The Campus Visit Pt. 4

After the teaching demo, three of the professors bid me goodbye, one for good, and the remaining professor, an older woman, said that she could take me on a tour of the campus if I wanted, or I could go back to the hotel--whatever I wanted. My feet by this time were aching--If aching is really the right word. They were burning and swollen on the bottoms from walking uphill in shoes with a wedge. I had gel thingies to put in them, but hadn't had a chance to sit down without being watched. So I requested just to be able to sit and rest for a little while (I was exhausted), and then perhaps to see parts of the campus.

So we went to her office. I said something in reference to the teaching demo, but I can't remember what. Her response made me feel that the whole thing was not important--in a good way. This was the only one-on-one time I had with any member of the English department the entire time, except when I was picked up in the morning by the male professor, and I think I managed some appropriate small talk. But this time, I was able to ask about the students, and we covered a wider range of topics relating to the town, state, university, and this professor's own interest and background. Because I didn't feel interested in being a "good candidate" any longer, I was able to talk. I almost wrote "proving myself," but I never did see it in those terms. This wasn't "proving myself," as there was no goal and no challenge, it was just coming across well--presenting a favorable image. And so I was polite--like a guest in someone's home when I was young. Travel makes me timid too, I might add.

So finally, we talked about her political causes, as there were posters on all of her walls with Spanish quotes. She likes to protest the School of the Americas with students; she visits Colombia to promote peace. So you must be fluent? No. Not as fluent as she would like to be. And there is no Spanish department at the college, correct? Right. All the time I am thinking about my husband, who is a definite participant in my intellectual life, and his own expertise in political science and in Spanish, and wondering what his take would be on all of this. Then I started feeling bad again about the "not talking about your family" constraint. I thought perhaps my feet had recovered well enough, and we left the office.

Descending the stairs, I decided to go for it. You know, I said, I'm going to break with convention and mention that my husband has a Master's of Spanish and a Master's in Political Science, and I couldn't help thinking of him while looking at your posters. This was greeted with much surprise. Yes, I said, and the hardest part of this visit was when I was asked what I do for fun at lunch and I couldn't help thinking of my three children. That's a job unto itself, she said, and I agreed and said yes, with the Ph.D. and the children, "fun" isn't something I have time for too often. She didn't have any interest in my family, which was fine. I didn't expect it. But I had come clean, and didn't really care about anything else. She asked about the children's ages, though and did mention that she has a 28-year-old son who lives somewhere else but was a Spanish major in college and she practices her Spanish with him sometimes. We were proceeding uphill to the chapel and the library. My feel were not as bad, but were steadily worsening as we ascended. As I reached the door of the student ministry area, leading to the chapel, I wryly thought of joining my suffering to Christ's, which of course reminded me how minor and how futile my own "suffering" was. That wry attitude characterized my mood just then.

The chapel was singularly unattractive. I mentioned that I had seen stained glass windows from the window of the room where I was first interviewed. I did have the opportunity to look inside that room. I asked the department head if I could take a peek into the chapel when I saw that I had to pass it in order to go to the bathroom. She had no problem taking me inside. It was very pretty. A traditional rectangular configuration with a central aisle. What would have been the sanctuary was empty--no crucifix, no tabernacle, no altar. It was bare and sad. The windows were stunning, though. Eight saints, arrayed four on each side. The ones that stand out to me are St. Therese (The Little Flower) on my right and St. Patrick, with a flaming green chasuble on my left. The images looked like antique holy cards illuminated by the sunlight and gleaming. It was truly beautiful--a shining moment that had nothing to do with me, but which made me sad for all of its splendor. The old chapel was built in 1923, I believe, and abandoned in 1971, when the new chapel was built. If you are familiar with 1970s church architecture, nothing I describe will surprise you. It was dark. It was circular, which deemphasizes the focal point. To stress that deemphasis, one enters from the side rather than from the rear, and the visitor is not obligated to gaze on either the crucifix or the tabernacle, both of which are offset. In fact, I was so disoriented that I did not know whether or not to genuflect, which of course I should have done. There was holy water. And for all of its ugliness, there was peace. I gazed at the tabernacle, and wanted some time to myself there, but was still timid, and did not request it. The stained glass was non-representational--mere chips of blue and red. The seven cardinal virtues adorned the wall opposite the entrance, so instead of focusing on Christ's sacrifice, upon entering one focuses on words without symbols: Prudence, Justice, Restraint, Courage, Faith, Hope, and Charity. That is, one focuses on the values of the particular religious order and not on Christ as the head of the Universal Church. My escort commented on the beauty of the place, but I could not assent. I did not find it beautiful except insofar as it contained the Body of Christ. Which of course is everything.

Next was the library, which occupies the other wing of the same building. Though I was told that it was built about the same time as the chapel, it looked newer, fresher, more modern. We entered on a second story, and there was a square balcony of sorts overlooking a carpeted staircase and the floor below. There was a very large skylight above. My impression was that rather more care had been given to making the library attractive than the chapel. I was told that the ceiling had leaks, and that when it rained, the pretty interior was punctuated by buckets. It was an inviting space nonetheless, suited for parties rather than lectures, for which the chapel, as the largest gathering space on campus, was sometimes used.

From there, we descended the hill again, and my feet were once again hurting so badly that I was taking small steps, as if I lacked full use of my limbs. To my left was something I very much wanted to see, but could not have walker there without first removing my shoes, which I had very much wanted to do for an hour or two at this point. It is a bridge-like structure that is featured on the college web page, and dates to the founding of the college by the Sisters. It has been restored recently, which I knew, but by the art department, so for its aesthetic beauty rather than its spiritual significance. It is called The Grotto. I was told that it was part of the "green space," a meditative spot. "It's a shrine, correct?" I asked. Hastily and clipped, "Yes, it's a shrine to Mary." "It's a reference to Lourdes, right? The Grotto?" Silence. We proceeded downhill and I was in such obvious discomfort that I was allowed to sit for a moment while she brought her car around to drive me to the hotel.

The ride to the hotel was pleasant. We talked about Big State School known for creative writing. Some of my undergrad professors had gone there. I almost went into creative writing. Good thing I didn't, 'cause the wellspring of poetry has pretty much dried up. We talked about that a bit. I was myself with this member of the faculty, for some crazy reason. It's not that I particularly trusted her. She was a bit less threatening than the others, just because she did not seem to be judging me n quite the same way(s). I have asked myself a few times why I was able to be chatty. I asked about health food & organic farming. I admitted to having interests. And then I shook her hand and hobbled into the hotel, dreading what was to come. . .

I promise, the next installment will be the last.

The Campus Visit Pt. 3: The Teaching Demo

After lunch, I was led back to the building where the teaching demonstration was to be held. This teaching demonstration was supposed to be a topic of my choosing--something that showcased my abilities as a teacher and allowed me to interact with students. I was told that the students would be eager and willing to engage with me. So I prepared accordingly. I made a sample syllabus to contextualize the "lesson" and modified a lesson that I had used successfully before that started with a "quiz" and then discussed the answers. I had practiced the lesson in front of faculty from my own department, and the response was positive. There were to be about 18 people total--students and faculty.

I was brought into the building and led upstairs. It was a day of endless hills and staircases, and my feet were very, very sore by this point, as I was probably the only person wearing shoes that were intended to be stylish and not merely functional. I was tired, discouraged, overwhelmed. I was told that I could put my things (computer-bag purse that I had been lugging my laptop around in all day) in the male professor's office. I was told that I would be given a few moments to prepare by myself. So I ducked into the restroom briefly. When I rejoined the faculty member, she ushered me down the hall and said, "You can go in and get set up." Instead of the empty room I had anticipated, I walked straight in to the waiting faculty and students!

I'm not sure I mentioned that after lunch I felt that it was all over. I wanted to leave and not even go through with the teaching demo. I felt as though they were done with me, and I was certainly done with them. So now, as I walked to the front of the class and stood facing the screen/blackboard, I felt as though I wanted to cry. I felt like running away. This is not me. I don't react like this to stress. You'll have to trust me on this, I know. It wasn't stress, it was the futility of it all that I was reacting to. But I mustered my energy, set up my powerpoint, and waited. And waited. And waited. One professor was smiling at me. The remainder of the room was scowling, except the department head, who was settling herself and passing out more of the bright orange evaluation forms that I had seen at the meeting with the students. So I waited. And they looked at me expectantly. And it occurred to me--was no one going to introduce me? Did they think so little of me? Or were they so rude?? And still I waited. It seemed like forever. Until my one ally in the room said something to the department head, she seemed surprised and hastily rose, came halfway to the front of the room, said, "This is Dr. Literacy-chic" and returned to her seat. And so I began.

I said how pleased I was to be there. (That is, I lied.) I thanked the students for participating and said how exciting it must be to have a voice in this process. (Disingenuous of me? Maybe.) They scowled. This was going to be fun. Then I read the brief two paragraph introduction to the syllabus I prepared and told them a bit about what the "course" would look like. Then I began with my "quiz." They were to designate whether a given poem was for children or adults. Some were more well-known than others. The male professor I have mentioned seemed particularly grumpy and confused. None seemed to know what I was doing. When it came time for the "Answers," PowerPoint sabotaged me. My slide show was flawless when I presented it to faculty at my institution. However, I had modified things on their suggestion. Slight modifications, but enough for PowerPoint to revert from my custom animations to the default, which meant that my list of titles was revealed from right to left and bottom to top rather than left to right and top to bottom. Now, I admit, there was the "Why does this have to happen to me?" mixed with discouragement and a sense of futility. And I plodded on. My strength is the discussion of the poems--what elements of the poem do we associate with children and childhood? They stared at me. One or two students graced me with an occasional answer. And one or two professors played along, too. It was miserable. My worst classes that I've taught have not been so resistant. I should probably mention that the teaching demonstration was 40 minutes long. I kept looking at the clock, looking for the right time to end, plodding along stoically. At times, I was more successful than others. I gave up on the students, who were just clueless about how to answer open-ended questions. And I talked. Finally, I could legitimately end. I told how this would set up the next class, in which we would discuss how Blake positions the reader as a child in order to exploit our expectations of what childhood is and how it stands in relation to the adult world. And I asked for questions. By now, I had looks of pity from two faculty members and one student that I had met earlier. And then it happened.

One male student looked at the syllabus and raised his hand. What, he asked, would be my objective in such a course? (Feelings of affection and gratitude toward student) But oh my! what a question! The syllabus was intended to be an advanced course--perhaps a senior seminar--in which students used the texts (including theoretical texts and critical essays, but nothing too complex) as a jumping off point to think about a topic, in this case, representations of children and childhood. It is modeled off of graduate courses, which may or may not be a smart thing, but I do a kind of "Let's think about what fantasy is/does" in my intro to lit course, so why not? I explained that the objective was to theorize about children and childhood--to ask questions about representations and to see what answers we could discover. And then I went on. . .

Thinking very much of the feminist essays, I said that it is very easy to take an essay and say, "Here's this essay! And oh! look! here is a work of literature! And this work of literature is doing exactly what this essay talks about!" I said that. Word for word. And I gestured to the left to indicate the essay (no symbolic meaning) and to the right to indicate the text. And I said that it is less easy to ask the questions yourself and see what you discover. It was another shining moment. It was such a shining moment that the department head asked if it was a course I had actually taught, because she was going to ask what kinds of things people discovered. That was the only question, and people started to file out. But the student stayed behind, and he apologized for asking another question, but he was really interested in this syllabus (!). So I talked with him a bit about the rationale behind the selections, and he said that he had never before thought about how children are grouped together as a single entity--not even as young humans, but young creatures. And we understood one another. And that moment surpassed the Guinness of the night before.

Some Incidentals

Things come back to me. . .

I was asked by the committee if I would be comfortable teaching History of the English Language. Later in the day, after I was thoroughly discouraged, I nearly remarked to someone that I chose the literature track over creative writing when I was an undergrad because I didn't want to take History of the English Language. I got ornery as the day progressed. But I said at the time that I thought I had sufficient preparation from grad classes to teach it. I rather thought that this had been dropped from the phone interview, but whatever.

When I was speaking to the provost, he asked if I noticed anything lacking in the course offerings. I mentioned that it was impossible to tell how specialized the special topics courses were, and also that there did not seem to be a theory or literary criticism class, which I had to take as an undergrad. Maybe if the students were exposed to some other perspectives, they wouldn't rehash feminist readings of texts. Did I mention that the research in those papers was of the "big book of feminist quotes" variety? Yeah. . .

I was also asked by the committee how I became interested in film. Now I have two problems with this. First, that the obvious answer is. . . ummmm, by watching them? And also coursework. I did better than that. But the second is that some of the films I have become interested are Spanish films, introduced to me by my husband, and then by contacts that I met through him, because my husband is a participant in my intellectual life. So what does one do with that? Oh, some guy I know introduced me to Almodovar. Uh huh.

The Campus Visit, Pt. 2

I was not worried at all about meeting the president of the university, which might seem odd except that he was the one person of whom I wanted to ask questions. He was a new president--of only 3 years--and had been making changes that--I already sensed--had somewhat rattled the faculty. The English department prided itself on going along with the changes (though perhaps with some resentment). I was really interested in knowing the nature of the changes.

He assured me that this was not an official part of the interview process, and congratulated me on getting so far--one of three--in a search for which there were many applicants. He said he liked to meet anyone who was being seriously considered for a position on campus, particularly a faculty position. Looking over my resume, he asked if I had ever been to England. He noted with surprise and pleasure my work on C. S. Lewis, as he had taught Lewis in high schools in England (he is English) many years before. I have not been to England, and he recommended that I visit sometime and told me about their new exchange program with Canterbury.

When my turn for questions came, I asked first about the "changes," but he resisted the term. Instead, he preferred to think in terms of "updating." To bring the school from the mid-1980's into the 21st Century. Unfortunately, his methods confused me, as I had learned earlier that the English, Fine Arts, and Communications into a single department. I found out a little about his perspective--or his PR-- but not about specific goals. Next, I asked my real question. It took him a bit aback, but he was not displeased. In fact, I think he rather liked me. But he misread my intent completely.

I had agonized over how to ask about the school's Catholic identity, and whom I should ask. I didn't feel that the English faculty would have welcomed the question--and indeed, I am sure that that is true. And their answer would have had to do with service, service, service. But you know what? Agnostics and atheists can also perform service for communities, and humanity at large, and do so in a caring and conscientious manner. And I did not get the impression that the impulse to serve other people was rooted in any kind of religious sentiment, but more on that later. The president seemed to have been hired to bring change. They are, as I mentioned in a previous post, hiring for a position that is intended on some level to oversee orthodoxy. I researched the president of the school and learned that he had previously been provost of another Catholic school, and was credited with really improving programs and even with having their accreditation reinstated. The school that he left was recently named one of the 20 or 30 "authentic" Catholic colleges by the Cardinal Newman Society. My hope for the school rested with him.

I lead off by saying that I was aware that he had been provost at another Catholic school, which I named, before entering his present position. I mentioned that his former employer and the current school were not founded by the same order, which he confirmed, and I asked him to contrast the schools. I was greeted with some surprise, but he very readily proceeded to give his perspective. The other school, it seems, is an "Independent Catholic College"--not founded by an order, and yet not attached to the Diocese. It is attached to a seminary. Though I'm not sure if it was by implication or directly stated, I got the impression that the "maleness" vs. "femaleness" of the schools was significant somehow. And then, he tackled orthodoxy--insofar as he could. He mentioned the designation by the Cardinal Newman Society. He denigrated the Cardinal Newman Society because they have no official voice. They are not authorized by anyone, but want to have their perspective acknowledged. Now, the Cardinal Newman Society bugs me to a degree. I am bothered by their president, who is not his own best friend in terms of PR. The tone in which their statements are made is always one of self-righteous pronouncement. And their tone is always one of challenge rather than understanding or reconciliation. I think their motives are good, but their methods are poor, and they alienate more than they unite. One can be uncompromising without being so off-putting. So I am well acquainted with the Cardinal Newman Society, and could certainly see why the president of the college would dislike them.

He went on to says that there are many different ways to be Catholic, "regardless of what Ex Corde Ecclesia might say." Here it got a bit touchy, as the Pope just has to realize (apparently) that in America (unlike, say, the rest of the world) there are different versions of Catholicism and none is more authentic than the next. The faculty was split on the question of Catholic identity, but he wanted to open up discussion--to make it something that COULD be discussed. That was positive. There were members of the faculty, he said, who occupy both sides of the spectrum. There are some who consider him a Vatican Watchdog, and others consider him a wacky liberal Protestant. (Not sure if he is Catholic, but if not, certainly Anglo-Catholic.) As a man of faith, he concluded, he felt more comfortable here (at a school which was, as far as I could tell, trying to distance itself from religion in every way possible) than at his previous school, though he liked that school well enough and had a number of respected friends and colleagues whom he continued to contact. I said very little, but I got exactly the information that I wanted. It was another shining moment. I believe that the impression I made was overall favorable, and that he was encouraged rather than put off by the question I had asked. But my heart sank as I left the office.

The next stop was the provost. The provost and associate provost were running late because of a financial aid meeting. When they arrived, I found that the provost was a very young man with an arrogant bearing, while the associate provost was an older, mousy-looking woman. She didn't say much, but smiled very pleasantly, and nodded with approval to much of what I said. Once again, the teaching questions were easy. One question I was asked a second time was how I would address students who were perhaps in need of remediation, or who were non-majors. I answered the same as with the committee, because while I believe in offering help when needed, I believe that challenging students of all levels is essential, and asking challenging questions can motivate all students equally. While I'm not sure that's always what they want to hear, I can't adapt it--it's what I sincerely believe.

After some basic questions about teaching, and even one about faith and supporting their mission (and I suspected that the provost might have different ideas about that mission), I was accosted. "Well," he asked, "you have been finished with the Ph.D. for a year. What have you done? Conferences? Publications?" Of all of the answers that occurred to me, I did NOT think to protest that I had not been out for 12 months, but 8. . . And truly, I resented the question and the tone of it. I mentioned a research presentation in the fall. I mentioned an article revision. Then I was asked, "You say that you're looking at turning your dissertation into a book. How soon will that happen?" In a very demanding tone, I might add. I felt flabberghasted. I said in the next couple of years, and resolved to take that line out of my application letter. I understand that they are looking to increase scholarly productivity among their faculty, but I really need to catch my breath right now. And I am a little light on support, as my advisor is too busy to follow up with me. Actually, I have been left to fend for myself in the conference/publication arena anyway, so I likely have not done as much as I should.

The next stage was an informal talk with some students. I went up to the Honors lounge, where two students were waiting. Another one walked in late. They asked me some questions, like how I would handle it if my "plans" for the day were interrupted because the students were engaging in their own debate. I think of myself as very flexible, and in fact, that's sometimes when an instructor knows that s/he has done something right. I heard about a debate in the class of the male professor towards whom I have since developed a very strong dislike. The student in question (all 3 were female) was impressed by the laid back attitude of that professor. I said that I would join in on the conversation, certainly! At this point, I also learned that the students had been equipped with evaluation forms to assess me. They were bright orange--very subtle. But I had not been informed of this in advance, and it made me feel uneasy. The chat went well, and the outspoken student told me that I would do okay--I had a sense of humor, so they wouldn't scare me. Ha. As they were escorting me to the "Penthouse" for lunch, I asked my own burning question--all were, I believe, transfers from local community colleges. Why this college? Well, one mousey and very sweet recent transfer said, her sister just moved to the area, and she knew she wanted a Catholic college. . . And my heart sank, but that was what I wanted to know. The presumed Catholic identity of the college is important to some of the students. It was supposed to be a positive indicator to me, that this was a motivation in students enrollment. I wanted to ask a follow-up question, how she found it now that she was here, but she was so innocent-seeming. I know that she would not have thought to find fault. She was still trying to get the courage to talk in class since her community college courses had been online.

On to lunch. The "Penthouse" was an enclosed porch or greenhouse on the roof of the building--the highest point in the midwest manufacturing town, and all of its gray glory stretched out around me. It's hard for me to recreate my mood. I entered in on 4 professors, two of whom I had not met before, and one declared that since I had not come, they had chosen their drinks, but I was welcome to have first choice of whatever was left. It was a joke, but also alienating. It didn't matter, because Dr. Pepper is not widely available in that part of the world. Another good reason not to move there.

The other two professors were from the Art and Communications. The professor of Art was going to be the new department head of the combined department, though she was clearly self-conscious because she does not have a Ph.D. There was some institutional small talk that excluded me. I was expected to have questions about the area. Truthfully, I managed to chat with the Art prof more than with the others, and I asked about their backgrounds (geographical). Throughout the day, everyone sort of wanted to know about Hurricane Katrina, and what I had done to help in this case, and this was the first time that I really felt significantly constrained by not being able to mention my family. I guess it's not so apparent why I wasn't mucking about in the 9th Ward and rebuilding homes if you don't know that I was PREGNANT during the hurricane, right? One of the English profs lead a student group (they like taking students on trips) to New Orleans to muck around in the aftermath and photograph a situation they couldn't possibly understand. And they constantly patted themselves on the back for it. If my tone is becoming more hostile, it was because this was a turning point of sorts, and yet also where I began to have inklings that they had given up on me, and when I felt that perhaps they could have made more of an effort to put me at ease. We talked a lot about weather--blizzards, tornados. Great.

And the defining question? "What do you do for fun?" I kind of crumbled. It was a superficial, unanswerable question. It was designed to see if I was interesting. And it was from then on that I started prefacing my remarks with, "I'm sure I seem very uninteresting. . ." and "Not to seem uninteresting. . ." and "I guess it makes me seem uninteresting. . ." But on a level, the truth was that they did not interest me, and so I didn't care except insofar as I was being judged. So I mentioned sewing. What kinds of things do I sew? No, I don't quilt. I don't have the patience. Of course, the department head made a Queen sized quilt while she was procrastinating her dissertation. I said I admired that kind of dedication, and that it was akin to the dissertation. Me? Do I sew apparel? Why yes, I sew apparel. Not saying much more because I sew children's apparel. And blankets, because friends of mine have had babies recently. And because while I do not quilt, I like coordinating colors and prints. See, the Art prof said, you get some of that from your mom (who, as I mentioned, has a degree in Fine Arts). Yes, and most of the women in my family sew, and have my whole life. You see, it's okay to talk about mothers and aunts, but not about husbands and children. Maybe they knew I was hiding something. But the resentment was growing that I had to hide it. This is not right, and by that I refer to the whole dehumanizing process.

No shining moments at lunch. Perhaps because I was feeling a bit faint after having had only 2 small danishes for breakfast.

After lunch was the teaching demo. And here I leave you in suspense, because it deserves its own separate post.

The Campus Visit, Pt. 1

The campus visit is a very, very strange process. As far as I know, it is a unique process in that it is so sustained and takes so much performing on the part of the candidate. I had a few of what I call "shining moments" when I really felt like I was myself; otherwise, I felt that it was my duty to conceal much of what I consider my identity. And this is a struggle for me.

In retrospect, I wonder if perhaps they have already found their ideal candidate, and simply could not back out of having me up. . . But perhaps I am taking things too seriously, or perhaps I am misreading bad manners or unprofessional behavior. I will also say that I am a little bit shy in unfamiliar circumstances. Mr. D'Arcy's statement to Elizabeth in the BBC version, "We neither of us perform to strangers," comes to mind. But I am not a lively conversationalist at first meeting in unfamiliar circumstances, and I never felt sufficiently at ease to open up. I had a beer at dinner, but I get ahead of myself.

The adventure started on Tuesday--the day spent on airplanes and at airports. My agony at leaving my babies--their surprising ability to take it all in stride. While I was trying to figure out how to pay for the plane ticket, in the 2-3 days I delayed between being invited to campus and booking the flight through Travelocity, the price jumped over $500 and I had to settle for 2 stops going. I flew into Dallas first, then Chicago, then on to my final destination and small nominally Catholic midwest college. In Chicago, I learned that my flight, scheduled to arrive at my destination for 5:45, had been cancelled about 30 minutes before I was supposed to board. Originally, I received a phone message telling me that they had rescheduled for the next morning at 8. I stood in line for what seemed like an hour so that I could be transferred to another airline's flight, arriving at 8:15. As soon as I knew the updated flight information, I called the department head who interviewed me and informed her that I would be arriving late. The result? Well, by the time I would arrive, the professor who was to pick me up would surely have gone home, so I could call for the hotel shuttle when I arrived. So my initial impression? I have been downgraded from a warm greeting and casual supper to "fend for yourself." Perhaps this might have been unjust had I not known that the professor in question did not have, for example, the family obligations that I would have in her place. She may or may not have a partner, but she does not have children.

I did find the shuttle, which was coming for some business men and would certainly have left without me had I not opted to wait in the 37 degree weather. It was windy and refreshing after the day of stuffy compartments and terminal after terminal. I reached the hotel--very plush--called home, and then decided to order food if it was still available. It was. I had a lovely burger and an even lovelier draft Guiness. It was the high point of my visit. I charged the food to the room and paid for the Guiness myself.

I was picked up from the hotel at about 8:45 the next morning by one of the committee members--the only male on the committee, and the only remaining male in the department after the ostracized member of the department, whom I did not meet, retires. I do not make good small talk in the morning. I was also unable to find out much information about the members of this department, who have not published widely. However, to my credit, I did manage. I fell silent perhaps more often than others would have. Repeatedly throughout the day, I was asked if I had any questions. I didn't. I rather came to have my impressions confirmed or refuted. I feel as though I should have had questions. I had some, but they were incredibly focused--very, very specific. And they did not lend themselves to small talk.

About a week and a half before the visit was scheduled, I was sent a packet of information about the town and the school. Included were two department publications, an undergraduate literary magazine and a spiral-bound book of student essays. I skimmed the literary mag, read the bios of the student contributers, and devoted most of my plane journey on Tuesday to reading the essays. Immediately it became apparent that the essays were, with only 2 exceptions, angry second-wave feminist readings of texts. They were ambitious in a way, except that the theory so obviously proceeded from the faculty rather than from any conviction on the part of the students, and they were poorly executed. The one essay that gave a Christian perspective on a work of literature was very well executed, though perhaps less ambitious, and tied for third place. I wondered about the focus of the issue, and determined to ask about it.

The first stop on my visit was the inquisitorial squad--the 4 department members in good standing. While I was waiting for them to arrive, I glanced out of the window and noticed stained glass windows below me. I asked if it was a chapel, and was told that it had been, but was now the place where the choir practiced. There was a new chapel built in the 1970s. The room itself had a long table. I sat nearer the windows, and the first 3 members arrayed themselves on the opposite side of the table. A joke was made about it. the fourth sat on my side when she finally arrived. The dress was decidedly casual--faded button-down shirts and jeans were apparently the order of the day.

So I was questioned. I don't remember too much of this part. I was asked a number of questions about teaching. I was asked to talk about my dissertation. Especially in relation to teaching. I didn't really know what to say, and I'm afraid I may have rambled. Teaching was much easier for me to address for some reason. In all, I felt okay about it. I don't think I screwed anything up in any kind of significant way. I was asked for the first time about how would teach a "gen ed" class vs. majors, and I said that I wouldn't approach it differently, I would simply provide more context. I would still ask challenging questions. And though I didn't say it, I think I conveyed that I would still have high standards.

My turn came for questions. I didn't have many. Perhaps I should have. But I asked about the book of essays. I asked about the fact that the dominant critical perspective was feminist, and whether this derived from a particular course, or whether it was a point of view that predominated in the courses taught in the department. And I put them on the defensive--the male member of the committee in particular. Oh, and the lesbian novelist, but less so. It was blamed on the student editor. I was told that there was a women's writers seminar that year and that many of the papers came from the seminar. Of course, that doesn't explain the paper on Shakespeare. And there are other critical perspectives from which one can approach women writers, including more current models of feminism. The paper on "The Yellow Wallpaper" was the worst. It was simply commended because the male author had learned so much about women's oppression. It was nothing new, unusual, or even particularly interesting, and it was not well-written, but rambled--as did all of the papers that won awards. But the choice of papers was attributed to the student editor and her strong opinions, and I was told that she would again be the editor and (he suspected) would again have a very strong (by implication, different) opinion that was reflected in her choices. I suggested that they have her write an editor's note. I really did. This was my first shining moment. I was also told (by the male professor) that most of their students were young women, and that young women were naturally attracted to that perspective. And then I was asked--nay, it was demanded of me--"Why do you ask that question?" I backtracked a little, good-naturedly saying that I probably phrased the question poorly, that I was really interested in whether the essays were related to a single course, which was true. That was one possible justification for the single-mindedness of the essays. But it wasn't the only reason I could see. It seemed to me that the students were being taught how to think about women's position in society--that they were being taught to see women as victims--and that bugged me.

Next, I was ushered to the human resources guy. I wasn't very impressed by the benefits--especially about the security of those benefits, which seemed doubtful. There was a lovely tall tree--spruce?--a northwestern cypress of sorts--outside of his office, and the wind howled around the buildings. He was a pleasant guy, and I was learning a little about the demographics of the campus--not many young families--when my escort came. One small thing that contributed to my overall bad impression happened here. When I bought the plane ticket, I was told that if I sent a receipt, which I did immediately, they would have a check waiting for me when I got there. Once I was there, I was told to speak directly to the HR guy about my refund. The info I had sent had not been processed. Nothing was handled by the department. It was up to me.

My next stop was the president of the university.

I'll continue from here tomorrow.

The Catholic College Dilemma, contd.

I have been doing a lot more thinking about what it means to teach at a Catholic college, investigation into the particular Catholic college, reading about the faculty, and consulting with friends. All in all, my reactions are mixed. I think that the academic opportunities at this particular school are wonderful. It seems likely to me that my husband, with two M.A.s, would be more likely to find a tenure track position at this school than most others, which is not a consideration to be taken lightly. The city is more than I could hope for in terms of size, safety, affordability, and education. Everything points in the direction of my going there. Plus, they seem to like me so far. All good. So I have wondered, if everything is so nicely lined up, does this perhaps signal that this is a good place for me? That perhaps, just in being a practicing Catholic faculty member, I might be doing some good? I definitely made reference to my faith in my letter, so they know. The phrase I used was "faithful, practicing Catholic," which is certainly what I try to be. It is possible that they are actively looking to recruit Catholic faculty members, as John Paul II recommends in Ex Corde Ecclesia. The school is in the process of a massive academic restructuring, and some of their recent administrative changes suggest a move to a more conservative vision of Catholicism--one that does not, for example, engage students with questions of whether humans are unique in creation, whether God can be conceived of as female, or whether homosexual acts are, indeed morally wrong, without stating that the courses stress a Roman Catholic perspective. Such courses, in the nature of their questioning, seem designed to undermine faith in the Church's moral teaching and ultimately to encourage questioning of the Church's authority.

That there is an atmosphere of change seems positive to me. That the school that an upper administrator left is now commended by the Newman society seems positive to me. The Newman society is a little wacky, but they do stand for orthodoxy. As for myself, in thinking about all of this I have decided that a multiplicity of voices can and should be represented in the curriculum of a Catholic college or university--as with any college or university--but should not be presented in a way that deliberately undermines Catholic Church teaching. Inquiry and orthodoxy can go hand in hand. Indeed, one of my initial attractions to Catholicism was that it does emphasize learning and inquiry, questioning and pursuit of answers. But to be Catholic is to acknowledge that there is such a thing as Truth, and to trust that the Church has the authority to guide the faithful toward that Truth. We may question, we may struggle, but if we don't ultimately acknowledge that authority, we are not Catholic, but dissenters. There is a considerable amount of misunderstanding on this topic, and about what makes a Catholic Catholic. If one disagrees on fundamental matters, then one is not in communion with the Church. If you don't want central authority, you don't become Catholic.

So I have some good feelings about the position.

But there's the overall atmosphere of the university, which I had partially reconciled, or put on hold for further evaluation, and then there's the climate of the department. A very, very small department. At least two are activists. Possibly three. Different issues; some I can rationalize better than others. Any English department I enter will contain some people with whom I am at odds politically. But that's life, and not really a problem. I don't really have a cause--unless you consider orthodoxy at Catholic colleges a cause. I've got some thoughts on genetically modified foods and vaccines. And parents rights in their children's education. And I tend to be outspoken about promoting a culture of life. But I'm not an activist, by any definition, though I do use my writing to support my perspectives about these issues. Similarly, one of the faculty members at the college uses her writing to promote her perspectives. Specifically, she uses her fiction to portray, dramatize, and promote (casually, I might add) lifestyle choices that are in direct opposition to Church teaching. She was raised Roman Catholic, but clearly rejects Church teaching, at least on a matter or two. It is entirely possible that we will get along just fine. At another university, it would be a non-issue. But I wonder--how would it be for me to consider joining a department, being her colleague, saying, yes, I will uphold the school's Catholic identity, and take an office down the hall from someone whose novels oppose Catholic sexual morality? How would I, as a new faculty member, be implicated, if at all, by joining a department at a Catholic college that awards tenure to members whose creative output contradicts Church teaching? Does it matter that it is a social question rather than a theological question? Does it matter to me at all, since I did not hire her? It might. Or it might not. It might simply be a question of the climate of the university, and who knows how that might change with new hires in the next 5 years? To clarify, this is not about the person, but about her choice to set up shop at a Catholic college. It is also about the department's decision to hire her given her own social agenda. I think this kind of thing would be a non-issue to the religious order that founded the college. Their priorities are social justice and feminism--including increasing women's roles within the Church. One of their number wrote a book that recommends praying to God in a female persona. But she doesn't teach in the college. Not sure where in the U.S. she is.

So no conclusions--not yet. Just more questions.

Parents, Teacher, Students, Values, and Censorship

I'm pretty sure I need to bid farewell to children's literature. Teaching it to undergrads becomes a problem for me when what the text is doing is second to how the text is used in the classroom, and when the text's purpose--that is, how it wants the reader to respond to it--conflicts with my values as a parent. Especially since all they ever want to talk about is the text's usefulness for talking about something other than the text.

Over and over again, I see and hear discussions of who has a right--and it is always discussed in terms of rights--to decide what is taught in the classroom. On the one hand, I teach books, so I uphold my own right to decide this. But I have a degree in my subject field--not an education degree--and I teach literature, not "opening children's minds to the reality of life" and "encouraging children to actively question the values of their parents," which is apparently the goal of reading and literature classes on the elementary, middle, and high school levels. I wonder to myself when "intellectually challenging" became conflated with "controversial" or "socially and politically relevant"--there does not seem to be much distinction. This must mean that Shakespeare, Dante, and Homer are no longer intellectually challenging, and no teenager is going to get as much of a thrill from Grendel's mother, Ophelia's death, or the Cyclops's eye as from some hot, steamy sex scene in a third-rate historical novel. That's not dumbing down the curriculum, apparently, that's making it "relevant." Did you know that a rape scene automatically makes a text "relevant"? It's true. So romance-novel readers rejoice.

Yes, this is a rant, in part. Because "censorship" is a term that is bantered about irresponsibly. Am I in favor of censorship? No. Am I afraid to expose my child to challenging topics? No. Do I think I know better than the average teacher of elementary, middle, or high school what is appropriate and challenging for my child's grade level? Um. . . Yes. But that's beside the point, really.

I have a few major concerns about the selection of books for gradeschool curricula:

1. First, the idea that to get students "interested" you have to have something that's forbidden in some way, or something that ties DIRECTLY into some contemporary "issue" that we're all supposed to care about.
2. Second, the idea that because kids "will be exposed to this anyway," teachers are obligated or justified in making it the subject of class discussion, analysis, and inquiry.
3. The idea that kids "can handle it." Kids can handle a lot. They are resilient. Does that mean we need to thrust it upon them?
4. The notion that parents want to limit children to their own (parents' own) values and thereby prevent children from figuring things out for themselves.

The last is by far the most significant. I actually saw it stated in exactly that way in a children's lit textbook geared for education majors as an answer to why books are challenged or censored. It represents the extreme arrogance of teachers and education majors in dealing with parents and children. It shows a disregard for the parent as well as the child. The child, this suggests, should intentionally be sent mixed messages so that s/he can, from a relative "blank slate" position, build up his/her own worldview from the pieces. How can that be a good thing? As parents, if we do not monitor our children, know what they are reading, how they are getting along in school, then we are bad and uninvolved, and have no room to complain. But if we foster in them a certain way of viewing the world around them, and wish for them to understand the world from the position of our own values first, while they are young and open to our instruction, before they evaluate these values from the vantage point of greater personal experience, we are also bad.

I don't want to keep them sheltered from the world, but I do want to give them a solid foundation without someone presenting a worldview that is contrary and asserting it over the one I struggle to instill. Exposure to ideas is one thing; asserting certain ideas over others is something else. So much has to do with the context in which something is introduced. And since I can't control the context in which a teacher presents something, and since at-home "damage control" pits me against the teacher and invites my child to take sides, I would like to have some consideration shown to me and my RIGHT to instill my values in my child when the teacher is selecting the books to be taught in a class. There is plenty of room for challenging, stimulating material without pissing off the parents. I see nothing wrong with parents suggesting that a book be substituted for another, depending on the book and the context. If I were teaching a book that fictionalized and dramatized aspects of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body at a public high school, would I be subject to censorship? How about if I taught a novel about a boy who struggled with his impulses toward homosexuality, only to decide on chastity, convert to Catholicism, and become a priest? Surely, this would not be tolerated in a public school. I would venture to say that such a book would be called dangerous and hate-filled. Such things will never *be* presented as alternate views. But why should the assumption of casual sex be touted as exposure to multiple viewpoints? I see no multiple voices. Only the reinforcement of the messages from society, media, advertising. Somehow, these are not questioned. Secular does not equal sexual. The sex lives of young people are fetishized by the media, the publishing industry, and teachers.

But I'm not sure this is really about sex for me. It's just the easiest way to talk about it. It's about teachers' disrespect for parents. Why should a parent's theoretical/anticipated position on curricula be demeaned in a textbook? And why should a teacher's worldview or talentless, lame attempt to stimulate discussion through shock be labeled as progressive and enlightened? And what is it about children that makes teachers want to "expose them to life"? Experience is lived for a reason. Context often dictates what we must do in response to a situation, and how we must cope. Books can help with this. Until the books are used to dictate a correct, "valid" response for everyone. Or to directly contradict certain ways of living life. Or to promote certain lifestyle choices as preferable to others. Then, we might have issues. And I might ask that you reconsider your syllabus. Because then it's about your agenda, not my child's mental development. When they turn 18 or enter college (whichever comes first), then challenge them to think about what they believe. I should have done my job by then. But make sure you respect them even then, if the answers they give are intelligent and well-reasoned.

And in the meantime, tell me. . . Why are rape and (pre-)teen sex more "relevant" than cultural concepts of hospitality? Death and dying? The individual in society? Human pursuit of the divine?

Catholic Colleges and Orthodoxy

Because the job search wasn't complex enough. . .

I'm starting to think that I have no business applying to Catholic colleges, since one of my concerns is orthodoxy--actual adherence to the Church's teaching, broadly conceived. What kind of battles will I be in for if I go to a school that violates or disregards Church teaching on life issues, ordination of women, and even questions whether it is just to exclude non-Catholics from the Eucharist? Matters of conscience even get tricky at a secular, state school; how much more so if the administration of a Catholic college where I worked were to promote an agenda opposed to Church teaching? And yet, I interview by phone tomorrow with a college that was founded by an order that ABSOLUTELY supports women's ordination. Campus ministry reluctantly acts according to the will of the local bishop in refusing Communion to non-Catholics (not the Vatican, you will notice). I even emailed for clarification on this point, and the tone was one of remorse and sad disagreement. I have no idea how this would influence the tenor of the English department, except that the faculty members list the subjects about which they will willingly be interviewed by the press on their web pages--yes, that's ENGLISH faculty, people. Yet they're hiring for a position that would, essentially, oversee the school's orthodoxy, including screening new hires for willingness to adhere to the school's mission, uphold Catholic identity, etc. This person does not have to be a practicing Catholic.

What to do??

Christian Parents and Pre-Teen Guides to Sex

I've been in hibernation lately, I know. I do spend more time than I should online, but as I've mentioned before, I'm trying to limit myself to the sort of fleeting thoughts that lend themselves to Facebook status updates, and channel the complex meditative asides into something that might pass as academically productive. We'll see how that works out.

[For fear of Google, I have comment moderation on]

Recently, however, we encountered some issues with my son (now 12) that necessitated the opening of a pretty weighty subject--how to address topics related to sexuality in an informative, sex-positive, yet Catholic Christian context. And, well, I want him to have a book or books to turn to when curiosity arises and he doesn't necessarily feel like getting a parental lecture--because too often, I think, we give too much information and bore the heck out of him, truthfully. . . So while we are open to questions, and correct misperceptions or misbehavior, explain when necessary, I think a good book is a good thing to have. But where to go? He's younger than the target age for the Theology of the Body for Teens resources, and most of the Catholic resources that I've seen for younger ages address the spiritual aspects of where babies come from, and feelings of love, etc. Basically, I wasn't finding much actual information about anatomy, biological functions, adolescence--you know, the basics! Perhaps I wasn't looking in the right places, but I'm pretty good at looking, and I wasn't finding. So I looked at the mainstream/secular resources, which of course, went in the opposite direction.

I believe that even if I *wanted* to affirm, promote, and emphasize use of birth control, as I would have at one point but do not now, I would still think that 12 is too young. He knows that birth control exists. Last year, he asked me whether there was a kind of medicine that a woman could take to prevent her from having a baby. I said yes, there was, and explained the Church's position on contraception in basic terms. At this stage, I don't want a book that details the various methods of contraception, though I am not--by any means--opposed to his learning about them. I will, of course, let him know our beliefs and the reason for those beliefs when the subject arises. He will make his decisions based on the information and moral guidance that we give to him, without the information being omitted.

The non-religious reference books on sexuality for youth that I found biologically informative and generally well-written also introduced and affirmed every type of sexual practice and lifestyle choice without any reference to the fact that not all lifestyle choices are condoned by all religions or *gasp!* parents. The books made it clear that these are exclusively personal matters and constructed implied child reader as independent from the beliefs and wishes of his/her parents. Basically, they provided an initiation into the happy utopia of adult sexuality. Ugh! You have no responsibility to anyone but yourself, so use protection and follow your impulses. Ugh! There was some stuff for girls about not being taken advantage of, some advice to empower girls to say no, but the overall message was that yes was good, too. Hence, the religious objection to sex ed: it not only provides information, it presents a certain world view and attitude toward sexuality that is largely self-serving and does not acknowledge that there may be other contexts for understanding human sexuality. This was not my experience of sex education, and I believe that this is because the average teacher of biology is not necessarily comfortable with promoting sexual practices to pre-teens or teens. There are, of course, exceptions, as the famous "condom-on-a-banana" anecdotes demonstrate. "Health" teachers might be a little more suspect. . .

So I admit that I do want to avoid the "You Might Be Gay--and It's Okay!" chapters. First, because however early homosexual feelings do appear, to confront and affirm them too early may lead to reckless lifestyle choices that are not informed by the wisdom and maturity of age. I would have scoffed to hear myself say such things when I was 17 (and a sophomore in college), but I can look back and see how my attitudes toward sexuality, which I developed largely on my own, matured over many years. Second, I want the Catholic version, that says, "You might be gay, and it's okay, because that's how God made you; but understand that the Church teaches that homosexual acts are inherently sinful, and you are called as a Catholic Christian to live according to this teaching. It may be that this is your cross to bear, and that you are called to a celibate life, and a life of service to others. This may be your special calling." I know it's unpopular. I have friends who are openly gay and live homosexual lifestyles, and they are dear friends, and I love them, but I have to acknowledge the teaching of my faith--which they do not share--in the instruction of my children, and my faith says that ALL lustful inclinations, ALL intercourse outside of the sanctity of marriage, and even some intercourse within the sanctity of marriage, is sinful. Men who aren't married, women who aren't married, homosexual and heterosexual--all are called to celibacy. Meanwhile, ALL people are called to chastity. It's a hard thing, so please don't blame me for it. I understand it and accept it, and will teach it to my children, as I am called to do.

Point is, of course, you're not going to find a book that says any of this. And with the Christian books, it's difficult to find a book that presents Christian teaching on alternative lifestyles sympathetically. Because taking something as a matter of faith, accepting and promoting an unpopular, politically incorrect teaching about sexuality, does not mean that you have to bulldoze through it and dismiss the feelings of those most intimately affected by the teaching. It does not mean that at all. So the book that had a table of contents arranged by "Thou Shall Nots"?--Uh uh. Not for me.

But, I did find some good books--two, to be exact. I apologize for making you read to the end of this to discover what they were. First, there was the "icebreaker"--the funny book, and to date, the only one of the two that my son has read (that he's admitted, anyway). It is called Lintball Leo's Not-so-Stupid Questions about Your Body. Published by ZonderKids, it is specifically geared towards boys, but there is one for girls, which I found first, and thought, "I wish there was one like this for boys!" and then looked on the next shelf. It provides information, does not insult the intelligence, does not preach, but does couch the physical, biological, and social questions that accompany puberty in a context that acknowledges nondenominational belief in God. Any divergences from Catholic teaching are very, very small--for example, it doesn't necessarily say that masturbation is a sin, but it does say that masturbation could become a part of sinful behavior or behavior patterns. The parent's objection to this statement could vary one way or another.

The second book I found had more information about sex--it read more like the mainstream sex ed books for teens/pre-teens in terms of what topics it covered, albeit from a Christian perspective. Again, I did not find the Christianity too prohibitive (that is, prohibitive in terms of "thou shall nots"), but do consider that I was looking for a minimally didactic book explaining sexuality within a Christian context. The book is titled, Sex and the New You, and is part of the Learning About Sex series published by Concordia Publishing House that is intended for children in various stages of curiosity about their bodies. The particular title I purchased is "For Young Men ages 13-15"--again, gender specific. There is a girls' version, and the difference is in the anatomical and social emphases. Each gender's version has a chapter relating to the anatomical features of and changes being experienced by the other, so the chapter "About Girls and Women" discussed female anatomy including menstruation--and has a drawing of a naked lady, to boot! And the glossary includes "clitoris"! ;) Emphasis is on respecting the bodies of others as well as yourself. I picked the age 13-15 volume because the younger volume was mostly centered on reproduction, and that was not the issue at hand. We were ready for a more mature set of subjects. But there is even a volume for ages 4-6, in picture book format, though I only noted it with passing interest. They are marketed as part of a home school or Christian school curriculum, or for individual use. The use of Bible verses was more extensive, but very tastefully done. I was less impressed with the title that was one "stage" down (all about reproduction), but each book has a different author, and it may well have been because it was not what I was looking for at the time. Still, I debated before choosing one over the other. Very occasionally, I disagree with generalizations about gender roles, but in general this is handled very well. The chapter on differences between men and women emphasizes that physical differences do not dictate differences in ability.

So that was a learning experience for me a couple of weeks ago, and hopefully yielded some information that will be helpful to others--and maybe I also provided some insight into what concerns Christian parents have about teaching sex ed to their kids. ;)

An Ambiguous Tribute to Orwell??

From the New Yorker, A Critic at Large: "Honest, Decent, Wrong: The Invention of George Orwell" by Louis Menand.

I was surprised at this article, posted by a colleague on Facebook. Apparently, it is necessary to debunk Orwell. The article meanders, mostly stressing the "constructedness" of Orwell's nonfiction and his use of a persona, and moving to the inaccuracy of his fiction. The assumption is that the person who would see Orwell's vision in 1984 as relevant in some way has been deluded into thinking that it is not fiction but prophecy. In doing so, the writer is speaking first of all to an audience of intellectual equals and like-minds, who look down on all of the uninitiated who get dangerous ideas from reading without guidance. At the same time, a group of outsiders is constructed, who are misinformed about the author and his works, and the connection between life and fiction in general. Though not the primary audience of the article, these individuals can benefit from the wisdom imparted, while the intended audience is invited to dismiss Orwell intellectually, or to take comfort in the fact that those who use him incorrectly are ignorant of Orwell's true character and purpose in writing. What risk does he pose? What is the motivation behind this article? What occasioned the discussion of his life and works? Any ideas I might have about it derive from the following passages:

Some people in 1949 received "1984" as an attack on the Labour Party (in the book, the regime of Big Brother is said to have derived from the principles of "Ingsoc"; that is, English Socialism), and Orwell was compelled to issue, through his publisher, a statement clarifying his intentions. He was a supporter of the Labour Party, he said. "I do not believe that the kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive," he continued, "but I believe (allowing of course for the fact that the book is satire) that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere, and I have tried to draw these ideas out to their logical consequences."

The attitude behind this last sentence seems to me the regrettable part of Orwell's legacy. If ideas were to stand or fall on the basis of their logically possible consequences, we would have no ideas, because the ultimate conceivable consequence of every idea is an absurdity—is, in some way, "against life." We don't live just by ideas. Ideas are part of the mixture of customs and practices, intuitions and instincts that make human life a conscious activity susceptible to improvement or debasement. A radical idea may be healthy as a provocation; a temperate idea may be stultifying. It depends on the circumstances. One of the most tiresome arguments against ideas is that their "tendency" is to some dire condition—to totalitarianism, or to moral relativism, or to a war of all against all. Orwell did not invent this kind of argument, but he provided, in "1984," a vocabulary for its deployment.

"Big Brother" and "doublethink" and "thought police" are frequently cited as contributions to the language. They are, but they belong to the same category as "liar" and "pervert" and "madman." They are conversation-stoppers. [And "fascist." Don't forget "fascist." There are a lot of labels given to opponents that stop the conversation.] When a court allows videotape from a hidden camera to be used in a trial, people shout "Big Brother." When a politician refers to his proposal to permit logging on national land as "environmentally friendly," he is charged with "doublethink." When a critic finds sexism in a poem, she is accused of being a member of the "thought police." The terms can be used to discredit virtually any position, which is one of the reasons that Orwell became everyone's favorite political thinker. [True, but Orwell's lifetime saw, by the admission of the article, saw the actualization of extreme versions of ideas. One of the article's points is that Orwell considered Hitler attractive; that he had the same attraction to Hitler's brand of socialists as the "few" fascist sympathizers in England and France. And yet, he witnessed the extremist tendency of the ideas' implementation. Can we be secure in the assumption that ideas will NOT tend toward extremes?] People learned to make any deviation from their own platform seem the first step on the slippery slope to "1984."

There are Big Brothers and thought police in the world, just as there are liars and madmen. "1984" may have been intended to expose the true character of Soviet Communism, but, because it describes a world in which there are no moral distinctions among the three fictional regimes that dominate the globe, it ended up encouraging people to see totalitarian "tendencies" everywhere. There was visible totalitarianism, in Russia and in Eastern Europe; but there was also the invisible totalitarianism of the so-called "free world." [I wonder what is in the author's head here. Hasn't discussion of U.S. "imperialism" become common place? How is that different from the "invisible totalitarianism of the so-called "free world"? The author's intentions are well-concealed, here. The U.S. is mentioned in the article as a variable that was outside of Orwell's consideration. So is the "free world" evoked ironically here because Orwell viewed it skeptically? Or is the "free world" being evoked skeptically by the author, who does not believe in a distinction between the "free world" and "totalitarianism"? I tend toward the former interpretation: that the author is referring to Orwell's supposed fallacy. But it seems to me that this is contrary to how we see the U.S. represented--oh wait! It seems contrary to how the U.S. was described under Bush. But this is a Brave New World! And we should not see it in Orwellian terms--so this author seems to say. Or Huxleyan terms either.] When people talk about Big Brother, they generally mean a system of covert surveillance and manipulation, oppression in democratic disguise (unlike the system in Orwell's book, which is so overt that it is advertised). "1984" taught people to imagine government as a conspiracy against liberty.

And the conclusion:

Orwell's prose was so effective that it seduced many readers into imagining, mistakenly, that he was saying what they wanted him to say, and what they themselves thought. Orwell was not clairvoyant; he was not infallible; he was not even consistent. [How many theorists are?] He changed his mind about things, as most writers do. [BINGO!] He dramatized out of a desire to make the world more the way he wished it to be, as most writers do. He also said what he thought without hedging or trimming, as few writers do all the time. It is strange how selectively he was heard. [Don't we typically take the works that are most useful or relevant and apply those works? It is strange how selectively Kristeva was heard, and she wasn't writing imaginative prose. . .] It is no tribute to him to turn his books into anthems to a status quo he hated. [Nor is it a tribute to him to ignore that which he critiqued--even if he hated everything!!] Orwell is admired for being a paragon when he was, self-consciously, a naysayer and a misfit. If he is going to be welcomed into the pantheon of right-thinking liberals, he should at least be allowed to bring along his goat. [Really, he was an intellectual freak. Don't use his works to refute US.]

All Kinds of Frustrating. . .

What I am not referring to here is the fact that I managed to ride around in the car for an hour in the hopes that the girls would fall asleep, gave up & went home with only Chiclette asleep to find that Doodle (oh joy!) fell asleep after all, only to have Doodle wake up AFTER I had carried her in the house (not in time to walk in by herself), cry that she wasn't sleepy, wake up Chiclette, who never went back to sleep. . . yadda yadda yadda.

No, I am referring to the thoughts that are going through my head in reference to my one--count 'em, y'all, ONE--job prospect. Now I know I could be reminded that it was only with the deepest sense of futility that I contemplated or embarked upon the job search many months ago. Yes, that is true. It may perhaps be part of the problem. Because part of me sings, "Oh glee! Someone wants me!!" while another part wonders if the job in the hand really is worth two in the bush and wonders if I had better try to flush out those other two. . . All the time, of course, the third voice is telling me that the one job is by no means in the hand after only a phone interview. *sigh*

Friday I had a phone interview. It is a regional branch of a large state school--so far so good. The department seems attractive. Rather small--in the lower 20s for full-time faculty, which is the largest at that university. School is having budget issues--go figure; hasn't affected this search in any tangible way that I can tell yet. The committee chair has maintained an enthusiastic attitude in dealing with me. All good. The school extremely rural--not so good. They do have a Wal-Mart, which I am counting as good, though the converse could be argued. There is only one of each grade-level public school. The only private school is very, very evangelical. The child care options seem very limited. I would probably feel best in the Baptist church child care environment, which raises its own questions. There are 200 Catholics in the COUNTY--but there is a Catholic church in town--VERY good. The schools do not seem to offer orchestra, just band. Not so good. The cost of living is significantly lower than here, and we are already pretty low. Good. Can you tell I'm obsessing a little? I have come down off of the obsession a little since the weekend, but I'm still weighing things constantly as I wait the two weeks (maybe a little over a week now) until I learn whether they want to see more of me or not. At which point, I would be able to see the place--which by all counts is beautiful, though very rural.

There are many considerations, not the least of which is whether, with their budget issues, they would be able to offer spousal placement. Because I will not see my husband placed lower than he deserves so that I can take some more or less permanent position. That, for me, is a non-negotiable. I will not sacrifice my children's care or education. And yet. . .

Surely there are other professors at the university who have families--who have raised families--in the surrounding area. Surely!! And there are worse things than a very rural area--a very urban, unsafe area, for example.

My problem is that I am continually questioning my frame of mind. When the position seemed unattractive to me, I wondered if I was being hasty. If it seems at present the best thing since sliced bread and my only chance for lasting happiness (hyperbole), I also wonder if I'm being hasty.

It seems, for one thing, foolish not to take a well-paying position (based on their own salary data--the web is wonderful) in a place with a low cost-of-living.

I would be teaching what I want to teach--plain & simple. Never thought that would happen, actually. It gives me some hope. Class size is smaller than I'm used to and there are possibilities for real schedule flexibility--online and one-day/week classes. Even travel opportunities (not with young children, but they don't know that). All of which balances the high teaching load--theoretically. Except that when I teach TWO classes I can't find time to tie my shoelaces--there is THAT.

But--I think to myself--are my reasons more material? Why yes, yes they are. (It's been apparent from the start, no?) In a couple of days I start counting a little further into my thirties. And here I am, still cramming myself and my family into undersized rentals. I so desperately want to move, but why move for a year or however long it takes to find a permanent spot when I might have the opportunity to move and find a more permanent spot this very year?

I'm dreaming of a house with non-neutral, high quality carpeting. I want windows--insulated glass windows--that let in nature so that nature can't get me. I want a fireplace, and a large living room. I want so many bedrooms that children can play and leave their toys out and I never have to know. I want CLOSETS--one for each member of the household, not 2 split between 5 people. And a garage (attached) that doesn't double as a roach motel. A kitchen that is functional. Appliances that are not apartment grade and actually dry the clothes within 1-2 cycles. I can picture it, this cookie-cutter house in a shiny new sub-division. (Not what I've typically thought of as my preferred aesthetic, by the way.) It has my name on it. There are woods and hills in the distance. And a little dinky town with a university and one Wal-Mart. *sigh*

There are drawbacks to this vision. Mainly, that I might start feeling the urge to have matching furniture or bath towels. But I'm prepared to take that risk. But what else might I have to risk?

And let's think clearly about this. You know that guy who sings on the "Free Credit Report" commercials? (I have been known to sing the one about working in a tourist-y seafood restaurant.) Yeah. Well, let's just say I'm in no position to buy a house. Maybe in 4-5 years, with a lot of saving--unless the Department of Education claims every extra cent, as is their right. And rentals in that area, while cheap, don't exactly sing to me. So the vision that currently sustains me turns out to be empty, and I go around and around again--will they have organic yogurt? Whole wheat pasta? Montessori education. . . The list goes on.

Finding "Family" on Facebook

So as life becomes busier, I find myself with less time to spend blogging, or at any rate, less willing to indulge in blog-able thoughts. From time to time, I have a thought or idea and I think, "Hmmm. . . I could blog that. . ." but I find it difficult, I'm sorry to say, to commit to organizing my thoughts and expressing them in some way that makes them digestible to others. The same happens with meals, actually, which is when I pull out something boxed or frozen. So I've been on Facebook lately. Facebook allows me to quip something short and imperfect--something that hasn't been thought out, or is not expressed clearly. It's a type of self-indulgence for the writer, really. We invite others to finish our thoughts, or expand them into dialogues or conversations. Sometimes real information is conveyed. Other times, it is just play. We set "bait" and wait for others to bite. It doesn't always work--especially for me, I might add. But sometimes it's just nice to see that moment of the day, that joy, frustration, anxiety, boredom--articulated, made external, published. And it requires very little effort to do so--far less than a blog.

On Facebook, I have two groups of friends--those whom I know from high school and have only recently rediscovered (my reason for going on Facebook, actually) and friends that I know from grad school. It is very interesting to see some of the daily observations of people I haven't seen for 10+ years. (Okay, maybe closer to 15+ years, but who's counting?) Many of these seem cryptic to me--references to the lives that they have developed over the past decade and some. These snapshots of others' worlds--sometimes literal snapshots!--have a kind of homey appeal. I don't feel like a voyeur, although I barely know these people any more, and some I never really did know very well. Of course, like blogs, these are imperfect snapshots--they are chosen words and images that present a picture carefully selected by the author, whether the author does this consciously or not.

What strikes me most is the emphasis on family. Most--if not all--of the people I know on Facebook have jobs, careers, businesses, whatever one chooses to call them. . . They have external sources of income that require more or less time away from home and/or dedication of time, attention, and effort to work. I believe one of these people has a home business, but her "work" space--whether real or virtual--is separate from her family space. Sometimes the work/job/career and the family life are mentioned together, usually a comparison of the two, or an attempt to reconcile the two: So-and-so is frustrated by the kids who keep interrupting. . . So-and-so is home from work AGAIN with a sick child and bored because she can't go to work. . . (There's been a lot of childhood illness going around Facebook.) So-and-so is able to see her child on 22 webcams at the Big Brother nursery. . . There is quire a bit of complaining about children, in more or less harsh terms as determined by Christmas-break cabin-fever. Sometimes, I find it shocking that the children are being spoken of so publicly in such harsh terms, though I recognize the reality of the frustration. It's the choice to publish such sentiments openly that shocks me. In these snapshots of people I used to know and their families whom I probably will never know, there is nevertheless an underlying warmth directed toward the smaller members of the species. They love their families. They live for their families. They work for their families. They find fulfillment in their families.

I am not in the position to contrast anyone's actual family-centeredness. However, the way this is communicated--seemingly so effortlessly--is something I have missed for many, many years. For the first time--oh, perhaps ever--I actually wish I had stayed closer to these people so that I could have known people my own age who were starting and growing families--starting and growing families for the sake of doing so, and seeing that in itself as a--perhaps as THE means to personal fulfillment, whatever importance work/job/career might have. I actually wish I had remained friends with other mommies because they are mommies, not because we have that--and some other philosophical, intellectual, or experiential commonalities. But that's not really the whole story. I want the whole picture. I wish that I had stayed in touch so that our children could attend one another's birthday parties or exchange presents at Christmas. So that we could have Christmas parties and Easter egg hunts. Not so that we could share mommy-experiences while the kids were occupied for a while.

It's funny how I will always think of these women as "girls." One of these "girls" has two girls--one about the age of my son, who turns 12 very soon. She is a year or two older than me--as everyone was back then--and she was married a bit before me. And she was into the mommy thing waaaay more than me back then--I saw her once when she was pregnant and she was practically knitting booties everywhere she went--like Darling in Lady and the Tramp. But the fact remained that she was living a family life all of these years, and, well, that does something.

What I'm trying to articulate is a way of looking at life that is somehow distinct from how I've looked at life until now, but which represents in some ways how I've lived life (without thinking of it in these terms) for the past 12 years. Perhaps it's more of a way of looking at marriage. What is a marriage, really? Is it a partnership? Is it an economic or social contract? Is it an intimate friendship? I look at these former friends and acquaintances, and it doesn't appear that marriage functioned exclusively--or primarily--in any of these ways for them. Nor was marriage simply something that they checked off the list of "things to do" before a certain age; nor was it a means to status, or a life goal in itself. No, in these people I recognize ambitions beyond marriage and family. But neither do I see marriage as an end in itself.

In fact, I do not see marriage as an end in itself. Marriage, in the culture in which I grew up, was a means to a family. Even in the case of a childless marriage, there could be the sense of a family rather than the eternal honeymoon of couple-ness. It is, perhaps, a state of mind. The collective is larger than the sum of the parts. We are not two, or three, or five people in the same house, although we are literally two, or three, or five people in the same house(hold). We are a family, which is larger. It has larger problems, perhaps, and frustrations, but also more capacity for love and survival. So these friends of mine did more than get married, have children, and careers. They allowed their lives to be shaped into families. And their families grew from the natural progression of their lives.

Family Blog Post

I have posted some Christmas pics on the family blog!

A Job Search Chronicle

I've been remiss in my updates, I know. Because I have been remiss in my updates, I have spared everyone my angst, my pondering, my self-doubt, and all of the other mood variations that have accompanied this process!

I have been worried about the job search for years now. Entering the M.A./Ph.D. with the idea that finishing the terminal degree was the difficult part, I gradually became aware of the "gloom and doom" discourse surrounding the job search process. The rhetoric was rhetoric of "settling"--settling for a lesser university than the one we attend, settling for a non-tenure-track position, although that is not what we envisioned when we started, settling for a position teaching something we do not particularly want to be teaching (either permanently or with an eye to "moving on"). There is also some discussion of what it takes to get the job, and I have not been incredibly proactive. I have a lot of teaching experience, and some administrative experience. Both could theoretically help me, but I don't really want a job in administration, I have come to realize, so I won't be using that experience as fully as I might. I have one publication, and a reprint of that publication that I discovered recently, and a smattering of very minor, kind of quirky conferences. I have a couple of research awards to my credit and a couple of teaching awards from long, long ago--awards that I'm not sure I live up to, but no one has to know that!

Early in the process, I was advised that my best chances to get a job were in the field of composition rather than literature. Because my impression of the job market was so bleak, I reluctantly accepted this advice, and resolved myself to apply for mostly comp positions. I lost this resolve, however, at the beginning of the semester, both while perusing the job ads and while considering some of the things I dislike about teaching comp--namely, the emphasis on current political events. After having worked for several years to earn a doctorate in English, I did not want to engage students in the classroom with current events. So although I did apply for some comp jobs, most of the jobs I applied for were lit jobs. Truthfully, I don't really consider myself qualified to teach "rhetoric," and that's where serious rhet/comp jobs tend.

I only applied for 16 jobs, of which one has been cancelled and one postponed until the budget is reevaluated in April. This is a small number, comparatively speaking. I admit to being selective. I did not apply to any positions with an eye to "moving on"--I can't do that. I have too many family obligations. I did not apply to places where I did not reasonably think we might like to live, or to places that would have excessive cost of living. I had other criteria, too. Basically, I am looking for someplace conducive to family life where we can settle at least until my son graduates from high school. I'm not sure I had that actual event as a conscious goal, but it sounds about right. I have come to realize that I had less well-articulated expectations, too, but those were not part of my motivation as I was choosing places where I would apply.

I have written before about the large national convention. The way I see it, it has its benefits. The school and the applicant only have to pay for one trip to interview (at least the preliminary interview). Because everyone comes to a single location, applicants come from across the country rather than looking in a single geographical area for ease of travel to interviews. More applicants at the convention means more to choose from, perhaps being surprised by an unlikely candidate that is a "risk." Basically, there is a bit more cross-pollination of the discipline. This, for me, does not make up for some of its more grievous drawbacks. First, there is the cost. The convention is always held in very, very expensive cities, in the most expensive hotels. Candidates are not reimbursed by their expenses the way they would be if they were presenting papers at the convention. An applicant must make plans to attend the convention far in advance, but the hiring departments can wait literally until the week--or a few days--before the convention because they are assured that the serious job seeker will certainly plan to be in attendance. It dehumanizes the process a bit, to my mind. I object to feeling that my attendance or non-attendance is a reflection of how badly I want a job--life is more complicated than that, you know? Also, the schools may choose to interview more candidates than they are considering seriously, meaning on the one hand that an ostensibly "less attractive" candidate may be given a fair shot, but also meaning that the hiring departments have the option of stringing along many more candidates than they might otherwise, causing expense, inconvenience and nervous anxiety to a greater number of individuals. I'm a real half-empty sort. My cynicism comes out at times like this.

Now, I hate traveling alone. I resent the expense and inconvenience of career-related travel, at least at this stage, because it is very difficult and I never have enough money to make it an enjoyable experience. If I could take the family and have enough money that the expense would not be a huge source of stress, it wouldn't be so bad. But I REALLY hate traveling alone. I have significant anxiety when traveling alone. So this preference certainly comes into play.

Both the rational objections and irrational reactions play into my decision not to attend the convention. My other fear is that I would pay for the ticket, registration, hotel, etc., and not have any interviews at all. As it turns out, I would have had two!!

So I was in the uncomfortable position of having to turn down two interviews. Both, however, expressed continued interest. One I have not heard back from. One will interview me by phone in January, after the convention. It has been impressed upon me how fortunate I am, how grateful and gracious I should be, and (before I got the phone interview) how rare this is and how I shouldn't really expect it. Much of this, I believe, was said in the name of trying to get me to change my mind--which I resent on several levels, and won't go into right now.

Both schools are the south, small regional branches of a state schools--a nice change from where I am now, but one that would entail much more teaching. The one that will interview me seems to have a smallish, eclectic department--the personalities come through on the web page (especially that of the head of the search committee), and they seem like people I would like to work with. The department seems literature-centered, which is just wonderful. I can teach theory if required--I even like to teach some theory, but when the theory becomes the motivation for teaching the literature, I become frustrated. It seems as though this may be a department of like-minded people. On the other hand, they seem to have hired a good number of assistant professors lately, recent Ph.D.s, suggesting that they are looking to "grow" the department, which is also good. The research requirement seems fairly lax, which would give me the opportunity to get my footing (this is a difference from the other department that contacted me--they seem to expect higher publication rates). And it is a literature position! There is a composition teaching requirement, but it is a lit position. All in all, exactly what I could wish for. But of course, there has to be a drawback. And really, it's a doozy. . .

The town is very, very small. Painfully small. Small population; only a single Catholic church in the county (!). No shopping to speak of as far as I can tell. The town itself only has one of each "level" of school--elementary, middle, high--and they don't have orchestra. :( I'm not sure if there would be a montessori preschool. Their is a neighboring town that is a bit bigger, but still very, very small. About an hour away, there's a town with TWO Wal-Marts! *sigh* I always imagined myself moving on to a larger town, not smaller. I worry about choice in medical care, schools, any number of things. Besides housing. Now housing is very, very cheap, which means a smaller cost of living. If it comes down to it, then, it will be a difficult decision, but I will have to consider my family first. I do not want my son's education or my daughters' care to suffer so that I can take a position my first year out. Of course, it may not come to this at all, as phone interviews do put one at a disadvantage, so no use counting chickens. . . On the other hand, it is good to know what the factors are in the decision.

The other town is closer geographically to where I am now, and is certainly larger. There is also a larger Catholic population, which means Catholic schools are a possibility! There is even a zoo and museum in the town, which would be nice. The state is poorer as a whole, and is suffering cuts to the university system as we speak (as are many states). Actually, I think this goes for both states, but one seems better off than the other. And I don't think I'm likely to hear back from school #2. I am happy to have heard from them in the first place, though. I'm not sure these two interviews would have justified the expense and inconvenience and neuroses of attending the convention, however. Had I heard from another one or two, I might regret my decision--or maybe not.

What I have gained from this years' job search so far (and it's not over by any means!) is a significant confidence boost. It no longer feels as though I lack the professional activities necessary to get the job. I also do not feel that it is far-fetched for me to get the kind of position--namely, in Brit Lit--that I really want to get--the kind that I envisioned when I started grad school. That is a relief, and an incredible realization. I have been feeling so negative for so long--almost to the point of feeling that I had wasted my time getting the Ph.D., though I'm not sure what I would have done otherwise. Now, I at least know that there are universities out there who are looking for someone like me, who will be interested in my application. I also know that I can get a position doing what I want to do--teaching what I want to teach. I do wish that the teaching loads were a bit lower, though.

Now I need to apply for some more positions--whenever they happen to show up!

Holiday Images