Today, in my inbox, I received two e-mails that made me smile really, really, really wide.
From my Rhetoric professor:
“Subject: Tuesday’s Class
Group: Site
Message:
Dear Students of Rhetoric 103a,
A number of you have asked what the plan is for Tuesday, in light of the upcoming student strike. I’d like to take this opportunity to offer my perspective as an educator, as someone who values humanistic inquiry, and also, as a happily somewhat marginal member of the Berkeley community (that is, as someone who is here on a visiting fellowship as opposed to a permanent faculty post, and whose salary is largely paid by an outside source) – but also as someone who has really enjoyed his time here, and who thinks very highly of the Berkeley students, and their passion for what they do.
Canceling class for political reasons is always a tricky issue, for a number of reasons. While there are often students who are vocal about the need for solidarity, there are also a number of students who might disagree, agree in part, or choose to be indifferent. The question, posed in one way, then, is this: whose demands am I to honor? Those of the majority? Those most vocal? Should I seek to protect the rights of students who choose not to join the protests? If I choose to cancel class, I deny students the very resources for which they pay dearly, and borrow heavily. If I hold class, I punish other students by holding them responsible for material I cover - even if I declare that their absence is excused.
Some have suggested holding protest classes (say, outside, or in Sproul plaza), but as a logistical matter this possibility is foreclosed. So given that both solutions (hold class, cancel class) are unappetizing to me for various reasons, I have to default to the position most in tune with my values, a decision that isn’t thereby any better or worse (in fact, my guess is that it will succeed in annoying everyone). It’s a split-the-difference decision, even though, as I suggested earlier, I’m fully aware that in these sorts of situations there isn’t really much difference to split.
At the end of the day, I feel that it’s my responsibility to be in my classroom. I also feel that it’s my responsibility to be talking about ancient rhetoric. But (and here’s the difference-splitting part) no new material is going to be introduced. I’m inviting (and I choose that word carefully) all of you to join me in a discussion about the ancient rhetorical tradition, its place in the humanities, and its relevance today. NO ONE IS OBLIGATED TO JOIN ME. It is only an invitation. The format will be open discussion; our reference points will be the texts that we’ve read in common.
Since I’ve built an extra day into the course (our “wrap up” day), we’ll simply push our material back a session. I’ll lecture on Perpetua and Felicitas starting Thursday, and then we’ll conclude with Augustine.”
—-
From the Chinese department:
“Tomorrow is a special day. Our 100XA will make some
adjustments. There won’t be classes held in our regular
classrooms, but our instructors are available in their offices
during class times and office hours. If you have questions, you
can reach them. This adjustment will allow you to concentrate
on the strike.
Thursday: L25
Friday: L25 + Quiz
Next Monday and Tuesday: Cha Bu Duo xiansheng in the Reader.
Go Bears!
C100XA”
