In Chapter 6 of Save the World on Your Own Time, Fish gets into the funding aspect of higher education. I found his argument to be a complete double standard with what he has already presented as his argument about the role of higher education. When discussing what higher education should do about politicians refusing to support funding, he states that we should be "making them uncomfortable" and "causing them pain" like he did during his time as a dean (which he will NOT let us forget about) in order to get our voices heard and create real change in university funding. We should be fighting back against politicians that make false claims against higher education in hopes of educating the public and securing more money. In this way, does this not go against his argument that educators should simply "do their jobs," which he defines in Chapter 7 as "setting up a course, preparing a syllabus, devising exams, assigning papers or experiments, giving feedback, holding office hours, etc"? (169). He even goes on to specify that "instructors should do neither less nor more," yet now he wants us to fight politicians for funding as well? We are expected to keep politics out of our instruction while still subjecting ourselves to politics for funding. The initial fight for funding originates with the needs that arise in our classrooms that are then brought to the administration, giving us a direct role. Not to mention that most administrators serve as instructors as well. Are we still therefore not responsible in some way to get funding for our universities? Fish seems to expect us to be political in our professions only when he deems appropriate, like to pander for money and support from politicians who mostly don't care. We are expected to shelter our students from real political arguments, but still take them on ourselves behind the scenes.
Another issue I have with Fish's argument in Chapter 6 is this idea that college tuition is low. He discusses this "pact" between the state and the university where "In return for financial support from taxpayers, universities agreed to keep tuition low and provide access for students from a broad range of economic backgrounds, train graduate and professional students, promote arts and culture, help solve problems in the community, and perform groundbreaking research" (155). He then focuses on how states have broken this pact by not supplying more funding as costs for colleges rise. He does not really address that colleges have broken it as well and how we could fix it together, instead stating that "the universities have pretty much been doing their part." Since when has tuition ever been low enough to truly serve students from a wide range of economic backgrounds? There are still MANY who cannot afford to take on this debt and do not go to college because of it. In comparison to other costs, as Fish breaks down further into the chapter, tuition barely covers the true cost of an education, but it is still by no means low and is still used as a gate-keeping method. Scholarships, grants, funding etc. help, but for Fish to not even discuss how this could all be solved by pushing for the implementation of free college education for all is just frustrating and ignorant. He's obviously not Feeling the Bern.
Natalie,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post here, as I think you do a great job of parsing out the contradictions in Fish's argument. I do agree with Fish (agh, that makes me feel yucky even saying that) that we do need better funding and support from the government, but my area of agreement ends there. Why should already exploited individuals continue to exploit themselves for this fight? Moreover, if we aren't supposed to be teaching "politics" in the classroom, then how can we help our students, many of whom will become leaders and are voters, see the injustices in our society, such as those with funding? Then, to compound, as you pointed out, how in the world are we supposed to expect our students to be able to do the work of writing if they are in precarious situations financially? It's like Maslow's hierarchy of needs—students (and instructors) cannot begin to learn and feel safe until they are even secure and able to be safe. And, financial wellbeing plays a large role in that. How many hours/jobs are they working? Can they afford food? Housing? School? Transportation? Utilities? Tuition? The list goes on and on.
Natalie,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with that Fish's argument here (and throughout the book) has holes--talking about finances without engaging in politics? Ha.
Now, I am sure Fish would say, "This isn't taking place in the classroom, and this is an extension of your job, especially if you are an administrator." But like you and Bethany point out, you cannot escape the reality that politics pervade the university, whether it is in the classroom or behind closed doors. And if you are going to talk about tuition while also encouraging diverse economic backgrounds, you cannot pretend that the classroom is a neutral space where everyone is equal.
Funding is not just a question for higher education. Lack of funding infects K-12 education systems, which impacts students (who are disproportionally people of color), which impacts the type of writing they produce in the classroom, which impacts their overall performance...but wait...I can't talk to my students about politics. If it is part of my job to fight for funding, then it is also part of my job to consider how questions of funding impact my students and to open their eyes to the system they live (and write) in.
Margaret, in your reply here, you got me wondering---what defines a classroom for Fish? Is it a physical or metaphorical place? I begin to wonder this because if we are supposed to do our work inside the classroom, then does that extend to our office hours, our own classes we take as grad students, the grading and prep for class outside the classroom? I'd view it as everything I listed (and probably more) that connects and intertwines with our teaching. Because of that, wouldn't administrative work become part of the classroom? When does what happen in the classroom get separated from the structures around it? I don't really have an answer to that, but there's a weird idea of the place and space with the classroom that defies boundaries and thus Fish's "rules."
DeleteJesus! I totally didn't put those two together--Fish totally contradicts himself in chapter 6. I would argue, though, that chapter 6 might be aimed more to administrators, though I don't think he is clear on this point. If that's the case though, he's absolutely right: administrators should be fighting aggressively. What I don't agree on him with is that this job is ONLY for administrators. Our world is political. The way we teach, assess, and the traditions we carry with us from our training, are not only political, but (pulling from Inoue here) white supremist at the core.
ReplyDeleteSupporting higher education is a job for ALL of us, not just administrators.
Keith, I'm really glad you pulled Inoue's view in here. Inoue's points about how higher education and white supremacist language perpetuates the eugenics' view of that "inner" vs. "outer dikes." In this, I wonder if Fish is further adding to that inner and outer view, as though admins are in the inner and can control and regulate the politics that come in and are allowed whereas instructors are on the outside. Then, of course, the whole system of our admins, instructors, and colleges are still on the inside excluding those on the outside
DeleteHi Natalie,
ReplyDeleteI agree. I found Fish's argument on administrative duty fairly egotistical. One of the things I hear the most in terms of administrative work is that you learn on the fly. So, I have a problem with Fish's arrogance in saying that the professors could not do the work if tasked with it.