• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

Thoughts on Poetic Self-Portraiture

April 28, 2011, 2:00 pm

By Lisa Russ Spaar

When a friend of mine, a painter, wants perspective on newly finished work, he walks his canvas in front of a large mirror hanging in the studio. It is only in a reversed, refracted reflection of the piece that he can locate enough distance to assess what he’s accomplished.  Another colleague, who prints and makes books, often takes a tome he’s recently stitched and bound and buries it in his back yard for a few days.  When he unearths it, he feels ready to “see” the thing he’s made.

Writing itself is, of course, a kind of drawing, and for centuries writers and artists have worked in and cross-pollinated both disciplines, with poets drawing inspiration from works of art and from the techniques of their makers. Ekphrasis, which in modern times has come to refer exclusively to writing that is about art, comes from the Greek (pl. ekphraseis) for “description” and is an ancient mode (the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics cites, for instance, Homer’s description of Achilles’ shield in the Iliad and of the tapestries of Minerva and Arachne in Ovid). Poets working in ekphrasis might use a work of art as spark for a sustained meditation on imagined scenarios and abstractions (Keats’s ur-poem “Ode to a Grecian Urn,” for example) or borrow from a visual artist certain techniques (juxtaposition of color planes, for instance, or the use of negative space or distortion of scale) they can then “translate” onto the page (in syntax, lineation, form), something Charles Wright attempts perhaps most famously in what he calls his “failed experiment,” the beautiful “Homage to Paul Cezanne.”

Especially interesting in this regard is the self-portrait poem. Artists have been making self-portraits since antiquity (what model is cheaper and more readily available?), but the self-portrait poem, as a, well, self-conscious literary entity, is arguably relatively new. Some might posit that the self-portrait poem, at least in the lyric tradition, is a tautology—isn’t every poem a “portrayal,” however disguised or indirect, of its maker, be it Sappho, Bashō, Mirabai, or Father Hopkins? And yet, with notable exceptions, it isn’t until the mid-20th century that we begin to see poets calling their works “self-portraits.” A recent Granger’s search yielded 103 results for poems with “self-portrait” in the title. Only a handful of these writers, mostly from Europe, were born before the 20th-century. And while Emily Dickinson taunted “I’m nobody! Who are you” and Whitman claimed to celebrate and sing himself, and although it is possible to see Eliot in Prufrock or Yeats in “Among School Children,” with some exceptional early- to mid-20th century forays into the self-portrait  (Williams, Creeley, Ammons, Justice, O’Hara), it is not until the appearance of John Ashbery’s Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror (1975) that the practice of writing self-portrait poems appears to explode.

Why? An exploration of the reasons is something I’ve just begun to consider and is far beyond the scope of this piece. But I’ve always been attracted to self-portrait poems for their compelling mix of revelation and veil, for the way they abstract their subjects and implicate my reading of them into their bodying forth. I’m intrigued by the ways in which, as poet and critic Leslie Wolf has written of Ashbery, “to reach [painting’s] state of freedom in a verbal art, the poet must use the signifying quality of his medium against itself. …  The poet must arrange ‘brushstrokes’ of his tableau in such a way that they yield contradictory clues.” One thing that seems fair to say is that early experimenters in the self-portrait poem were interested in and knowledgeable about art, and that the use of “self-portrait” in their poems is an overt nod to its long, fascinating, and complex tradition in art history.

Julian Bell, in his Introduction to Five Hundred Self-Portraits (a gorgeous Phaidon compilation of 500 visual and spatial self-portraits from ancient Egypt to the present) calls Ni-Ankh-Ptah, whose limestone relief carving “Self-Portrait, Kneeling in a Boat” (c. 2350) adorns the Tomb of the vizier Ptah-Hotep, the earliest known self-portraitist (“enjoying a drink while his Egyptian sailors joust”). Around 1500 AD, however, with the greater availability and quality of mirrors coming out of Venice and an increased ambition on the part of artists to elevate their social status from craftspeople to the learned class (painters began to work themselves into their historical and religious paintings in a “calling card” kind of way, for example), self-portraiture moves, as Bell says, “from the margins of Western art to centre-stage.”

Also affecting the burgeoning of self-portraiture, of course, are Renaissance notions of individual self-fashioning and an increased awareness by artists of the techniques and philosophies of their calling. As Shearer West writes in Portraiture, “underlying all self-portraiture is the mystery of how an individual sees himself or herself as other. A self-portrait involves an artist objectifying their own body and creating a ‘double’ of themselves. Artists could use the self-portrait as a means of drawing attention to the medium and the process of production of the work, to show off their skill, or to experiment with technique or style. The viewer of a self-portrait also occupies a strange position of looking at a metaphorical mirror that reflects back not themselves but the artist who produced the portrait. Viewing a self-portrait can therefore involve the sense of stepping into the artist’s shoes . . . [making] self-portraits both compelling and elusive.”

No doubt this ability to distance (and thus to see, to efface and even deface) the self while engaging in a tradition that offers the expectation of portrayal may be one attraction of self-portraiture for poets. In a meditation on Velázquez’s “Las Meninas” (and evoking Michel Foucault’s analysis of that painting’s “blind point”), Anne Carson comments on the ways in which canvases and mirrors within that painting (which includes a portrait of the artist and positions the viewer of the painting in the shoes of the on-looking royals reflected on a far wall) allow the poet/reader to achieve what is almost impossible:  to catch oneself in the act of seeing. “Artifice triangulates our perception,” Carson explains, “so that we all but see ourselves looking … that point where we disappear into ourselves in order to look.”

Charles Wright (“Portrait of the Artist with Hart Crane”), Jorie Graham (“Self-portrait As Hurry And Delay”), Mary Ann Samyn (“Self-Portrait as Wall Paper with Little Stoves”), and Lucie Brock-Broido  (“Self-Portrait with Her Hair on Fire”) are just a few contemporary poets who have worked in a serious, serial way with self-portraiture. Of special interest to me is the self-portrait work being done by young poets, the thirty-somethings and younger, whose immersion in a culture of ubiquitous self-portrayal – in the media, technologies, social networking, even in the mirrored surfaces of our environments—extends and alters the self-portrait conversation.  In closing, I offer poems by three emerging poets, David Francis, Michael Rutherglen, and Sarah Schweig, whose works strike me as contributing to the notion of what constitutes a self-portrait poem in distinct and exciting ways, whether as a “declared” self-portrait or not. Part of a generation dramatically both more claustral and more people-connected than their predecessors , these young poets (brief biographies accompany their poems, below) are involved in creating as well as reflecting a sense of what it means to be a self in poems a decade into the current century of the era Anno Domini; they help us to see ourselves.

Quelle Night

She is, tonight, in spite of.
That’s what she said, going out,
locking the door, closing her winter coat
against the cold.  She is
in spite of it all.

To hell, she says, with the weather,
swaggering to a café on Broadway.
She needs a drink & a novel
project.  But how belabored
it all is.  All these people

with all their first-world problems
talking over espresso red-eyes, commending
their dead-pan deliveries of jokes
about Nietzsche & flattering
each other’s dry Wittgenstein:

One of the most misleading
representational techniques
in our language is the use of
the word ‘I.’
(I sees that—
& yet—)  “Exhausting,” she says.

“Quelle night.”  What are you
searching for?  As Miss S strays
back home, the salt trucks
salt the dirt-sick snow:
In spite of, in spite of, in spite of.

© by Sarah Schweig.  Printed by permission of the author.

Sarah V. Schweig’s poems have appeared or are forthcoming in Bomb Magazine, Boston Review, Painted Bride Quarterly, Western Humanities Review, and Verse Daily. She is a graduate of the University of Virginia and Columbia University, where her manuscript was recipient of the David Craig Austin Memorial Award. Her chapbook, S, is forthcoming through Dancing Girl Press. She lives in Brooklyn, New York.

Self-Portrait as Mosquito

Midway through the latched room
I flew to sniff you in,

lick your blood;
rapturous hover-stud, fiber-tearing,

tooth-sinking, to drain the interstitial
vein.  All I’d hoped for: a lit stove,

a taste I’d imagined: warm, a bit
of sweat mixed in, body welted

from sun, water wanting.  This
is the hour you’d pulled

my sharp kiss thin and this
is the door you’d locked

with wetted key, leaving
the fan’s blades to turn.  Wind

on a mattress ripped at the bed’s leg:
love in a cotton-field noon and forsythia’s

yellow-spattered stems—
I descended in.

© by David Francis.  Printed by permission of the author.

A Ph.D. candidate in romance languages and literatures at Harvard University, David Francis was a Fulbright Fellow in Colombia and is currently translating a collection of poems by the Cuban writer Severo Sarduy. His recent translations have appeared in Inventory and The FSG Book of Twentieth-Century Latin American Poetry.

The Flâneur Returns

from the crowds of the streets         to the books of his shelves
to speak with himself                        and their loose, silent sheets
of the flow of the crowds                  their involute loops
iterating across                                   irregular grids of

illuminated streets, their                  intricate, minuscule
movements inflected through         signals
stoplights and lampposts                 that draw him onward
like lit notes arranged                       down axes abstracted

in a dim andante                                past clusters of figures
he wanders through to                     a distant position
the codaless quiet                             close of the loop
of his shelves and himself               a twilit ellipsis

© by Michael Rutherglen.  Printed by permission of the author. (Editor’s Note: The lines on the right should have an even, flush-left margin, something our blog software doesn’t quite manage. Using a jpeg or similar insert with the more-precisely even margin would make the poem look small and “fuzzy.” So A&A opted for this approach.)

Michael Rutherglen is the recipient of a 2012­/2013 Amy Clampitt Residency and a founding editor of the Winter Anthologyhttp://winteranthology.com/index.php ),  an online collection of 21st century international literature, the first volume of which includes recent work by Charles Wright, Lucie Brock-Broido, Yves Bonnefoy, and Jean Valentine.

Lisa Russ Spaar, poetry editor for Arts & Academe, is a professor of English at the University of Virginia.

(A&A illustration derived from a photo by Flickr user Jen and a Camera)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • quidditas

    “A well-told tale of a minor jurisdictional dispute between some anthropologists and some feminists, where the latter are accused—perhaps correctly—of dispensing matriarchal moonshine. So far, so good, as it is an informative piece.”

    I agree that your characterization of this as a dispute between some anthropologists and SOME feminists is accurate and informative. Wood’s assertion that this paradigm is all-pervasive in contemporary Women’s and Gender Studies programs is false. It was never all pervasive and teaching it today, detached from the context of histories of feminism–where you are most likely to still find it, is *rare* not common.

    Wood’s own 1972 cite from Gloria Steinem (never an academic feminist in the first place) should have tipped him off. This is not to say that all kinds of “Herstory” are not part of popular culture and that some women find it appealing. I think you’re probably *much* more likely to find students who bring these ideas to the classroom than you are to find faculty who teach them.

    Although, frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with entertaining the possibility that social arrangements we believe to be eternal and universal may not be, Wood’s horror at the possibility notwithstanding. If no one opens up questions, no one investigates.

  • barbarapiper

    Other commentators have raised the key issue of a possible double standard here, so I won’t pursue it. I simply wondered if Dr. Wood is drawing a false analogy between the subject of matriarchy and political/religious bias. There are at least two possible problems.

    First, the idea of ancient matriarchy is a specific hypothesis about the past that can be discussed and debated within disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology and women’s studies. Hopefully such discussion and debate allows this hypothesis to be evaluated, assessed, and either discarded or accepted. After all, over several hundred years scholars have promoted all kinds of notions that turn out to be false, some of them quite difficult to kill – Kuhn reminded us to consider the sociology of belief when we are confronted with the powerfully conservative quality of theory in science. The good news is that eventually truth seems to prevail. Archaeologists have done a fairly good job of responding to the occasional risen-from-the-dead Goddess/Matriarchy proposal: look at the response to Gimbutas’s work in the mind-1970s, effectively ridiculing her ideas and driving a pretty definitive stake through its heart, at least in archaeology. If these ridiculous notions pop up again in Gender Studies/Women’s Studies contexts, it just reminds us that scholarly progress is halting: for every two steps forward, we seem doomed to take one step back. But there is a progress.

    The religious and political beliefs that were the subject of Dr. Wood’s early Innovations post seem to be of a different kind. They do not seem to me to be beliefs that are open to discussion and debate, and indeed in polite society we try to avoid such debate. Religious convictions are not ‘belief’, as philosophers constantly point out, in the same sense that my guess about who will win the World Series – I believe it will be the Red Sox this year – is a ‘belief.’ As debates in this CHE forum so often illustrate, no hypotheses are tested: facts are adduced to support political and religious convictions, and facts are rejected or ignored when they contradict those convictions.

    Second, matriarchy and “goddess” myths are perfectly appropriate topics for anthropology, archaeology, and gender studies departments to discuss and debate. Political and religious convictions are, as Dr. Wood reminds us regularly, not appropriate in most academic realms. Dr. Wood seems to be complaining about matriarchy being discussed, even taken for granted, in academic programs in which it is perfectly appropriate for the subject to be considered. At the same time, he complains about politics and religious (dis)belief being discussed in academic programs in which it is not appropriate for these subjects to be considered. I have no complaint at all if a religious studies department wants to hire a fundamentalist Baptist; why would Dr. Wood complain if a gender studies program wants to hire someone who ‘believes’ in the matriarchy notion?

    Chuck Kleinhans points out that simplistic Just Say No proposals are not really very effective in creating the changes that Dr. Wood advocates, and Dr. Wood doesn’t lay out much of an operational plan for creating change beyond that. Part of the problem may be that he worked for much of his academic career as assistant to Jon Westling, provost and later president of Boston University, a private university in which the president (John Silber in those days) and provost wielded considerable power in the management of university affairs. I remember back in those days everyone commenting that the restrooms on campus couldn’t get a toilet paper order without written approval from Westling. About a setting like that, Silber could say, in an interview:

    “We have resisted relativism as an official intellectual dogma….” “We have resisted the fad toward critical legal studies. . . . In the English department and the departments of literature, we have not allowed the structuralists or the deconstructionists to take over. . . . We have resisted the official dogmas of radical feminism. . . . We recognize that Western culture, so-called, is in fact a universal culture.”

    There was an extraordinary level of top-down management, which resulted in the termination of some exceptional scholars, including Henry Giroux and Michael Lynch, who were not sufficiently politically correct in the Silber/Westling view of the political. Draconian (see Dr. Wood’s account for how they finally drove out Howard Zinn) and heavy-handed, but they got the job done.

  • bizdean

    Mr. Wood, you are comparing apples to oranges. The matriarchy story is subject to empirical test; conservative Christianity is not. You yourself offer evidence from archaeology and the literature of anthropology, concerning the former. You offer no evidence about the latter, and of course cannot.

  • http://profiles.google.com/collegefreedom John Wilson

    It may be the case that a small number of academics believe in the matriarchy myth (none are named in this piece, and Gloria Steinem is not an academic and it’s not clear if she actually believes in this myth now, or ever really did). This is perfectly compatible with people who believe such nonsense facing discrimination in hiring. After all, many academics are openly Christian, and Wood tells us they face massive discrimination. You can find people in every field who believe in some kind of nonsense, and no one concludes that we should dismiss entire fields of study for that reason. I’ve never heard of the matriarchy myth in any of my women’s studies courses, and here we have a women’s studies scholar refuting it in books. I don’t know what it would mean for the “field as a whole” to reject a myth that isn’t widely advocated to begin with. Nor can I figure out what it would mean for “higher education” to hold women’s studies to a higher standard, unless Wood is advocating that Provosts and Presidents and Boards of Trustees should be rejecting women’s studies faculty hires and promotions unless candidates take an oath of disbelief in the matriarchy myth. So, Dr. Wood, what exactly do you propose to be done to stop these beliefs?

  • 11196496

    Peter Wood’s posting on academe swallowing the ancient matriarchy theory uncritically was interesting for its historical background on Mutterecht etc. and as an example of evolving scholarship in anthropology. Thank you, Peter Wood, for filling in soem schoalrly blanks.

    But notice that the article begins with scholarship of a decade ago. How prevalent is acceptance of the ‘matriarchy myth’ today? I am not sure but it does seem very dated. When I was in grad school in the 1980s–in a Religion Department no less–we learned that just because a society’s worship tradition includes veneration of goddesses, this does not automatically entail functioning matriarchy. Look at ancient Greece and Rome and the medieval, to say nothing of modern, veneration of the Virgin Mary. None of this preserved a matriarchy or even in itseld made for equitable treaatment of women. Wood’s use of the matriarchy argument may seem useful to bringing up his main point, but if it is that dated, perhaps it accidentally vitiates his case.

    How many people out there actually teach Gimbutas as sound anthropology?

  • cynthiaeller

    It’s my sense that approximately zero archaeologists and anthropologists teach the matriarchal theory as a sound, evidence-based hypothesis these days. Women’s studies programs are probably more tolerant of the occasional believer in the matriarchal theory, just as religious studies programs, even at public universities such as the one where I teach, are more tolerant of the occasional devout evangelical Christian. But I feel quite certain that there are far more gainfully employed academics who are evangelical Christians than there are those who embrace the matriarchal theory, let alone teach it as fact to their students. As myths go, the matriarchal theory is remarkably sturdy and versatile, popping up in all sorts of places in the social fabric, which is why it’s so fascinating as a topic in the history of ideas. It comes and goes, but right now, I’d say that in academic circles, it’s going. I just wish I knew where it was going to pop up again!

  • jffoster

    As a comment general, but prompted by Professor Eller’s last above, I think one thing that happens is that the matriarchy myth tends to get reinvented out of confusion when some people come into an awareness of matrilineal descent without an in depth understanding of it. There is a tendency to confuse descent and inheritance, to which -lineal and -lateral refer with social and political control, to which -archy refers. The explicatory tack I found over the years to have been most helpful with students is to show them first the differences between bilateral descent and short lived and unstable kindreds versus unlineal descent and more stable and longer lived descent groups. And then second to point out that while in patrilineal descent societies the group of men who are in political control are a group of brothers and their sons, in matrilineal descent societies the men who are in control are a group of brothers and their SISTERS’ sons.

  • jamesebryan

    Perhaps I am just a sheltered naif who hasn’t happened to witness what Dr. Wood and other conservatives continually decry as a pervasive bias against them in academe, but I have never had anyone in higher education inquire about my religious or political beliefs until long after we had become personally acquainted and established such a long-standing relationship that our general outlooks on life were mutually understood and it was quite clear that such conversations were welcome and taking place in our capacity as private persons and not as colleagues. Nor have I ever heard conversations about colleagues or policy in which it was suggested that such factors were pertinent to any official decisions to be made. In fact, I have always found an innate aversion to touch upon such matters to prevail amongst most of my colleagues, except for the occasional religious conservative who wore his or her faith on his or her shirtsleeve (or blouse sleeve as the case may be, I suppose). Moreover, for every hiring committee I have ever served upon Human Resources has mandated a refresher briefing on the legal and ethical requirements of our search procedures (no matter how many times one might heard said lecture already), and those sorts of personal questions about religion and politics have always been vigorously forbidden. While I can see how occasionally it might happen in some disciplines, as mentioned before (how can a Creationist legitimately teach a course on Evolution?), I have to wonder just how often this actually happens and how much this is a straw man created for their own purposes by right-wing blowhards.

    My personal belief is that there aren’t many conservatives in most academic disciplines for the same reason that there aren’t many liberals in the military – their attitudes and values do not encourage them to enter those careers very often. In my experience most conservatives are very much impressed with the importance of money (I’ll be generous and say they are pragmatic rather than cynical and say they are avaricious), and there just isn’t much money to be made in higher education. Even those academic fields that pay better than others, such as business or engineering, don’t pay as well as equivalent positions in the private sector. If conservatives want more of their kind to go to work in the academy they should increase the incentives to attract them. After all, they always argue that’s what’s necessary to attract the right people to jobs on Wall Street, even for jobs in failing firms propped up by public funds.

  • peterwwood

    Dear pse18105, A specious theory is taught as fact in at least some quarters of the secular university. That the theory in question–matriarchal prehistory-is indeed specious is not in dispute among scholars who deal with the factual record of pre-history. Pointing out that the academy has a generally tolerant attitude towards this particular misfeasance is a “bias” onlyy if you think the “hypothesis” of matriarchal prehistory has enough foundation to deserve continuing exploration. Otherwise, it is, as Eller described it, a “myth.” The contrast I drew was between a bias against whole categories of people based on the willingness of some academics to attribute to members of that class a doctrinaire attitude in their research and teaching–regardless of whether the individuals in question had shown any such doctrinaire approach. In the case of those faculty members who persist in teaching matriarchal prehistory as fact or even as serious hypothesis, we are discussing actual performance, not an attributional characteristic.

    Peter Wood

  • chuckkle

    Wood: “The contrast I drew was between a bias against whole categories of people based on the willingesss [sic] of some academics to attribute to members of that class a doctrinaire attitude in their research and teaching–regardless of whether the individuals in question had shown any such doctrinaire approach.” Yes, EXACTLY what Peter Wood does over and over in discussing leftist academics: they are all alike, they are all indoctrinating all the time.

    Wood seems painfully out-of-date about the contemporary university. How many panels and papers have been presented at academic conferences over the past decade which take the matriarchy story as a fact? In my experience it was pretty much discredited back in the 1970s. Once again, Wood seems to have some weird myth of his own about what goes on in Gender Studies classrooms.

    At the same time, he can’t bring himself to admit that there might be some rather obvious reason why certain academic areas don’t have people of certain belief systems working there. Is there some dark conspiratorial prejudice against Christian Scientists among medical school faculties that explains why there are so few (are there any?) on the faculty? Or is there perhaps a rather obvious and simple explanation about self-selection among job seekers?

    Chuck Kleinhans

  • Guest

    Mr. Lazere,

    You tell us you will argue:

    “. . . that America needs more college graduates and so needs to enact policies to improve academic preparation in K-12 education and make college affordable for large numbers of students who are now denied both adequate preparation and financial access”

    then treat us to several hundred words peppered with platitudes and absent argument. In addition to failing to make your case — even to someone favorably inclined to it, as I am — you give the impression that you don’t have the first idea about how to bring these changes about. Change requires vision, concrete strategy, mastery of facts, and an understanding of available resources. Was it your intention to leave that work to someone else?

  • electronicmuse

    Not only do I “like” this comment, I think it hits several nails squarely on the head. Surely it is the personal characteristics grward has cited, rather than the sheepskin, that matter both to the individual and to our society.

    And, his/her comment about lack of rigor in K-12 is spot on. As implied, “college grad” is rapidly coming to have about the same value as “high school grad” once did.

    In my view, most of this country’s ills spring from a fatuous “faith” in America’s “exceptionalism,” or even more pernicious, “manifest destiny.” It is said, that at one time, the Pope sat down with the Kings of Portugal and Spain, and they “divided the world.” Where are these countries now, except asking EU for a bailout, or teetering toward needing to do the same?

    Where is our perspective? We most certainly can fail, individually, and as a country . . . it was the politics of appeals to the ego, and national “exceptionalism” that brought Fascism to power. We’re getting closer and closer . . . maybe we should celebrate with a tea party (in MA, not NH, by the way!)

  • Guest

    I agree that much of the disagreement and emotion is predicated on a tacit assumption of what there was to mean by “higher education” through 1950′s and does not apply to 2011. What does it say for our powers of observation that the construct could have evolved so far and wide without apparent notice?

    Whatever we may think about the fact, higher education is now a mass market, consisting of countless sub-markets, and participated in by almost anyone who wishes to do so. Yes, different intellectual and affective dispositions, skills, and knowledge are required to be a chemist versus a respiratory therapist. So what? Both are important. Both represent “higher education.” Calling one “training” and the other “education” is scientifically unjustified, unhelpful arrogance. I have no doubt that the mean IQ of the former is 1 SD higher than the latter. So what again? How does making this distinction advance society, the economy, or the access and affordability crisis? An interesting aside: the 10-year ROI on respiratory therapy is higher than chemistry and the opportunity cost of the time-to-degree differential (a metric too important for anyone to measure and report) is such that the chemist may never catch up.

  • sand6432

    The “special adviser” to Governor Perry was being paid an outrageous salary of over $200,000 for his so-called expert advice. It turns out a report of his was shot through with basic errors of miscitation and the like, revealing that the author was hardly worth what he was being paid. —Sandy Thatcher, Frisco, TX

  • mutualrespect37

    In my recent experience in the lower Midwest, universities like the flagship schools of MO, KS, and NE have extremely bad-faith people working in their equal opportunity offices who don’t think twice about misrepresenting facts and harshly blaming discrimination victims to save the universities from liability. A newspaper in NE wanted to publicize my story; however, the administration had already severely censored the school paper to the point all questions regarding campus news now have to go through a specific university official.

    In order to save themselves from liability for violating FERPA in my case, the Kansas University HR office invented false witnesses to claim I was the one at fault. They put an ugly false racism claim against me ( for which I was harshly punished) without following legally required due process procedures. They even went as far as lying to the Department of Education and the EEOC about these issues. In turn, the government rarely challenges their dishonest reported versions of the facts. Maybe due to Obama’s tenure, KU was told to change some of their grievance procedures that weren’t up to legal snuff, but they aren’t using the ones they already have so it is unlikely this will help much.

    Workers and students who complain about staff or faculty malfeasance often receive backlash in the form of false harassment charges. The further south you go, the more conflict-of-interest politics prevail too. Everyone in charge is in cahoots so there’s little chance wrongdoing will be exposed.

    One of the saddest, most unethical things is the bad-faith, conflict- of- interest, and biased policing that goes on at the behest of school administrators at all three schools–MO, NE, and KS. Darn, should have stayed at UCLA, but most creative writing doctoral programs are in the lower Midwest and south. No one warned these parts of the country are caught in a time warp.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Norman-Bidnez/100002310306306 Norman Bidnez

    The World’s Greatest Newspaper is biased. Dr. Vedder is referring to the “Financial Mess” headline the Tribune published about the audit findings at Chicago State. The Tribune looks to find what’s wrong at Chicago State, but never publishes what’s right at Chicago State.

    The Tribune does’t publish about how Chicago State is victimized by the graduation rate counting rules. The Tribune has never reported that CSU produced 10,000 graduates in the decade between 2000 and 2010, Yet it has called CSU a drop out factory because of the inaccurate way that college statistics are calculated. CSU produced this number of graduates, in spite of a large transfer rate. No drop out factory produces 1,000 graduates a year.

    If the Tribune was the World’s Greatest Newspaper, it would have published that the states flagship university, U of I got more audit findings and more repeat audit findings than did Chicago State. I shudder to think what that headline should have read. And no where in that article is there any publication of financial impropriety, despite what Dr. Vedder said. That is a shockingly untrue statement, and it wrongfully accuses Chicago State of an impropriety that it never suffered..

  • quidditas

    Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but one choice seems to be to tell educators to go F*** themselves.

    http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_overselling_of_education#
    Lawrence Mishel, Overselling Education

    http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=schools_as_scapegoats#
    Lawrence Mishel and Richard Rothstein, Schools as Scapegoats

  • dlazere

    Sorry, I wasn’t mainly thinking of you in saying many of these comments are just snide derision with no substantive refutation.

    However, how about your producing “reasonably compelling evidence for your case that “the disadvantage will not be so great or will not exist at all for the underclass student with a 145 IQ IQ”? I do not know at what age or under what circumstances IQ is first tested, but isn’t it plausible that many underclass students suffer from such heavy social and economic disadvantages that they never make it to the stage of IQ testing, or are sufficiently damaged not to achieve to their innate level if they do?

    Concerning your more recent comment, you evade what IS my main point, that communities like mine in East Tennessee are undeniably dependent on the economic and civic benefits provided by public higher education and other tax-funded services, but people have been duped by conservative Republicans and Democrats alike into believing they don’t need to pay taxes to support them. Whether other sources of funding might conceivably be found seems marginal to the tangible reality that taxes spent on higher education are recouped by communities many times over.

  • lizziec

    My position on the bad actors in the for-profits is by now, well-known here, but I need to make a comment.

    I have personal knowledge of some good actors, and I almost went to work for one in the Cosmetology business as a Regional Director. These schools are providing a good service and are dedicated to the industry they serve and are examples of what I would hope the other for-profits enterprises would aspire to.

    I think we have to make sure that as we have experience and first hand knowledge of some of the most egregious behaviors out there that we do not stoop to the level where some on here seem to reside permanently. I’ve done so, although unintentionally.

    When I lambast the “for-profits”, I am very specifically referring to the for-profits who recruit illiterate and academically incapable students for “degree programs”:

    1) that the students will NEVER be able to complete without gross faculty misconduct involved
    2) that lack the rigor for the “credits” assigned
    3) that are outrageously priced for the “product” they sell, and
    4) that will never result in meaningful employment for the “graduates” that was not available to them PRIOR to getting their worthless piece of paper stamped “DEGREE”

    I do not have any issues with for-profit education, per se. I do, however, take MAJOR umbrage with the behaviors that create obscene wealth for a few at the top at the expense of society’s most vulnerable.

    It is pretty clear from the personal accounts posted here and the increasing news reports on the industry, that education is being used as a vehicle for access to federal student loan and grant monies by too many greedy and shady operators at the expense of thousands of ignorant (and sometimes lazy) people whose financial ruin is almost certain, while their educational outcomes are not, and who do not have the intellectual fortitude to make a well-informed decision on the matter.

    No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it still oinks and lives in a pen.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NHZO25JZG6AONOHE65YWZ62I3I HeXt

    Community colleges don’t create black holes of debt in students lives.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NHZO25JZG6AONOHE65YWZ62I3I HeXt

    200% True.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NHZO25JZG6AONOHE65YWZ62I3I HeXt

    The for-profits won’t disappear until the federal funding is cut off. As long as they have the ability to access the federal funds, they can offer snake oil and prey on the vulnerable in a never-ending cycle. Most for-profit students hide the pain of the debt. I know I did for years. The students blame themselves and assume they can fix it until it gets too much to bear. If the students don’t speak up, the marketing continues…and so do the schools. Churn and burn. Debt factories.

  • velvis

    I think to pretend that its the topic that can woo them back from the brink is foolish. Some of us doc students have lives and issues that are on par with real people. I have a family – I have bills to pay and the money I’m earning from my assistantship wouldn’t be enough to cover gas if I had any other car than the one that I do. If LIFE is getting in the way then perhaps the program is the most logical thing to go — for many people the doc is more than a hobby or a chance to explore at topic and ourselves and I think more adivsors need to understand that.

    But I think bigtwin has the real understanding in spades. Advisors are meant to advise not skirt phone calls or not answer emails or tell students – “well start writing and then we can get back and fix it” — that little comment is pretty much telling me “go waste your time for a couple of weeks because I don’t really feel like dealing with you right now.”

    Perhaps part of the first conversation the pair should have is what does the student hope to gain from the degree is it a chance to work on a project or is it a path to a better career. The “knowledge for knowledge sake” professors don’t understand how or why I’ve gotten through my program in 26 months – smelling the roses just isn’t on my itinerary – this doc is just a step along my way and I’ll create an English garden when it makes sense. The professor that sees this program as part of my life but not my life is probably better suited.
    I believe that since this conversation doesn’t happen as many proffs believe that all doc students are just as they were and because of this often offer inappropriate advice. (Not that the author necessarily is but often advice is given without consideration as to whom it is going).

  • lizziec

    The problem here is that the value proposition for many of these schools makes them unattractive to people who have the intellectual capacity to look at all the options available to them and make a good decision based on cost, accessibility, quality of education (rigor), and more.

    Most of the people flocking to these factories are not smart enough to realize that they are not learning enough to justify what they are paying, and they are not skilled enough to research how these “degrees” are viewed in the workforce. This makes the “less smart” students ideal for these places.

    Very sad, and troubling.

  • raza_khan

    hmmm….. okay….. from my perspective, when it is that time to “check out” from teaching, it is time to retire or resign…..   Why does everything has to be so complicated…….   Faculty are hired primarily to teach / research depending on the academic institution.

    Raza
    ___________________________
    Raza Khan, Ph.D.
    Dr.Raza.Khan@gmail.com

  • v8573254

    This is such an important idea.  Some people are self starters, but it’s rewarding and invigorating to discover others believe in you and your capacity to continue doing great, energetic things.
    I once told my chair that I was beginning to feel a little bored.
    “I know,” she said.

    It was time to leave.

  • tee_bee

    This is really timely for me. I am feeling the signs of burn out, and wish my university had something to help me kick start the 2nd half of my career. This would be helpful.

  • tee_bee

    You’re clearly not a social or behavioral scientist, because, if you were, you’d not offer simplistic answers to complex problems. Career burnout in lots of fields is well documented. I don’t think we should just toss folks under the bus when they become burned out. We might want to try to find a way to channel their energies into something exciting. Or, instead, we could just fire the lot.

  • cwinton

    The term I always used was “reinvent yourself”, preferably about every 10 years or so.  If it’s to be teaching, prep for and take on a course in a related discipline.  If it’s research, investigate an area out of your comfort zone (but which may benefit from what you already have done) and pursue it – collaborative work is almost always a possibility in this regard.  If it’s service, check out where your student outreach programs need help and take on something you think you can contribute some expertise to.  I came out of an administrative stint pretty much mentally exhausted, but a good 10 years short of retirement.  Rather than take the easy road and return to my academic comfort zone I reinvented myself, with the result that my last 10 years were in many ways my best ones and got me into some stuff I’m still actively engaged in now that I am retired.

  • alabaster

    Burn-out can be due to all kinds of stress, but it can also be physical; I discovered only a few years ago (I’m 68) that my weariness was due to narcolepsy, not to being a deadbeat. It helped me rethink how I structure my time, and make time for daily naps in the afternoon – a new and refreshing practice.

  • 5768

    “How common is it for senior professors to “check out” from their teaching, research, or service duties?”

    Not common here as the contract calls for 6 year plans for senior professors which must be approved by administration (as well as plans for each faculty member). The question is whether such a strategy is invigorating or simply more conducive to burnout;  (And how meaningful and meaningless a 6 year forward-looking individual plan can be in times when universities turn on a dime is another question entirely).

    Gail Sheehy’s classic book “Passages” describes phases in life, something I read decades ago and which seems to have alerted me as a young man that the exuberance of early career would be but a phase. It prepared me when I heard senior faculty I admired lament “I feel like a worn-out shoe they are tossing out” and “It’s just not fun anymore.” Rather than work faculty to death at each stage of their career universities would do well to better appreciate the value-added of their faculty, something that changes emphasis throughout the career as per Sheehy. Of course, in cases where universities offer early retirement incentives to clean house, or in cases where faculty are treated as disposable parts, universities are ultimately degrading the value of their portfolio holdings: experienced faculty are perhaps in the best position to transmit historical continuity of their disciplines to their students, to link the new generation with a past to which they increasing seem oblivious–to student and societal detriment. I believe students are starved for this and universities in large measure have yet to realize it.

  • 5768

    I would be remiss were I to not indicate that under the union-negotiated contract, tenure track faculty whose performance plans require equipment or resources not otherwise available at the university are themselves tasked with coming up with necessary funding to meet their objectives. Evidently the motivation behind such a clause in shifting the burden to the faculty has less to do with preventing burn-out than with ensuring the university against unbridled aspirations on the part of the faculty, perhaps rightly. Am curious how the Hubbard Center is able to fund the grants it awards.

  • akprof

    Good for you making that time – this is a health and safety issue as well as a :feel better” issue.

  • iriselina

    Burn-out? I have never heard of this ! I am 70. I retired at 65 and wondered why when I could  have gone on and on.  But I knew the rules and so quit when I had to
     I had started my doctoral research towards the end of my career ( for various reasons ) and so completed it after retirement.I presented papers at  international conferences even after retirement , taught again,  trained  young  teachers, published my work and continue to guide and help Ph. D scholars and those young staff who have  never had the benefits  of travel to foreign countries and libraries that I have had.
    Wisdom transference never stops and there are many ways of doing this and with the Internet there is so much more that can be done. Maybe we have more time now for naps.Sure we need that too.But what about all those hobbies we never pursued or those newspaper clippings that we collected all those years.Cant some thing good come out of that ? Newspapers are always looking out for  useful and inspiring  articles in education.The computer has made writing so comfortable. The Internet is fantastic for contact with the rest of the world. What holds one back?

  • goxewu

    Ah, the counselification of practically everything. A tenured professor, earning $100k plus, just can’t “stomach another faculty meeting…[get] interested in mentoring junior professors or drum up the energy it takes to teach well or do research.” So what are universities supposed to do with them? Bring the poor dears into yet another Center and give them guidance, succor, and instruction. Please.

    Put the time, talent and money (this is a zero sum game, you know) somewhere else for people who really deserve it: disadvantaged students, for example.

    There’s a time for the carrot, a time for nursemaiding, and a time for the stick. For goldbricking senior faculty–who’ve gotten their fair share of carrots and coddling–it’s time for a little stick.

  • 11186108

    Why wait for the university? You know yourself better than they do – pick a few things that are related to your expertise and experience, and try them out. Read cwinton’s item and think how you might apply that advice to your areas.  Find something that you enjoy and which is productive.

  • changing123

    I have no idea where you work, but full professors here are lucky if they make $65K. Given the rising costs of professional development (conference registrations, workshops), as well as the shrinking budget of the institution, professional development funds are often directed only to junior professors, leaving those of us who have already demonstrated a commitment to this place with little. And we “goldbricking senior faculty” who haven’t received a raise in years and annually face furloughs cannot afford to pay out of pocket for what we’d like to do. Don’t get me wrong–junior faculty need support and should have it.  But senior faculty still have a great deal to offer both to colleagues and to students, and to write us off is extremely shortsighted.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=551702360 Genevieve McBride

    All to the good, but this comment is about an active retirement, and thus is not responsive to the article about those who are not yet at the age of retirement or, especially these days, who are not able to afford retirement (at my campus, with no raises for five years and fake “furlough” aka pay cuts for two years and now even worse pay cuts ahead, many of us at late career stages will be making less than we did ten years ago). 

    I agree that it is up to us to find new challenges, as I do.  But I also agree that a lot of attention is given to junior faculty — correctly — which also could be shared with senior faculty who are not retiring, who still will be in the classroom, and still have a lot to offer there as well as in their research and writing.  Informally, I look to even more senior faculty — there are a few left! — and am grateful for their example to emulate in their continued zest for the classroom as well as, as in your case, research and writing.  I am fortunate to have such colleagues, but I know that not all of us do in other departments, so this article is about a good, formalized program to share their mentoring.

  • hypatia

    In my observation, the burnout of mid-career and senior professors may be related to lack of appreciation.  Great fuss is made about new tenure-track appointees and “rising stars”.  Meanwhile, everyone else at higher levels is expected to continue working hard, get lots done, keep the institution running, the students taught, and the research churned out, but no one really seems to care or notice what they are doing.  To me, all the focus on junior colleagues at times seems ageist:  as if no one past the level of junior associate is ever doing worthwhile work. 
     
    To keep mid-career and senior professors engaged and prevent their burnout may simply mean that department chairs, deans, even other colleagues (including the junior ones) and students should demonstrate a little more awareness of all that these long-term employees are doing.  An occasional word of appreciation could go a long way.
     
    After all, if no one seems to care, it is hardly surprising that long-term employees might just resort to phoning it in.

  • iriselina

    Sorry to hear of pay cuts there ! Each University is different, I guess, and in India where we are already paid poorly, such cuts would lead to strikes and riots ! But some institutions are improving here,as regards salaries . The concept of “Voluntary retirement” is known here but  has not yet entered the University. Unless the benefits are attractive no one would like to retire.
    Not sure whether I have made myself clear but cuts in salaries are unthinkable.

  • mrmars

    As an older mentor once opined, “its a great life if you don’t weaken.”  And of course it really is; an academic career has a lot to recommend it (just ask all those tax payers who are convinced that we are underworked and overpaid).  Once one has the hang of it, it should be onward and upward until retirement. Unfortunately as the saying goes, “life is what happens while you are making other plans.” There are pesky concerns that intervene involving spouses, aging parents, and kids who start to wonder what their academic parent actually looks like.  And in some cases the intrusions are much worse. I’m tempted to list some of the more impressive “life lessons” that I’ve seen play out in academic careers over the years, but the list would be way too long, and why spoil the surprise?  Suffice it to say that the fates don’t dispense tragedies evenly.  Some faculty live a charmed life with little to interfere with their career progress, and some are not so lucky.  For older faculty these life events often get buried in the past and may not even be generally known to their younger colleagues, especially (the severity of) the specifics. 

    So the reasons why older faculty “run out of steam” as they mature in the job are complex, and may involve issues beyond the job itself.  Another seemingly universal issue that all of my older academic friends complain about is that one becomes increasing invisible as one ages.  Newer and younger colleagues tend to associate with each other (as did we) and the extent to which things often get decided and accomplished within these unofficial liaisons is substantial. You know you are aging in the job when department meetings become more a source of surprises than plans and discussions, as in “when did we agree to do that?!”  This seeming systematic exclusion, unintentional as it may be (or not?), coupled with a lack of programs specifically aimed at keeping older faculty involved, not only gets to be bothersome at some point, it encourages further detachment. IMHO, programs such as the one described here are long overdue. Hopefully some day program announcements restricting application to those who have at least twenty years of experience will be as common as those limited to those within five years of their degree are now. 

    A more succinct way of summing all this up was expressed by a sign that a now retired friend kept in his office which read,

                               “First they kill you, then they complain that you’re dead!”  

    I could elaborate, but in the absence of the requisite seniority it can’t be fully appreciated in any case.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kellycoleman.waldenuniversity Kelly Coleman

    I recruit faculty and this topic comes up frequently. The article validates what I have been hearing from faculty, they are looking for ways to be challenged and to use their expertise. I am searching for ways to connect to this audience because their experience is invaluable.
     
    Do you think a part time position would revive faculty? Or  if you are burned out is this the last thing you are looking for?

  • jeffgray

    What do they spend on football, men’s and women’s basketball and lacrosse?  Perhaps they should consider reducing expenditures in these over resourced and overstaffed programs, and save some of the other programs that they have on the chopping block. The student athletes in the programs proposed for elimination probably have stronger academic profiles, and a greater appreciation for the academic and athletic opportunities that they have available to them; they are not the student athletes asking to be paid more, and most of them are probably not slated to receive the $2,000 in additional support toward the full cost of attendance.  This is where the NCAA reforms do not go far enough.  If the Presidents are really serious about true reform and concern for rising costs, they will take steps to:  (1) reduce scholarship allocations further in the high profile sports of football (FBS and FCS), and men’s and women’s basketball; (2) reduce the number of coaching positions in all of these sports (do basketball programs really need 5 full time coaches and other support staff to manage 12 kids?); (3) reduce the number of non-coaching staff positions that are permissable; (4) reduce the competition schedules (and missed class time) in certain sports (basketballs, baseball and softball, among others), and (5) consider ways to place reasonable caps on operating and salary expenditures; for the latter, there are of course certain challenges, and an antitrust exemption may have to be sought, but the fact of the matter is that high profile football and basketball coaches are simply paid too much, disproportionate to their true value and contribution to the whole.  The high profile men’s programs (and not women’s sports or gender equity requirements) are largely responsible for the lion’s share of the cost issues, and this has an adverse impact on other programs and student athletes, many of which much more closely resemble the “collegiate” model of intercollegiate play. Until the NCAA and institutions of higher education get their arms wrapped around this and really tackle the core issues, corruption will continue, and the lower profile programs will get squeezed.

  • victorl

    “Urge U. of Maryland to Drop 8 Sports …”  but not football … but  not basketball … Maybe you could lose the badminton team?  Yeah!  That’d sure bolster up the ol’ bottom line …

  • blesstayo

    I now see that athletics are still for the alumni members since no popular sport is cut, despite the declining revenues from football and basketball.