Letter From the Editor

I have been reading a book about the history of conversation on and off for the past few weeks. I may as well tell you that I always have a stack of books on my night stand. The height of that stack can sometimes be terrifying. I pick and choose from among the books each night. I think college ruined me reading non-fiction books cover-to-cover. I don’t have to now, and so I usually don’t. I get them all read, but go back and forth between them. Anyway, I have found the history of conversation to be one of the most compelling books I have read in a long time. In essence, the author argues that the art of conversation is a complex and exacting one. One of the most compelling ideas from the book is that one enters into a conversation with no preconceived conclusions. It is getting to the conclusion that provides the entertainment. Conversation is all about the importance of listening.

To talk with someone, to try to persuade that person of the correctness of your opinions, is debate not conversation. I have for a long time now thought that our country is chock-a-block full of people ready to debate. People will debate anything, but when it comes to conversing, I think we Americans have lost our way, sadly. We are a nation of chatterers, not a nation of listeners. Furthermore, because conversation has been replaced by debate, this has resulted in the polarization of our society. Either you’re with me, or you’re against me. There is no in between where we converse about the ideas behind our differences.

We took our kids to a rally against the War in Iraq a few weeks ago. I live in a college town, a bubble of liberalism in a solidly Midwestern state. As a result, I met friends and acquaintances at the rally, the usual suspects who show up at such events. Part of the rally was a march to the local Federal Building, where the names of all of the soldiers killed in the war were being displayed. We walked and chatted with friends about everything except politics. We caught up on gossip and enjoyed a beautiful sunny day. While walking down Main Street, a young man on the sidewalk looked on in disgust. Then, he started screaming: “Go Bush. Go Bush. Fuck you. Fuck all of you. Go home.” My eldest son looked on in shock. Wasn’t everyone against war?

I explained that the man had just as much right to express his opinions as we who were marching did. That was democracy. I had a fleeting thought as I watched that man yell. That thought was to walk over and invite him to join our march, but to express his own opinion. I thought about offering to walk next to him while he did so. Perhaps if I had not been with my kids I would have done so. Perhaps not. However, I remember feeling sad that screaming profanities was what the debate had boiled down to.

Recently, in Idaho, an adjunct faculty member who made what were described as “inflammatory” remarks about Republicans in her English class has been the target of right-wing bloggers and has received death threats. As ridiculous as it sounds, she is being persecuted for having voiced an opinion. The faculty member allegedly said, according to a short piece published in The Chronicle, she favored the “death penalty for Republicans, and that people who voted for Bush could not read.” Can anyone tell me how this is more threatening than declaring, in the age of kings, that “all men were created equal....” I used to tell my composition students to just imagine George III laughing, guffawing, slapping his knee and, maybe, telling the guy reading the Declaration of Independence to him to stop joking and just read what was written.... All men were created equal, indeed. People who voted for Bush could not read, indeed.

Frankly, I am sure some of the people who voted for George Bush, as well as some who voted for John Kerry were not the brightest stars in the heavens. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for voting (driving or having children) in our country. Citizens who register may vote. Semantics and motor-voter laws aside, my point is this: the faculty member referred to above has said she was trying to stimulate discussion, spark conversation in her class. She was not doing this; she was trying to get her students to debate, not to converse or discuss with each other. If this slide into political polarization and reliance on debate in the place of conversation is ever to be reversed, it will have to begin within higher education. It is clear, however, that with faculty members like this one roaming the classrooms, we all may have to wait quite a while for conversation to make a comeback.

In this issue of the magazine, I hope you will find among the pieces something to spark a hearty conversation with a colleague. Matthew Henry Hall’s wonderful cartoon, which lampoons the “reasons” administrators use to terminate adjunct faculty, is a great jumping off point for conversations. Matt is hard at work on another batch of cartoons for the next issue of the magazine, including “Super Adjunct” panels.

I found Jason Heath while blog hopping. I regularly do Google searches for blogs written by part-time faculty, as well as blogs which mention part-time faculty. Jason, a musician, was writing about his new job as a part-time faculty member. The math he does will be familiar to many. His frankness about what that math augurs for part-time faculty, is welcome and refreshing.

Laura Yeager’s piece has an interesting genesis. She emailed me one day asking if I would be interested in reading an essay she wanted to write about getting let go from her part-time teaching job. Very soon thereafter, the essay you will read in this issue of the magazine popped into my email in-box.

Finally, you will find a piece in this issue by Shari Dinkins. Shari has been writing for Adjunct Advocate for several years, since she was a part-timer teaching at a college in the San Francisco Bay Area. She has a full-time teaching job now. It was wonderful to watch her succeed in that arduous process. It’s better still to print her work.

Please enjoy this issue of Adjunct Advocate. The work of many bright and talented people went into the production of the magazine. I hope you’ll share it with your colleagues.–P.D. Lesko