Hi all, While the reminders offered by Sanaz and MC of the importance of remaining critical of our own institutions are useful and in place - first of all, it would be a mistake to think that there are no internal critics at AU: on the contrary, I know from first-hand experience that innumerable colleagues have put up the good fight at AU over these issues, and continue to do so.  Those colleagues need our collective encouragement - not the implication that because they work at AU, they are somehow morally compromised.   These reminders also raise a larger question - namely, of how far each of us must compromise with institutions, from universities to global capitalism, that we know are less than morally pure (to say the least).  As a simple example: everyone on the Air list owns and depends upon technologies that in some degree or another depend in turn upon child labor, if not slave labor. The point of this observation is _not_ something along the lines of the common logical fallacies of "two wrongs make a right" or "common practice" (if everyone else is doing it, it must be o.k.). It is rather to invoke Gandhi's critique of the institutions we all live in: "...to be non-violent, we must not wish for anything on this earth which the meanest and lowest of human beings cannot have." Somewhat less radically, but in the same direction, Kant also noted that "nothing straight was ever made from the crooked timber of humanity." Given that very few of us could (or would) lead a perfectly self-sufficient life in some isolated island somewhere - our moral challenge is then to figure out how to live by our best ethical lights with institutions (and people) who are less than morally perfect. Stated differently: given that none of us is a Gandhi - i.e., willing or able to live in such a supremely moral way - we are then left with making judgments as to, in effect, how much evil we will compromise with. As I have come to wrestle with these questions, I find that part of the judgment must be made in light of the question: is goodness in the world (and myself) better served by my boycotting whatever is morally impure - and/or by participating in institutions in which such participation may lead to their correction and improvement? Manifestly, if the good stay away from all corrupt institutions - they will find themselves in very limited places and space of power and influence indeed; and whatever capacity they may have for correcting and improving corruption will be lost as well.  In my view, such a strategy seems likely to only make everything - and most everyone - worse, not better. Let me close, then, with deep gratitude and ongoing encouragement to my many good colleagues at AU who have kept up the good fight of internal criticism while they also continue with invaluable research and inspiring teaching. If anything, we can learn from and be inspired from their example, if we are fortunate enough to get to know it more closely, as the rest of us must also be active critics at points in our own institutions, as well as citizens of larger societies. Best, - charles ess -- Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication Director, Centre for Research on Media Innovations <http://www.hf.uio.no/imk/english/research/center/media-innovations/> University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no

Dear Sanaz and colleagues, Many thanks for this in turn. Of course, I¹m very saddened to hear of the events that you report on, and couldn¹t agree more with your noting that these are but two examples of

the complicity that we need to actively fight within academia. If anything, both within my own experience as well as based on what I've heard from colleagues from an array of institutions around the world, these examples are increasingly characteristic, especially in those parts of the world where "new public management," coupled with neoliberalism (as you say), more generally are wrecking havoc with what I think many of us see as essential notions of shared public goods, most especially education as critical to developing the skills, sensibilities, and practices required for just and robust democracies.

I'm also grateful for the clarification that your original comments were not intended as criticisms of AU in particular, but were rather general reflections. Again, I couldn't agree more with the general point. For my part, I wanted to make clear that, to my knowledge at least, many of my colleagues at AU were indeed doing precisely what you called for, including their launching rigorous, brave, and sometimes costly critiques of questionable decisions and maneuvers. I am further reminded of a mantra that some of us adopted during some of those skirmishes, apropos of F. Scott Fitzgerald: living well is the best revenge. Specifically, continuing to do our best work whenever possible as colleagues, researchers, and teachers - most especially for the sake of our students - can be a most appropriate way to respond to and counter at least some of the damage and negative directions undertaken by errant administrations. I am most confident, moreover, especially based on the comments and observations following the first offering, that the Kendall and Markham course will accomplish such excellence for all who have the privilege and pleasure to participate in it. Again, many thanks for the good comments and essential reminders. And best wishes in the meantime, - charles On 12.08.13 17:32, "Sanaz Raji" <sanaz.raji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Charles:

Thank you for your thoughts on the comments that both I and Carolina have made. I am heartened when you write that colleagues of yours at AU have put up an "good fight" concerning the Cheminova issue. Regarding my comment, by no means am I suggesting that AoIR members boycott AU and not attend Annette's course. My comments are general reflections on the matter of critically engaging with the institutions we work/research in.

At the University of Leeds, I have been apart of and witnessed research postgraduate students collectively organize to oppose further job/pay reductions for teaching assistants (TAs). For two years, a group of former and current TAs organize to encourage the university to give full employment status, adequate payment, and hours for TAs. It was upsetting, though not shocking to learn that a good many departments, TAs made less than minimum wage. Confronted with this information, I rarely if ever saw support from senior lecturers or professors, except for a few in the Geography department who were very sympathetic from the onset.

In 2010 when academic staff jobs at the University of Leeds where on the line, many lecturers asked students for their solidarity and support when they took part in strikes, which of course many students gave and were instrumental in taking part in those strikes. Yet, when postgraduate research students organized and asked their mentors and supervisors for the same kind of solidarity and support, they were instead met with silence, and a few were actively harassed by superiors they thought they could trust.  PhD poverty is a real issue that many of my close friends grapple with day in day out. Senior lecturers and professors have the the privilege to change existing inequalities within academia in order to make higher education fair and accessible.  Unfortunately, their inaction speaks louder than their words against austerity or neoliberalism in higher education. This example is just one of many of the complicity that we need to actively fight within academia.

Best wishes: Sanaz

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Charles Ess <charles.ess@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi all,

While the reminders offered by Sanaz and MC of the importance of remaining critical of our own institutions are useful and in place - first of all, it would be a mistake to think that there are no internal critics at AU: on the contrary, I know from first-hand experience that innumerable colleagues have put up the good fight at AU over these issues, and continue to do so.  Those colleagues need our collective encouragement - not the implication that because they work at AU, they are somehow morally compromised.   These reminders also raise a larger question - namely, of how far each of us must compromise with institutions, from universities to global capitalism, that we know are less than morally pure (to say the least).  As a simple example: everyone on the Air list owns and depends upon technologies that in some degree or another depend in turn upon child labor, if not slave labor.

The point of this observation is _not_ something along the lines of the common logical fallacies of "two wrongs make a right" or "common practice" (if everyone else is doing it, it must be o.k.).

It is rather to invoke Gandhi's critique of the institutions we all live in: "...to be non-violent, we must not wish for anything on this earth which the meanest and lowest of human beings cannot have." Somewhat less radically, but in the same direction, Kant also noted that "nothing straight was ever made from the crooked timber of humanity."

Given that very few  of us could (or would) lead a perfectly self-sufficient life in some isolated island somewhere - our moral challenge is then to figure out how to live by our best ethical lights with institutions (and people) who are less than morally perfect. Stated differently: given that none of us is a Gandhi - i.e., willing or able to live in such a supremely moral way - we are then left with making judgments as to, in effect, how much evil we will compromise with.

As I have come to wrestle with these questions, I find that part of the judgment must be made in light of the question: is goodness in the world (and myself) better served by my boycotting whatever is morally impure - and/or by participating in institutions in which such participation may lead to their correction and improvement? Manifestly, if the good stay away from all corrupt institutions - they will find themselves in very limited places and space of power and influence indeed; and whatever capacity they may have for correcting and improving corruption will be lost as well.  In my view, such a strategy seems likely to only make everything - and most everyone - worse, not better.

Let me close, then, with deep gratitude and ongoing encouragement to my many good colleagues at AU who have kept up the good fight of internal criticism while they also continue with invaluable research and inspiring teaching. If anything, we can learn from and be inspired from their example, if we are fortunate enough to get to know it more closely, as the rest of us must also be active critics at points in our own institutions, as well as citizens of larger societies.

Best, - charles ess -- Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication

Director, Centre for Research on Media Innovations <http://www.hf.uio.no/imk/english/research/center/media-innovations/>

University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no