristic or identity. Several groups have already brought suit against the state, challenging the law’s constitutionality, and Roy Cooper, the state’s Attorney General, has vowed to not defend the law.

We recognize that this legislation has the potential to profoundly impact attendance at, and engagement with, next year’s Southern Regional Honors Council meeting. With this in mind, I offer my personal pledge to work with all local partners, sponsors, and businesses to ensure that all attendees are afforded equitable treatment and opportunities during their stay in Asheville. Asheville is a welcoming community that embraces difference and diversity, and I will work with local advocacy organizations to craft an inclusive and supportive conference experience for all who attend SRHC in 2017.

On Friday night, giving further thought to a 2017 conference theme (something about mountains? That’s the go-to theme up in these parts), it came to me that we could do more than to make the conference incidentally inclusive; we could design the conference to focus on diversity, difference, equity, and inclusion intentionally, as the conference theme itself. Why not challenge presenters and panelists to ask and answer questions like “in what ways does the work you do in your honors program, as a student or a faculty member, reflect diverse perspectives, habits of mind, or facets of citizenship?”

“Diving Into Diversity” is the title I’m working with right now, and I’m putting together a list of potential plenary speakers who would be able to elaborate on the connections among critical thought, diversity and difference, citizenship, and advocacy.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I’m bracing for the impact of the end of the semester. We’ve got just under three (!!!) weeks to go before the term’s over, and we’re all starting to feel the crunch. Several dozen problems remain on my MATH 280 class’s Moore-method problem set, and my LA 478 students are busily prepping for their class-led workshop on diversity, inclusion, and equity even as they bear into Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow (The New Press: New York, 2010).

There are other distractions: we play host to this year’s leviathan National Conference on Undergraduate Research at the end of this week, and next week the new President of the UNC system, Margaret Spellings, comes to campus for a visit. I just learned today that the President will be going out of her way to stop by the quad outside of Karpen Hall, where my origami students and I will be hard at work assembling our Plate House. This structure is an origami-inspired modular refugee shelter, the pieces of which we machined out of cardboard about a year ago with the help of an enterprising engineering student, a veteran of one of my calc classes a few years back. I’d originally scheduled this assembly knowing that President Spellings would be on campus, but also knowing that her official schedule had already been set, I sent a cap-in-hand email to one of the folks in our communications office letting her know about the Plate House, “in case someone might be able to come by and take a picture or two.”

Ha.

Okay, I’ve got to go put together some sort of one-pager on refugee rights before my eyeballs fall out.