However, what follows below has been edited/modified for style, such as, Quotation Marks for Effect, “Why didn’t I think about including some of this [fill in the blanks] in the original email?Â

This email is based on conversations over the years with serious student journalists and student award winners and includes my observations as well as theirs, and it may serve as a heads-up regarding barnacles in the system.

1) Will the name of the student winner or winners be included in press release information announcing all the winners and categories?  Or are the students to be relegated to the shadows as they normally have been? Previous student winners were happy with the bucks, that’s for sure, but they believed they were getting short shrift in the pageantry, something akin to, Quotation Marks for Effect, “You can be seen but not heard … and thank you very much.”

2) And if Arson isn’t as moribund as imagined in some circles, are the student winners being listed in some kind of archive like the pros? Is there any recording of the ceremonies for at least archival purposes? I know if I was running something like the Aronson, you can believe there would be articles and Youtube productions and podcasts and Blogs, at the very least, for an archive to use for potential fundraising stratagems. I would include a follow-up of with the award winners, like, WHERE ARE THEY NOW? I once organized a Center for Communication panel-event for an Aronson Day (back in the days when Aronson had to be held in the Lang because of the crowds it drew) so I know what I am talking about (though I promised on that date never, never to do that again, and I have kept the pledge).

3) Who’s on the selection committee for the student awards? Shouldn’t their names be made public? What about the issue of transparency? I ask because there were concerns several years ago that the selection process was fixed, that is, that the winners were selected arbitrarily, based on nepotism or favoritism or some other barnacle, that there was no objective evaluation nor fair evaluation of student applicants. That’s when I stopped participating with this phase of Aronson, which, true, had started without an official selection process in order to jumpstart student interest, the WORD at the time being the only serious publication with published student articles. Now, there’s the Hunts Point Express, sort of, and a rejuvenated Envoy. Yet, only two students applied last year. I wonder what that reflects?

[Okay, I know but I won't say].

3) Also, since the email sparking this response went to so-called journalism staff, it has to be said that a lot of talented students who could be applying for this award can’t because they take those writing classes that neither inspire nor require them to develop writing portfolios. Pretty much the same classes taught by colleagues who don’t require their students to rewrite their writing assignments/articles, that the students do one-time drafts. I have a problem with that and I’m going to make it an issue. We all know “most students don’t” that writing is about rewriting and not to engage students in this manner seems to imply that some colleagues want to get around the writing requirements of their W classes, which require extra effort on the part of the instructor and the students. Student learning shortchanged for a easier teaching load? Don’t colleagues believe that this undermines the progress of a lot of talented students? I do. Lots of barnacles here.

4) One would also think that students should be alerted at the beginning of the academic year that there is such a thing as Aronson so that they could have time to prepare. Maybe there should be some kind of disclaimer in the College catalogue. Something like this, Quotation Marks for Effect, “Yo, students, a few F/M journalism writing classes require you to publish,most don’t, and a few, I mean a few, require you to learn to rewrite assignments and most don’t.”

“Guess which ones are the most important for students who want to compete in the New York City internship-job market?

5) And, last but not least, Aronson is about social justice journalism because James Aronson was about social justice journalism but the student award isn’t. Very weird. Why are the students being excluded from a vibrant journalism genre. Is it because of that barnacle of thought and perception in D:F/M regarding student worthiness?* Also, someone might tell students about the purpose of the student award for which they are being asked to apply, like, what is this Aronson student award really about and why social journalism is important.

6) If Aronson, the big and the little, in tow, is headed for the elephants’ grave yard, then please ignore this email.

*I remember thinking a while back that I had convinced my department that a copy editing class was important for students interested in journalism, and then learned from a Colleague With Influence that he questioned the worthiness of it for D:F/M students, that he  believed that they were undeserving of such a course.  I subsequently wrote one of those cranky memos (that freak out the likes of Cindy Rodiguez and others) and the class was restored. For how long? I don’t know.

So, I gotta write a cranky memo every time my department sloughs off?

This email is based on conversations over the years with serious student journalists and student award winners and includes my observations as well as theirs, and it may serve as a heads-up regarding barnacles in the system.
1) Will the name of the student winner or winners be included in press release information announcing all the winners and categories?  Or are the students to be relegated to the shadows as they normally have been? Previous student winners were happy with the bucks, that’s for sure, but they believed they were getting short shrift in the pageantry, something akin to, Quotation Marks for Effect, €œYou can be seen but not heard … and thank you very much.
2) And if Arson isn’t as moribund as imagined in some circles, are the student winners being listed in some kind of archive like the pros? Is there any recording of the ceremonies for at least archival purposes? I know if I was running something like the Aronson, you can believe there would be articles and Youtube productions and podcasts and Blogs, at the very least, for an archive to use for potential fundraising stratagems. I would include a follow-up of with the award winners, like, WHERE ARE THEY NOW? I once organized a Center for Communication panel-event for an Aronson Day (back in the days when Aronson had to be held in the Lang because of the crowds it drew) so I know what I am talking about (though I promised on that date never, never to do that again, and I have kept the pledge).
3) Who’s on the selection committee for the student awards? Shouldn’t their names be made public? What about the issue of transparency? I ask because there were concerns several years ago that the selection process was fixed, that is, that the winners were selected arbitrarily, based on nepotism or favoritism or some other barnacle, that there was no objective evaluation nor fair evaluation of student applicants. That’s when I stopped participating with this phase of Aronson, which, true, had started without an official selection process in order to jumpstart student interest, the WORD at the time being the only serious publication with published student articles. Now, there’s the Hunts Point Express, sort of, and a rejuvenated Envoy. Yet, only two students applied last year. I wonder what that reflects?
[Okay, I know but I won't say].

3) Also, since the email sparking this response went to so-called journalism staff, it has to be said that a lot of talented students who could be applying for this award can’t because they take those writing classes that neither inspire nor require them to develop writing portfolios. Pretty much the same classes taught by colleagues who don’t require their students to rewrite their writing assignments/articles, that the students do one-time drafts. I have a problem with that and I’m going to make it an issue. We all know €“ most students don’t €“ that writing is about rewriting and not to engage students in this manner seems to imply that some colleagues want to get around the writing requirements of their W classes, which require extra effort on the part of the instructor and the students. Student learning shortchanged for a easier teaching load? Don’t colleagues believe that this undermines the progress of a lot of talented students? I do. Lots of barnacles here.

4) One would also think that students should be alerted at the beginning of the academic year that there is such a thing as Aronson so that they could have time to prepare. Maybe there should be some kind of disclaimer in the College catalogue. Something like this, Quotation Marks for Effect, students, a few F/M journalism writing classes require you to publish,most don’t, and a few, I mean a few, require you to learn to rewrite assignments and most don’t.
“Guess which ones are the most important for students who want to compete in the New York City internship-job market?

5) And, last but not least, Aronson is about social justice journalism because James Aronson was about social justice journalism but the student award isn’t. Very weird. Why are the students being excluded from a vibrant journalism genre. Is it because of that barnacle of thought and perception in D:F/M regarding student worthiness?* Also, someone might tell students about the purpose of the student award for which they are being asked to apply, like, what is this Aronson student award really about and why social journalism is important.

6) If Aronson, the big and the little, in tow, is headed for the elephants’ grave yard, then please ignore this email.

*I remember thinking a while back that I had convinced my department that a copy editing class was important for students interested in journalism, and then learned from a Colleague With Influence that he questioned the worthiness of it for D:F/M students, that he  believed that they were undeserving of such a course.  I subsequently wrote one of those cranky memos (that freak out the likes of Cindy Rodiguez and others) and the class was restored. For how long? I don’t know.

So, I gotta write a cranky memo every time my department sloughs off?

*I remember thinking a while back that I had convinced my department that a copy editing class was important for students interested in journalism, and then learned from a Colleague With Influence that he questioned the worthiness of it for D:F/M students, that he  believed that they were undeserving of such a course. I subsequently wrote one of those cranky memos (that freak out the likes of Cindy Rodiguez and others) and the class was restored. For how long? I don’t know.

So, I gotta write a cranky memo every time my department sloughs off?

The End

James Aronson was the consummate journalist who cared seriously about student journalists and their journalism (and he took some lumps because of that passion, that’s for sure, when he was faculty advisor for the Envoy).* He demonstrated genuine concern in contrast to those fronting the pretensions. He would be proud to know Kisha and Jacqueline Fernandez and Jonathan Mena, the WORD correspondents to the Demoratic National Convention, as well as many of their peers who slog through F/M’s trenches, negotiating its foibles to distinguish themselves and also opening the doors for others. That cannot be denied.

So, I don’t believe James Aronson would be upset about me raising issues in my email response [not on this listserv] to so-called “Journalism Faculty” about a student award in his name, an award that was suppose to be one of distinction but fell under one of the chimerical spells of D:F/M.

 

 

 

 

 

He was a patriarch of social justice journalism, and it’s bizarre that the undergraduate student journalism award in his name has nothing to do with that genre. Be that as it may, one of the more serious issues has been its selection process. So, anyone receiving bvazque’s email-fwd of my remarks [again not on this list], whether they appreciated them or not, need to understand the suspicions about a lack of objectivity and transparency.

What would be the problem in students knowing that the 200 bucks come way of the generosity of [fill in the blanks] and that the committee members are [fill in the blanks]. And, of course, telling them who James Aronson is [in a little bio] wouldn’t hurt. I think those suggestions for transparency could contribute to a strong foundation for authenticity. Maybe a logo could be added about the importance of student journalism as part of the learning process. Aronson obviously believed that.

Nevertheless, the student award may be as moribund as the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism, but that doesn’t mean its standards should be less than what Aronson would have expected.

Regarding the ditty in bvazque’s email fwd, “Most Film and Media dept. faculty know that Gregg can raise issues in ways that are contentious”: Obviously, some colleagues are still smarting over the grade tampering and grade appeal fiascos and the other ignominies that can no longer be hidden, might I had [sic - should have been add not had], no longer should be hidden. So, I believe the following zombies would make better scapegoats [fill in the blanks].

And that’s what I wrote (and regret that I didn’t add at least one sentence about The Four Barnacles of the Apocalypse).

 
End Part V of VI

 

*Aronson was the faculty advisor for the Hunter Envoy, often described as the undergraduate student newspaper of the campus, when one of its editors published an attack piece on a student activist-type. I admit that the latter is not a good description of the student targeted for criticism but the reality is that said student sued the newspaper for libel and Aronson was named in the suit. It took many years for me to dredge up this information because it’s one of those skeletons in a closet and no one wants to admit hearing the bones rattling, probably due to shame and guilt and betrayal and other sinister reasons. Nevertheless: The College refused to represent him and Aronson was forced to cough up $$$ for his defense. He subsequently stopped advising the publication. Neither did the College support the Envoy, which was (and continues to be) an independent operation. When Peter Parisi and I were hired many years later, one of our assigned tasks was to reinvigorate the Envoy, which, when we were hired, was publishing once or twice a year.

In my second semester of my first year, I started requiring my students to submit articles to the Envoy. It subsequently started publishing regularly. That caught everyone’s attention. I often worked with student editors and some writers, even during the worst moments of that publications existence, and still do but I do it cautiously.

What occurred at that publication during the years that I’ve been at Hunter reflect on the dynamics of D:F/M as well as the personalities of D:F/M colleagues involved in the some of the sordid matters of the publication. But that story can’t be told in this journal.

But this tiny quip can: Reinvigorating that publication subsequently triggered the first whoops of the opening phase of The Mother of All Academic Wars.

From: Cindy Rodriguez
To: gmorris@hunter.cuny.edu, bvazque@hunter.cuny.edu
Cc: [She copied lots of folks]

Contentious
Main Entry:
con·ten·tious
Pronunciation:
\kən-ˈten(t)-shəs\
Function:
adjective
Date:
15th century
1 : likely to cause contention 2 : exhibiting an often perverse and wearisome tendency to quarrels and disputes
synonyms see belligerent
con·ten·tious·ly adverb
con·ten·tious·ness noun

Seems like a pretty accurate use of the word to me.

Cindy

____________________________________
Cindy Rodriguez
Adjunct Professor of Journalism
Department of Film and Media Studies
Hunter College (CUNY)
Mobile: 212-810-1100
cindy.rodriguez@hunter.cuny.edu

The sprawling brawl continues to sprawl. Nevertheless, a reply was necessary.

Â

End part IV of VI

My reply was 761 words of pointed insights.

A five-point summary of it follows.

One, I believed that the student winners needed to be treated with respect instead of being relegated to the shadows as they usually have been, as in, Quotation Marks for Effect, “You will be seen but not heard … and thank you very much.”

Two, as a former serious promoter of the Aronson (I once coordinated a Center for Communication panel discussion for the award after I had learned that the Center did panel discussions for the prestigious Polk Awards at the Brooklyn campus of Long Island University), I pointed out that the award had been poorly promoted for years (especially after I stopped participating in the promotion but I didn’t say that in my email reply, that’s for sure. And it seemed to have acquired a kind of flimflam element or maybe I should say D:F/M smoke-and-mirrors tint or maybe it had, by osmosis, been influenced by good ol D:F/M Chimera, but I didn’t write any of that in the email, that’s for sure).

Before attendance began petering out, or, perhaps, before anyone noticed how it was PETERING,* the Aronson award attracted audiences of 200+ and was held in the Lang Auditorium. In recent years, it’s been held in small rooms with a plurality of students in attendance, students who know little of Aronson but attend nevertheless – because they are required to. At a strategic pause in the award ceremony, the students leave, resulting in a staggering visage of the PETERING** effect: Because the students are not required to stay for the whole event they seem to flee not in panic but in relief. 

Three, the student award was started several years ago to promote interest in the social justice journalism of James Aronson but the student award doesn’t mention social justice journalism. There is no description of the award. It’s just this journalism award that gives two-hundred bucks. I once suggested to Peter Parisi that social justice journalism should be considered as part of the curriculum in some way – I raised this at a department meeting years ago – but he wasn’t interested. PP is the colleague actively involved in organizing the Aronson awards. 

Four, some students years ago started complaining that the fix was in. That suspicion plus shenanigans (one being Peter Parisi [in a pique of narcissistic jealousy, probably] telling an Aronson audience that the WORD was a department project) led to me no longer contributing nor attending the ceremony. This year, however, it seemed appropriate to suggest that sponsors consider a more transparent selection process.

Five, a point I belabor but don’t want to belabor here: Too many of the journalism news writing classes in D:F/M are shameful, that is, the students are not advised nor taught nor learn that writing requires rewriting and none of the introductory classes, except mine, require students to publish articles so that they can learn to generate portfolios of the kind that the Aronson organizers say are necessary for students to participate. In fact most of the advanced writing classes, except all mine and a so-called neighborhood reporting class, don’t emphasize the importance of rewriting nor developing portfolios. Portfolios are necessary if students want to compete for the best internships and jobs. And the dynamics of developing a portfolio of published works can be an invigorating and compelling learning experience for instructor and teacher.

So, I shudder at this possibility: That the Aronson may come to be perceived as a D:F/M Thimblerig? JA would be turning over in his grave if that were to become imagined.

Nevertheless, I was expecting some disgruntlement and got one from an adjunct, Cindy Rodriguez.

Say, who?

 

End of Part III of VI

 

*Apologies for the inside joke.
**Really, really for the inside joke but I couldn’t resist.

“Hi Aronsonians, I am forwarding a note from Gregg Morris, who teaches journalism at Hunter and who has raised concerns about the Aronson student undergraduate prize. Separating his concerns from how he states them would be a good thing. Most Film and Media dept. faculty know that Gregg can raise issues in ways that are contentious.”  [— Blanca Vasquez, Adjunct Instructor]

So, what’s the skinny on this teapot?

Answer: A microcosmic footnote in D:F/M’s sprawling brawl which can best be visualized in several complaints filed with the Hunter College Ombudsman office. And from several complaints filed with the Hunter College Senate. Even more in a myriad of posts on Hunter-L, the College Listserv. And numerous memos to the department – numerous – including those surreptitiously leaked. 

Regarding the latter, I wrote this memo a while back, and the department chair leaked it to a dean who wrote me a letter demanding that I participate in an investigation (tantamount to an inquisition) of several colleagues. The chair had been hoping I would get into some kind of trouble for the manner in which I described some D:F/M debauchery – there had been previous leaks – but the plan ricocheted. Backfired/ Careened and boomeranged and flip-flopped and then flop-flipped, threatening to draw into sniper scopes of embarrassing scrutiny not me but several colleagues with influence.

I, however, told the dean it wasn’t in my best interests to drop dimes on the debauched. I mean, I wanted to but not the way the dean wanted me to.

And there’s the smattering here and there of this and that, like that with the New York Civil Liberties Union and those requests for tactical support from the National Writer’s Union and PEN and the PSC others and others and others, amounting to a byzantine paper trail, beyond normal academic imagination, unlike any ever developed at Hunter College or City University of New York or … anywhere. Of near cosmic proportions. Whew.

So much for the rehash. On with the latest deconstruct.

Journalism Faculty,
Please post to your students and encourage applications! There is a $200
award to two student winners We are also posting on student sites and
Hunter-L.

Thanks,
Blanca

That announcement with an attachment was sent to three full-time faculty members teaching journalism writing classes and four part-time instructors, unwittingly creating an opportunity for a discussion about the discombobulation in the D:F/M journalism effort. I had issues I wanted to air, actually, to reiterate, and the microcosmic promise of this attachment was too much too ignore.

So, I replied.

And then Blanca did her thing.

 

End, Part II of VI

Before she embarked on a path to ingratiate herself into D:F/M  – or perhaps before I knew she had embarked – Blanca Vasquez and I commiserated occasionally about some of its sordid features. For example, the reputation of a College Lab Technician known for his dedication to students and his technical smarts inspired a fully tenured professor who, flushed in villainy and stealth and paranoia, orchestrated the demise of the CLT as a member of D:F/M.

I kid you not.

I recall how BV, on a particular day we were sitting in the courtyard of Hunter’s West Building, cried out in anguished that she would never forget the underhanded demise of the CLT, her friend. She referred to the culprit with the measured cryptic idiom  “they,” a familiar stratagem imagined to cloak one from being targeted for badmouthing a colleague of significance or one of influence, in this case, the debauched colleague with whom she was ingratiating herself (even though that colleague had plunged the knife into the CLT’s back).

I was touched, indelibly, by her anguish, so much so that years after the collegial commiserating in that courtyard, the calumny she communicated in the email to strangers who didn’t know me caught me off guard. The psychodynamics of D:F/M should always be in the forefront of the minds of D:F/M instructors and staff and other habitues, even if only commiserating in the courtyard of the Hunter West Building, so that the worst one may experience when a Judas (small j or capital) or a Quisling (small q or capital) or a Brutus (small b or capital) or a Madoff (small m or capital) shifts into assassin mode, is a pinprick and not a coup de grâce. I wasn’t shocked, only surprised. A nanosecond. 

"Hi Aronsonians,
I am forwarding a note from Gregg Morris, who teaches journalism at Hunter
and who has raised concerns about the Aronson student undergraduate prize.
Separating his concerns from how he states them would be a good thing.
Most Film and Media dept. faculty know that Gregg can raise issues in ways that
are contentious." [— Blanca Vasquez, Adjunct Instructor]

A cheap shot ever there was one.

To keep from sucking students into D:F/M’s vertiginous imbroglio, an offense of which I’ve often accused my colleagues (and warned students invited to the fray to ignore their importuning and stay clear of the firefighting – we take no prisoners), my plan has been to move the swordplay and saber rattling to another journal. But this cheap shot can’t be ignored, especially because of its timing and the shoddy attempt to undermine the validity of issues I and others consider serious (as well as because of the camouflaging of the identities of  the real culprits of contentiousness, some real D:F/M lulus). 

Yep, this episode most probably measures up to no more than a tempest in a teapot (The Four Barnacles of the Apocalypse have been far more sinister). A tempest, it is, nevertheless.

 

End, Part I of VI

 

 

 

 

Deconstructing a Snippet of the Minutes of the December, 2008, Faculty Meeting of the Department of Film and Media Studies

[What Really Goes on Behind Some Walls of the Academy]

Morris stated that he had unresolved issues with faculty. These details were written in his group emails to faculty. Roman responded that he will follow up any complaints 
made by Morris with the Ombudsman. — Shanti Thaku, the minutes of the December, 2008, faculty meeting.

I’m considering encouraging my students to BLOG here, and I’m certain that they would be uncomfortable participating in a BLOG site describing the dark side of the department where they major, minor or take classes even though I believe the info here could help the committed students to navigate this place so that they could get the best out of an educational operation that I have described on numerous occasions as one of Farce & Mediocrity.

That’s the reason for the wrap-up of this deconstruct, though, by now, the internecine imbroglio has pretty much distinguished itself in the Academy here at 68th and Lexington on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, though my colleagues, would never admit that in any kind of forum.

That’s because they are awash in chimera.

On with the wrap-up.

Mick Hurbis-Cherrier, the Acting Chair, started off the February 18 department meeting praising the chair, Jay Roman, on a sudden leave of absence this semester [sudden, that is, to me], and the former chair, Stewart Ewen, as “great” leaders. He also expressed fear, his voice quivering, about trying to follow in their august paths as a acting leader for one semester. Great chairs?

Y-a-w-n.

Roman wasn’t at the meeting where no one responded and no one gasped at the “great” leaders comment. There were no jeers. No rebel yells. Nor moans nor fidgeting in the chairs surrounding the conjoined tables set up conference style where we sit. There also were no cheers, hoo-ah’s, back-slapping nor any other joyous affirmations inspired by Hurbris-Cherrier’s quivering praise. The room was silent except for his voice.

What follows is an anecdote – I have loads I’m trying to weave into a narrative – that I believe puts my silence in perspective. I got this email during the last year from my department chair before he was dispatched, telling me that he and the P&B preferred that I not teach basic reporting for a while [syllabus, assignments, interviewing rules]. They believed that the reputation of that class as a tough one as I taught it was responsible for a drop in enrollment in the department’s journalism and media courses.

I kid you not.

The chair and the deputy chair and the media studies advisor were quoted, directly and indirectly, in an Envoy article almost a year ago offering other reasons for the decline in enrollment across the majors, film and media studies (journalism is the equivalent of a concentration though it could be a lot more robust with serious leadership). I wouldn’t say they lied. I wouldn’t say they fabricated. I haven’t heard any rational explanations in department meetings, though, I have my suspicions. The influential colleagues making policy and decisions in D:F/M pretty much eschew student input. There is one-way communication, no two-way. They also eschew info from colleagues like me, for example, who know more about journalism and journalism education than anyone else in this department if not the school. That’s what they are: The big eschew-ers. The reality that they couldn’t have a face-to-face discussion with me says a lot about the dynamics of this department. I thought my response was rational and reasonable but I won’t provide that here. I’m saving it for a rainy day.

Nevertheless, there are moments when I experience this wry state of consciousness catalyzed by episodes of chimerical lunacy that seem as if they’re about to swamp me like a tsunami, and I have to decide, usually quickly, Do I take them out now, or take them on later, just as I did a while back when some colleagues, upset about my FORD Foundation grant, were jeering and sneering wildly at a department meeting – I kid you not – as I sat there evaluating my options: Take them out now, or take them on later?

I chose later, the plan mischievously but salubriously punitive, salubrious for me, not them, as it reverberated through the College Listserv where I had described the department meeting. My F/M colleagues have a lot to hide. I don’t. At the subsequent department meeting after the listserv post, I was expecting and was prepared for an all out, no-holds-barred, in-yer-face-teeth-gnashing brawl, an Academic melee of volcanic proportions. I expected to hear, Quotation Marks for Effect,  “Son-of-a-bitch. You describe us as redneck hillbillies infected with mad redneck disease!” My rejoinder was to be something like, Quotation Marks for Effect, !@#$ Bring it on. *&$yourmommaauntsuncles&%!+! No one, however, snapped or growled, though there were was obvious smoldering in the conjoined seats. I saw fidgeting that revealed rage – especially from the non-tenured colleagues who had been the main chorus of what I described as hillbilly rebel-yelling.

They wimped out.

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Before the March meeting, I got this response from the Acting Chair about my wish to change the vote I had erroneously made in the February department meeting.

Â

Hi Gregg,

Votes are tough because the procedures for relatively minor votes (approving minutes) are the same as those for significant votes (Dept. Chair).  I think that in this case the proper protocol would be for you to indicate at the

next faculty meeting your desire to be on the record as having changed your mind about the vote cast at the February meeting to approve the minutes of the December meeting.  This change of heart will be recorded in the minutes of the March meeting.Â

Take care.

– mick

Â

Change of heart?! I had erred, I hadn’t read the proposed minutes sent out before the February come-together. I voted on something that was egregiously misconstrued, misreported, misrepresented. I goofed. And I was suppose to show up expressing a change of heart?  I showed up at the March meeting and voted against the minutes of the last meeting even though the scribe had nothing to do with the issue/minutes of my concern. I wanted to make a point. I plan to reiterate until there is closure.

My chair once told a former acting dean in an email – this is an accurate paraphrase – that the issue of enmity between me and him and colleagues was my unwillingness to do what my colleagues wanted me to do (I have the original emails: mine, his and the dean). I responded that I wouldn’t engage in nor assist colleagues involve in the illegal, the immoral, the amoral, the wrong, the flagrantly iniquitous.

The higher powers believe this imbroglio could negatively impact the department. I know that it negatively impacts students. Two influential colleagues I queried about this concern told me to ignore the higher-ups (and, in a sense, my experiences and observations) because everything was cool. So, with their comments in mind, I put this to the department at a faculty meeting and the chimera flowed.

Â

postscript

Deconstructing a Snippet of the Minutes of the December, 2008, Faculty Meeting of the Department of Film and Media Studies

[What Really Goes on Behind Some Walls of the Academy]

Morris stated that he had unresolved issues with faculty. These details were written in his group emails to faculty. Roman responded that he will follow up any complaints 
made by Morris with the Ombudsman. — Shanti Thaku, the minutes of the December, 2008, faculty meeting.

So, I put the question to the department and there was no discussion, but comments from the chair, Jay Roman; the deputy chair, Kelly Anderson; Larry Shore, former chair of the grade appeals committee and now the department’s media advisor; Tami Gold, the PSC rep at Hunter; and Steve Gorelick.

Kelly Anderson said – I’m accurately paraphrasing what she said but I’m using Quote Marks for Effect – “I bet you’re talking about me.” She was referring to my comment about “unresolved issues” with colleagues and didn’t address the question about the conflict.

Larry Shore did respond directly to the question, actually he snarled, God bless him, saying that the conflict could harm the image of the department but he snapped that I was making things up, saying in so many words that I was lying (someone, not me, gasped at what the accusation) and he also said that F/M was a “great” department.

“What conflict?” Tami Gold said after Shore spoke. She said that she didn’t understand what I was talking about, expressing incredulousness about the question and she wanted an explanation. I snarled – accurately paraphrasing but I’m using Quote Marks for Effect – “Complaints with the Ombudsman Office and the Senate Grade Appeals Committee, postings on Hunter-L” and more. I went down the list. I don’t recall saying anything to her about the NYCLU. I know I didn’t mention the National Writers Union. She quickly shut up.

Just as the meeting was wrapping up Steve Gorelick talked about his “pain.” He surprised me and I believe everyone else. He was trying to appear that he wasn’t taking sides and his comment was muddled. So, after hearing him say several times about his pain, I asked him: “What do you want to do about it.” And he snapped his response, Quote Marks for Effect: “Nothing, I just want you to know I’m in pain.”

Deconstructing a Snippet of the Minutes of the December, 2008, Faculty Meeting of the Department of Film and Media Studies

[What Really Goes on Behind Some Walls of the Academy]

Morris stated that he had unresolved issues with faculty. These details were written in his group emails to faculty. Roman responded that he will follow up any complaints 
made by Morris with the Ombudsman. — Shanti Thaku, the minutes of the December, 2008, faculty meeting.

At the meeting I’ve referred to as this first blip on the radar,  I revealed my contact with the New York Civil Liberties Union but didn’t reveal my contact with the National Writers Union, which had responded positively to my request for support.

NWU is very aggressive in supporting its members, and had come to my support in previous conflicts, including one with a county prosecutor in Ithaca, New York, threatening to subpoena me regarding information in my second published book, The Kids Next Door: Sons and Daughters Who Killed Their Parents (William Morrow & Co.) and a later threat of a federal subpoena from a Cleveland court regarding my third published book, Unspeakable Acts: The Ordeal of Thomas Waters-Rimmer (William Morrow & Co.).

The second book got decent reviews and made money; the third did not make money but was listed as one of the New York Times Notable Books of the Year 1993.

I would have contacted the Student Press Law Center had I known then that it also repped faculty in First Amendment issues regarding student publications. Interfering with the publication of a student news medium, regardless if operated by faculty or students, is akin to a mortal sin in some circles. SPLC is a very aggressive organization regarding First Amendment rights. I was also in contact with other groups, such as PEN, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the National Association of Black Journalists and a few other Academic Freedom types.

But the NYCLU and NWU seemed poised for action. I also started work on a press conference to be held on the sidewalk in front of the Hunter North Building. But, of course, a lot of the defense stratagem was unnecessary. I’m including all this information as a primer for those who find themselves in similar situations. It helps to know resources. It is absolutely essential to know how to fight for your rights.

From Part III: “But I have to add the following: I asked this before the resolution for obstruction. Quote Marks for Effect: “So, why couldn’t we just talk about this?”

The succinct version of “this”: Shortly after I arrived on campus in 1995, I started requiring my students in my journalism writing classes to submit articles for publication in the Hunter Envoy, which at that time was publishing once or twice a year but because of the surfeit of articles coming from my classes started publishing twice a month. One of the major expectations in the hiring of me and colleague Peter Parisi was to resurrect the Envoy and reinvigorate undergraduate journalism at Hunter. 

That resurrection attracted a lot of attention from student activists who eventually took over the publication and turned into into a despicable rag and also attention from colleagues in my department who tacitly supported the student activists and who alsowere just bent on a power play to disrupt what I had been trying to do.

The internecine brawl that had been brewing before the big department meeting over my publishing the WORD sprawled exponentially in ways that I hadn’t anticipated after that meeting: I filed complaints and there were several episodes of physical altercations and threats and foot chases and more violence, the real and the virtual. The Student Liberation Action Movement was in a state of decline and took a licking, especially when my students started publishing articles exposing its sleaze.

But the first big blip also gave me more clarity regarding the nature of my colleagues and the  and mission of the department. One interesting feature has been how this conflict has been portrayed here at Hunter/CUNY. Which brings me back to the deconstruction of Shanti Thakur’s three sentences.

In spring 2008, I asked two old-timers, Bob Stanley and Joel Zucker, about their opinions of what I was told about the administration’s concern, and they insisted that the administration’s concern was unrealistic, that there had been conflicts in the past far more serious before I arrived and that the department had never suffer harm. Zucker, F/M’s film advisor, and Stanley, a former department chair, are members of the Policy and Budget Committee.

They were blowing smoke. Of course.

So I sent the email in December, 2008, so that I could evaluate whether a discussion was possible under the meeting agenda’s “New Business.”* Everyone in the department was copied the email. This was stated clearly: That I wanted to know if others believed that the image of the department could be harmed by this ongoing conflict.

Also in that email, which included an attachment because what I wrote was more than 1000 words, I described episodes that were examples fueling this adversarial relationship with colleagues: One, a crudely defamatory and incredibly insidious effort on the part of four colleagues (three who made up the departments grade appeals committee) to help a student who had flunked my advanced reporting class to get credit that she didn’t deserve. In their decision, which was unanimously reversed on appeal by the Hunter Senate Grade Appeals Committee, I was accused of harassing her because I had flunked her and they intimated that I be investigated.

I kid you not.

One of the signers of the decision hadn’t even met with the student as required though the decision clearly inferred that he had. He simply allowed his name to be added to the decision written, of course, by colleague Larry Shore, then chair of the F/M grade appeals committee.

And the other episode involved an effort by two colleagues to give a student who was their buddy – that’s the best way I can describe the relationship – a grade that he didn’t deserve. Succinctly: I filed complaints exposing what I consider egregious behavior and I prevailed but the results, of course, fueled more animosity. Some colleagues are like the energizer bunny when it comes to cheap shots and insults and slights.  They absolutely will not stop.

Or like the BORG.

Or the Terminator.

I kid you not.

End of Part IV

 

 

postscript

Deconstructing a Snippet of the Minutes of the December, 2008, Faculty Meeting of the Department of Film and Media Studies

[What Really Goes on Behind Some Walls of the Academy]

Morris stated that he had unresolved issues with faculty. These details were written in his group emails to faculty. Roman responded that he will follow up any complaints 
made by Morris with the Ombudsman. — Shanti Thaku, the minutes of the December, 2008, faculty meeting.

Now, colleague Larry Shore, former chair of the department’s grade appeals committee which I had been describing in several venues “as one of the most corrupt” at Hunter if not CUNY, candidly responded to the question, “Recommend For New Business, Wednesday, Grade Tampering in F/M – A Big Barnacle: Is a Discussion Needed?” His comments, however, never made it into the department minutes.

Thaku only wrote that the chair had made a response without clarifying that his words had nothing to do with the big question. Maybe she believed that obstructing the context and excluding the responses of the three other colleagues, neither mentioned nor identified in the minutes, would protect them and the department from embarrassment. Maybe someone told her that including the other comments was politically unwise. Or maybe she was indulging in F/M’s formula for political correctness. The latest recruit for obstruct, obstruct, obstruct? Too many maybes, I will admit.

I was annoyed when I learned of the faux record/account, my discovery occurring after I and other colleagues had voted to approve the minutes at the beginning of the first department meeting this semester. I voted without scrutinizing every line of the multipage document. Whether deliberately or not, the three sentences had been rendered like the fine print we are regularly reminded to read. So, there, again, I was approving an obstruction, though this time it wasn’t intended: I had missed the subterfuge.

Nevertheless I contacted Acting Chair Mick Hurbis-Cherrier: 2/11/09 5:38 PM:

> Hi,
>
> I just read through the third page of the December 10 minutes and realized
> that I somehow overlooked a passage with my name in it near the bottom.
> I want to amend my “approved” vote to “opposed.” Do I do this via email?
> With a motion at the next department meeting? How?
>
> I’m not asking that the statement be removed or clarified or cleaned up,
> whatever. I just want the record to reflect, amended, I voted no. I will
> make sure in the future that I thoroughly read the minutes.

And he responded Sat 14 Feb 18:26:29:

“Votes are tough because the procedures for relatively minor votes (approving minutes) are the same as those for significant votes (Dept. Chair). I think that in this case the proper protocol would be for you to indicate at the next faculty meeting your desire to be on the record as having changed your mind about the vote cast at the February meeting to approve the minutes of the December meeting. This change of heart will be recorded in the minutes of the March meeting.”

But I eventually realized that the sentences, in context, provide insight into the Department of Film and Media Studies. Thus, the deconstruction. Instead of the 800-pound gorilla in F/M, imagine a Mt. Vesuvius spewing fumes of unadulterated sordidness. Exaggerated? I think not. F/M seems to be always trying to sweep under a rug the consequences of its wackiness and scandals which have been massing for years and there seems to be no end to colleagues ready to join in. Like The 4 Barnacles of the Apocalypse.

More than a year ago, I was told by a member of the central administration that the College wanted to pump funds into the Department of Film and Media Studies so that it could become a showcase for film, media studies and journalism, but there was concern that the ongoing conflict could seriously impact those plans. This conflict first blipped on the radar, so to speak, several years ago at a department meeting. A former department chair and those I regard as his minion wanted to take control of the WORD. Serious First Amendment and Academic Freedom principles had to be breeched in order for the seizure to take place.

Now, there are colleagues in F/M who have been embossing their public personas with solemn assertions about Academic Freedom and Collegiality and professor empowerment and union solidarity and other caparisons. And guess who was leading the charge with the help of a goon squad of the ersatz and thankfully deceased Student Liberation Action Movement?

I know that some will be upset about the use of “goon squad” but for many years SLAM members (many of them not students) palavered and swaggered like goons, so that, well, the description is more than apropos. SLAM may have started nobly as a honest to goodness uprising of concerned student activists but it eventually mutated into an honest to goodness vile and loathing undergraduate student government engaged in all forms of odious behavior and was known to dispatch whacked members to attack students or instructors or anyone that the student-funded organization perceived as a threat. Or, easy prey.

Preferably easy prey because a lot of them huffed and puffed but were quick with a hasty retreat from targets wrongly targeted as easy prey and were ready to fight back. And there were colleagues more than willing to support them.

About three days before the department meeting that would blip on the radar, I chased out of my office a colleague who had been embossing her public persona as an empress of faculty empowerment and camaraderie (via the Professional Staff Congress, the union representing faculty and most staff at the University). She had walked into my office and stated that “we’re going to tell you” what I could and couldn’t publish in the WORD.

I was suppose to be intimidated. I was suppose to feel bad. I was suppose to keel over, prostrate on the floor, wailing my head off for mercy. Anyway, she fled my office shouting unintelligibles, fleeing as if she thought I was planning to smite her when I rose from my office chair. Another colleague came to my office as part of a ploy to soften me up for the pummeling being planned for the department meeting. Quote Marks for Effect: ”I am your friend and you are accused of abusing your power as a professor.”

Here is the succinct description: I had written a really witty op ed rejoinder about a very vulgar SLAM-er (this guy could spew four-letter expletives faster than I could form the words in my mind) who had attacked me in an editorial in the student newspaper the Envoy, left a vulgar screed on my office door and had provoked a confrontation that caused me to chase him out of the Hunter North building. He was known for his cursing binges, and I had described him as the campus’ village idiot and announced an award in his name. He complained and, according to the second colleague visiting my office, in so many words, I was to be brought up on charges of abusing my power as a professor.

At the department meeting, after what seemed 30 minutes of me refuting incredibly obtuse and bovine arguments by colleagues intent on the takeover of the WORD, so to speak, or intent on showing their support for colleagues intent on the takeover, and my pointing out, which was ignored, that there were serious Academic Freedom issues (I didn’t have the presence of mind to bring up the obvious First Amendment issues, I was arguing with sooooo many colleagues), I announced that the New York Civil Liberties Union was interested in my case and that I was ready to go to court.

I recall the former chair’s reaction. Some of his minion were still trying to argue (they probably believed I was bluffing or were too ignorant of the ace I had just pulled from my sleeve), and he looked as if he had been bushwhacked but his response was as sober as one could imagine of a leader of a major misadventure.

[I hadn’t wanted a confrontation with him or the department at this point but no one, and I mean no one, was going to trample on my rights without a fight.]

As he was strongly signaling that he was no longer interested in the fight, a colleague, a member of the Policy and Budget Committee,  motioned to table the matter, providing a face saving solution. And it was unanimously passed, in essence, that the matter would never be brought up again (as I was told after the meeting but didn’t believe the source of the comment). And there also was unanimous agreement that the details of that meeting, including the comment by a whacked colleague that I was in the gutter, were not to be included or reflected in the minutes of the meeting because of the embarrassment it might cause the department and, of course, the whacked colleague.

And also included in the spirit  of that resolution was that the specifics and details of future brawls not be reflected in the minutes – for the same reasoning. That is, the image of the department was to be protected. And there I was, participating in another major obfuscation. I concurred; I thought the big fight was over. Nevertheless, I secured the original notes of the then department stenographer, Christine Noschese.

I have to add the following: After the resolution for obstruction was passed, I asked the following question. Quote Marks for Effect: “So, why couldn’t we have just talked about this?”

But, of course, no one responded.

Â

End of Part III

Â

Postscript