Recently, the CCCC Executive committee released this statement about the upcoming conference in Kansas City. I want to be fair and generous– it’s not an awful statement. I’m glad they’re being transparent, though it did take a number of us begging for the update to receive it. I appreciate their effort.
A few things really strike me as off here, though.
The first is that they hinge a great deal of their position on Mr. Pruitt of the St. Louis NAACP’s position, claiming they didn’t reach out to the Kansas City NAACP because it is in the midst of a leadership change. Anyone following the NCTE’s conference situation knows that they used Pruitt as a justification to not “run away” from St. Louis, so you’ll have to pardon me if I don’t take his words about Kansas City as anything different. He already showed his hand. We’re just reading the cards a second time.
The second thing that bothers me is that again the decision is framed by money and not by making the choice based on principle or safety. The underhanded rhetorical move of trying to shift blame for the loss of money (by then reducing grant money available) seems a bit tacky given the situation. That said, I don’t doubt that it’s true, and I don’t doubt that many members will define their morality in dollar signs. I see who we elected President of the United States. I know it’s money over people. We’re capitalistic.
But here’s the thing that bothers me, and I might get some heat for this, but… it needs to be said.
In the time since the statement was released, I’ve seen several people on Facebook congratulating the executive committee on what an amazing job they’re doing. And that’s fine, people get to have opinions. I would be a hypocrite to share my displeasure and not think people who are pleased deserve the same right.
I have a very diverse set of friends. It’s almost like I’m a race and difference scholar who knows lots of other “othered” scholars.
Here’s the rub: the only people I see praising this release from CCCC– and the praise is bordering on brown-nosing if people want to be really honest with themselves– are white scholars.
Now that’s not meant as an attack on white scholars. Most scholars are white. In fact, some of my favorite scholars, including all of my work colleagues (who I adore) and my wife (who I REALLY adore) are white. But what I find interesting is that there’s a disproportionate number of female, of color, and non-hetero scholars in my selection of friends vs. the full membership of CCCC. Yet not a single one of my non-male, non-white, non-hetero friends has taken the time to post a back-patting, organization praising, sympathy-for-the-hard-work laden congratulatory post to the CCCC EC. I also don’t claim to have seen every post that’s out there. I’m just speaking from my experience. What I’ve seen.
I think the reason for these reactions is that for some (not all, but some) white scholars the stakes in this discussion are so different than they are for people of color that the standard in our field to close ranks around anyone who is embattled and to prop them up is winning the day, becoming a bigger deal than protecting the people who are actually in harm’s way. I’ve seen this happen on a smaller scale numerous times when students of color had issues with a professor who happened to not be of color. That stuff happens all the time. And women who have been put in bad situations by male professors– don’t even get me started.
It’s the natural reaction of the academy to rally to their own cause. The academy wants to protect itself, and it sometimes forgets that “itself” isn’t just the Ivory part of the Tower. In this case the status quo might not realize that it is protecting itself by literally endangering those it others. The National Association of White Professors of English doesn’t exist, but if it did, and it told its members that they might be harmed if they went to KC, I think we’d be having a much different conversation about how much a money we should be willing to lose to ensure safety. Sorry if that seems blunt. I think we have to take it to that level to make the point, because by virtue of being white, some white people are oblivious to what this feels like for people of color. It’s not a hypothetical. Safety IS at risk.
But while I don’t want to be the oozing bucket of anger on Facebook–I already had two older white male scholars try to silence me with their rank-closing earlier this week–I do want to point out to anyone who is new to watching the field’s public face that this statement is promising, but this is NOT the sort of statement that deserves the take-a-bow-and-walk-off-stage-with-flowers reaction some people are giving it. This isn’t Tom Brady walking off with the Lombardi Trophy. This is calling the coin toss. There’s a game to play, people.
If you read it carefully, it makes their process transparent, but there’s nothing new in it. It still hinges the decision on money. It still recognizes the potential solutions that people called for already. It cites the same NAACP leadership NCTE cited when talking about their convention. It’s an update, and it indicates to me that the committee didn’t just dismiss concerns, but it’s not Mr. Holland’s Opus. This wasn’t the moment CCCC’s EC struck a blow for equality by telling us it’d cost them a million dollars to cancel their annual meeting, all the while implying that those of us who want that would be taking research grant money away from needy scholars. This was an attempt to save face. And I’ll admit, I feel less certain that they’ll ignore the situation and have the conference anyway than I did while people were telling me to stop throwing shade and wait for the committee to decide.
Though if you read their statement closely, that’s kind of what it says. Between the lines it says “we’re considering these things, but that’s a million dollars” and then it makes little jabs like “and if we cancel we’re still giving Missouri all that money,” which rhetorically functions as a pretty condescending counter to people like me who had said we don’t plan to spend our money there at the convention, as if somehow their hotel fees are the bulk of the money spent at the conference. Little things like that make me wonder just how serious they’re taking it.
Now to those who know me who are on the EC, I know some of you are fighting the good fight. I’m painting the committee with a single brush because that seems to be what the committee wants. I know there are people as upset about this as I am (possibly more). I also know some of you on the inside can’t say what I’m saying because, again, you’re in that closing circle that is trying to protect the status quo, and you can’t get yourself kicked out of the mix. I promise to keep mouthing off for you, being the angry nagging voice you can’t be. Even if you wish I wouldn’t, it’s my gift to you.
So to tl;dr it: Nice first step, CCCC EC. But don’t let the people patting you on the back convince you that you don’t need to do better. Thank you for engaging with us, but maybe next time try not to pretend it’s not about money before making it all about money again. Maybe come out and say “we’re willing to lose all this money for what is right, we just want to make sure you all agree” instead of trying to scare us as if a check might bounce.
Fight the good fight. But… fight. Don’t throw your hands up and stick with the status quo. We need to be better than that.