an open letter (not mine): performance studies conferece at Villanova

a letter by Jonny Gray and Craig Gingrich-Philbrook criticizing Villanova University and President Fr. Peter Donoghue circulated today via the NYU performance studies listserve. it being described as "open," i haven't sought permission to reprint it here, but i'll place the full text after the jump; the nutshell content is that the writers are breaking a silence surrounding the retraction of Tim Miller's invitation to work with Villanova students on campus. i'm working under the assumption that if it an open letter is released into the wild, it qualifies for posting even though i wasn't one of the original addressees. the Villanova pages about the upcoming conference--on, sad-facedly, "the economies and ethics of performance"--are here, and a write-up of the circumstances from the campus "Cardinal Newman Society" is here, characterizing Tim Miller as a "militant gay rights performance activist" (not a compliment in this context, although LGBTQ rights and queer studies deserve vigilant champions).

interesting tidbits include Fr. Donoghue's self-identification as a theatre director, and the connection, by him, of his work in that context to Miller's dis-invitation:

As a theatre director, I have faced the issue of how to evoke such a response in a way that I deem appropriate for myself, my actors and audiences. . . . . As an artist and a priest, I find the choices that Mr. Miller makes to be disturbing. While some may disagree, as president of Villanova University I can assure you it is the explicit, graphic and sexual content of his performances that led to this decision—a decision that in no way was affected by issues of sexual orientation

according to the open letter that follows the jump, Miller was not scheduled to perform any of his own work.   also interesting:  the letter writers' trenchant observation that since Miller's books are available in the university's library, it is his actual, embodied queer personage (and, presumably its potential for threatening pedagogy) that becomes visible as objectionable in the administration's eyes.

forewarned, the letter is long and has footnotes (and has not been rigorously re-formatted by me for this presentation). 

the announcement provoked the usual ambivalence in me about marriage rights, which makes me feel like a killjoy when the news starts playing interviews with adorable old couples (sorry about the ads, there). rather than rehearsing the problematics of restricting normative models of kinship to marriage and (certain shapes and flavors of) nuclear families--something that's probably been done better elsewhere, and i don't quite have the stamina to take it on this morning--i thought i'd share gawker's post interrogating the language of the announcement and this collection of twitter responses, which counters some of my ambivalence; clearly, some people are "overwhelmed," and who am i to pooh-pooh my ambivalence all over their day?

yesterday also occasioned a personal conversation on facebook with a friend who's been with his partner for over twenty years; the NC news came on the same day as an invitation to a relative's (straight) wedding. he mentioned the resources that go into attending someone's wedding; the travel, the money, the days off--all this for an experience that leaves him deeply conflicted and often feeling sad and bitter, when he already feels like "millions of people" have slapped him in the face with the various DOMA-like debates and votes (he gave the okay for sharing, by the way). the wedding invitation response card said "regrets only;" "regrets, indeed," he wrote. i wish i had the disposable income to send him a toaster oven or a hundred dollar bill in a pretty envelope; i know it's way more than presents--and maybe whimsy is a bad call in the midst of deep bad feelings--but of all the things he feels the lack of, some kind of dorky, belated wedding gift is probably the only one i could provide.

Martin Weller on scholarly blogging.

just as i found myself wondering about the decision to resuscitate--and under a pseudonym? while on the job market? cost/benefit? will i get dooced, now or later?--up pops this guy, claiming that

In terms of intellectual fulfillment, creativity, networking, impact, productivity, and overall benefit to my scholarly life, blogging wins hands down. I have written books, produced online courses, led research efforts, and directed a number of university projects. While these have all been fulfilling, blogging tops the list because of its room for experimentation and potential to connect to timely intelligent debate.

(and, yes, it's from the Chronicle. and yes, i was over there trying to see if there were new wrinkles to the Riley situation. i'll work on diversifying.)

Weller asks some necessary questions about how to recognize blogging and other forms of digital scholarship once "publishing" is a weird verb. per usual, i wonder what will happen to the vanguard in these debates; i've already heard stories--just anecdotes--of colleagues of colleagues whose choice to publish online rather than through traditional channels has hampered tenure achievement, weighed against them in competitive job decisions, etc. Weller himself admits he's published fewer articles since devoting himself to the blog, but professes to enjoy "the establishment of a global peer network that helps me stay up to date with my topic, increased research collaboration, and more invitations to give talks," so much "that it's been worth the trade-off."

he also devotes some space to questions about forms and content. when i started blogging, it was more or less the platform for collecting thoughts online--we weren't podcasting, tweeting, tumblring, or whatever other containers and networks my students are currently enjoying. as i get this thing on its feet, i wonder if it's a dated device, or perhaps not the one best suited to this purpose. which begs the question of if this is about thinking through my own stuff, curating links, maintaining connections, or some soup that involves all of these.

probably that last one, but as i raise this trial balloon, i'll at least try for a mix of thoughtful reflection, open-ended questioning and link collecting. possibly also some kitten videos.

and: here's Weller's blog.

the riley debate.

i'm going to assume anyone who cares to read this blog knows something about the debate surrounding Naomi Schaefer Riley's "The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies?  Just Read the Dissertations."  (if you don't, it shouldn't take you long; the piece is a quick read, although the unease it provokes may be long-lasting.)  the Northwestern grad students' response is courageous and, for the most part, admirably measured (not that restraint is the most appropriate or acceptable reaction; more on that in a minute).   the faculty response is as professional as you'd expect, and directs traffic to the Chron's original piece on the subject, which risks obscurity in the midst of some very disturbing rhetoric.

i first became aware of the incendiary blog post when a Facebook friend's feed linked to a petition calling for Riley's dismissal.  i was a little reticent, even after i read the piece, which seems to me horrifying not only in its willful disregard for the clear lacunae that Af-Am and Black Studies seek, in part, to address, but in the glee Riley takes in her own willingness to sling some serious accusation  without much interrogation.  specifically, that is, on a platform associated with the Chronicle, a publication which ostensibly owes some fealty to the standards of critical thinking and interrogation academics profess to . . . well, profess.  this hit piece would still have been objectionable had it been featured by some other, mass-market publication, but in association with, the Chron, it seems outlandish.  there's probably a side conversation to be had, here, about what  difference might exist between the blog(posts) the Chron hosts and what the journal (paper?) "publishes," but the content seems so irresponsible that it overwhelms quibbles over their responsibility.  Liz McMillen's editor's note, which reads in part:

"[The Brainstorm blog] is a blog for opinion, sometimes strong opinions, not news reporting by the staff. The writers on the blog—13 in all, from institutions around the country—fall on different points of the ideological and political spectrum. They are not staff members of The Chronicle nor do they represent the views of the staff or of the newspaper. . . .  I urge readers instead to view this posting as an opportunity—to debate Riley’s views, challenge her, set things straight as you see fit."

seems overwhelmingly unsatisfying, particularly when it conflates "strong opinion" with the sort of specific, unfounded attacks that characterize Riley's piece.  why, exactly, would the Chronicle be interested in any opinion that so blatantly mocks the academy's supposed commitment to critical thought, careful argument and productive discussion? Riley's piece is shocking in its disregard for scholarship.  the Chronicle, given its commitments and focus, is at best an awkward context for it.  worse, there's no real "opportunity" to do the challenging and debating McMillen suggests.  in the comments?  too much of the comment section is a wasteland of briefly considered jabs, interspersed with some thoughtful attempts at discourse, and on the whole nearly impossible to navigate.

still, i was reticent about signing that petition.