Before reflecting on the content for this week, I’d like to echo and add onto a suggestion for the syllabus. I saw that Sean had a similar thought to myself when reviewing the course readings. When we begin reading about Power and Institutions, and given the tools we are using to complete coursework, I’d be interested in spending more time exploring the almost adversarial relationship between institutions, power, and open educational resource initiatives and projects. Perhaps this also could fall under precarity, depending on the angle. As a member of the CUNY Commons Team, I have these conversations a lot and would be curious to learn more about this struggle between openness and administration.
I also think it might be interesting to explore these themes in other digital spaces or topics. For example, I quickly saw the mention of AI below, and I would also be interested in engaging in a conversation about it and the way institutions respond to it.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
There is also frequently an adversarial relationship between administration and those on the tenure track.
For instance, when I started at LaGuardia, full time instructors had a 5/4 teaching schedule, and they still had to serve on committees, take part in Center for Teaching and Learning Seminars (which have their own nightmarish power dynamics), “demonstrate leadership” (this has never been adequately defined) and publish.
That’s … too much and lots of it isn’t well defined. Which is why when a lot of our tenure track people are let go, they win their grievances.
Such a good point, Anthony. Wouldn’t it be interesting to look at the contracts or terms of engagement between CUNY and the proprietary systems we use (and that often don’t even serve us well, like CUNYFirst)? And then to consider those in relation to the push for OER initiatives, the labor for which often falls on contingent faculty/grad students/folks with less power in the system.