Participating in today’s “Five On the Hour: Stand for Freedom of Speech,” I’m posting the statements I prepared for my two classes. In practice, I ended up improvising. During my first class (English 725: African American Children’s Literature), I realized that I should have started with the connection to the class and then moved out to the Kansas Board of Regents, and so I began re-structuring things on the fly. During my second class, I was much looser, using the statement only as a broad guideline — I began with the connection to the work we were reading (The Watsons Go to Birmingham — 1963), and then moved out to the Regents’ repressive social media policy.

So. What you see below is not what I read in each class. They’re what I planned to read.

---

Engl 725: African American Children’s Literature | Engl 355: Literature for Children

---

ENGLISH 725: AFRICAN AMERICAN CHILDREN’S LITERATURE

Five on the Hour: Freedom of Speech and Higher Education

Philip Nel

I’m going to take the next five minutes to say a few words about Freedom of Speech, and why it’s important in higher education in general and in African American Children’s Literature in particular. Back in December, as you were taking exams, faculty were grading exams, and everyone was preparing to leave town, the Kansas Board of Regents imposed a new social media policy, which they passed over the objections of all faculty, students and administration present at their meeting.

The policy says all speech expressed through social media (Facebook, Twitter, blog, any website, email) can be grounds for firing. Employees (faculty, staff, student employees) may not say anything that’s “contrary to the best interest of the university,” nor may they utter something that “impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers.” Those terms are so broad as to encompass any speech. As many have noted, this policy creates a repressive climate for the free exchange of ideas — which is at the heart of what we do at a university.

The university is a community of scholars. We discover new knowledge and create new ideas. These ideas are different than what has come before, and difference can be controversial. Indeed, sometimes our ideas challenge social mores. To test our ideas, we debate them, refine them, change them. This process of creation and discovery — evaluated through open and unfettered dialogue — is the means by which our civilization progresses. And the only environment under which this process can occur is an environment of free speech.

There are of course many examples from African American Children’s Literature. As Robin Bernstein has shown us, until relatively recently the notion that children of color can feel just as acutely as white children can feel was not part of the dominant culture in the U.S. Topsy, the Golliwog, and their many descendants propagated the lie that African American children were thicker-skinned and less human than white children. And thus, the notion that black children would deserve a literature that spoke to their experiences was also not an accepted truth. Once, people accepted these ideas as true. But then other people challenged these ideas. We — well, a majority of Americans, at any rate — now regard the notion that African American children would be any less human than white children to be absurd, racist, nonsense. And, though the publishing industry has much work yet to do, there are now books that address the many experiences of growing up black, Latino/a, Native American, or Asian American in the U.S.

But to recognize the foolishness in established “truths” about childhood and children’s literature, we need the freedom to question those “truths.” We need freedom of speech.

So, even though the Regents announced their policy when people were least likely to notice, it did not slip by unnoticed. From across the state, across the country, and across the world people condemned it. Our own local paper, The Manhattan Mercury, called the policy “an anti-free speech manifesto that sounds like a pronouncement from the government of a banana republic.” Our student government has called for its suspension, as has KU’s, as have student governments across the state. All faculty senates have spoken against it. All university presidents have, too.

In response, the Regents then appointed a workgroup of representatives from all Regents campuses to revise their policy. The workgroup crafted a model policy that offers guidelines for speech, but respects the right to freedom of speech. Were the regents to follow the advice that they solicited, Kansas — for a change — could be in the news for doing something thoughtful, even admirable. Yet, at the Regents’ meeting last week, they signaled that they would retain the original policy, but add some of the workgroup’s language affirming freedom of speech. So, in May, I expect they will announce their new, “compromise” policy, which both threatens freedom of speech and yet alleges to uphold it.

Questions of freedom of speech are frequently a concern of children’s literature: most of the books on the ALA’s annual banned books list are books for children or adolescents. Many of the books we have read this semester raise, quite explicitly, the question of what’s appropriate for children. For most of its history, America has been a white supremacist police state. Implicitly and explicitly, African American children’s literature confronts facts about America that most Americans prefer not to think about.

So, here are some resources where you can learn more about this issue.

• Revised Social Media Policy (pdf)
• Current Social Media Policy (under “b. Other”)
• The Kansas Board of Regents home page
  • Fred Logan, Chair of Board of Regents (and co-author of Current Social Media Policy).
  • Breeze Richardson, Associate Director of Communications & Government Relations, Kansas Board of Regents.
• Social Media Policy Workgroup

The Board of Regents will probably vote on this at their May 14th meeting. The workgroup presented the revised policy at the April 16th meeting.

---

ENGLISH 355: LITERATURE FOR CHILDREN

Five on the Hour: Freedom of Speech and Higher Education

Philip Nel

I’m going to take the next five minutes to say a few words about Freedom of Speech, and why it’s important in higher education in general and children’s literature in particular. Back in December, as you were taking exams, faculty were grading exams, and everyone was preparing to leave town, the Kansas Board of Regents imposed a new social media policy, which they passed over the objections of all faculty, students and administration present at their meeting.

The policy says all speech expressed through social media (Facebook, Twitter, blog, any website, email) can be grounds for firing. Employees (faculty, staff, student employees) may not say anything that’s “contrary to the best interest of the university,” nor may they utter something that “impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers.” Those terms are so broad as to encompass any speech. As many have noted, this policy creates a repressive climate for the free exchange of ideas — which is at the heart of what we do at a university.

The university is a community of scholars. We discover new knowledge and create new ideas. These ideas are different than what has come before, and difference can be controversial. Indeed, sometimes our ideas challenge social mores. To test our ideas, we debate them, refine them, change them. This process of creation and discovery — evaluated through open and unfettered dialogue — is the means by which our civilization progresses. And the only environment under which this process can occur is an environment of free speech.

Here’s an example. Earlier in the term, I told you that the notion that children deserve their own literature is a relatively recent one. And that, a hundred years ago, experts argued that women should not be allowed to attend college because it would make them infertile (all that blood going to the brain would deprive the womb of blood, you see). Once, people accepted these ideas as true. But then other people challenged these ideas. Now, we recognize that children, cognitively, are different than adults, and indeed that “children” itself is a very broad category: children at nine tend to have more developed cognitive abilities than children at three. Now, we recognize that women can learn without becoming infertile. Indeed, we regard these earlier ideas as laughable. Ridiculous.

But to recognize the foolishness in established “truths,” we need the freedom to question those “truths.” We need freedom of speech.

So, even though the Regents announced their policy when people were least likely to notice, it did not slip by unnoticed. From across the state, across the country, and across the world people condemned it. Our own local paper, The Manhattan Mercury, called the policy “an anti-free speech manifesto that sounds like a pronouncement from the government of a banana republic.” Our student government has called for its suspension, as has KU’s, as have student governments across the state. All faculty senates have spoken against it. All university presidents have, too.

In response, the Regents then appointed a workgroup of representatives from all Regents campuses to revise their policy. The workgroup crafted a model policy that offers guidelines for speech, but respects the right to freedom of speech. Were the regents to follow the advice that they solicited, Kansas — for a change — could be in the news for doing something thoughtful, even admirable. Yet, at the Regents’ meeting last week, they signaled that they would retain the original policy, but add some of the workgroup’s language affirming freedom of speech. So, in May, I expect they will announce their new, “compromise” policy, which both threatens freedom of speech and yet alleges to uphold it.

Questions of freedom of speech are frequently a concern of children’s literature: most of the books on the ALA’s annual banned books list are books for children or adolescents. The book we are reading right now — Christopher Paul Curtis’s The Watsons Go to Birmingham — 1963 — raises, quite explicitly, the question of what’s appropriate for children. The Watson children cope with the trauma inflicted by racist white terrorists who kill black children. This is serious stuff. And it’s an award-winning children’s book.

So, here are some resources where you can learn more about this issue.

• Revised Social Media Policy (pdf)
• Current Social Media Policy (under “b. Other”)
• The Kansas Board of Regents home page
  • Fred Logan, Chair of Board of Regents (and co-author of Current Social Media Policy).
  • Breeze Richardson, Associate Director of Communications & Government Relations, Kansas Board of Regents.
• Social Media Policy Workgroup

The Board of Regents will probably vote on this at their May 14th meeting. The workgroup presented the revised policy at the April 16th meeting.

Based on Lawrence Journal-World reporter Scott Rothschild’s tweets (see below), the Kansas Board of Regents are rejecting the social media work group’s thoughtful revisions to the Board of Regents’ failed social media policy.  If I understand Mr. Rothschild correctly, they’re going to tack on some language affirming academic freedom to a policy that eviscerates academic freedom.  In sum, the Kansas Board of Regents appear to be treating the workgroup’s recommendations as a kind of garnish for the Board of Regents’ original turd sandwich.

So, here are 3 things you can do:

1. If you teach at a Regents university, please join us for Five on the Hour (April 21 and 22), when — at the top of each hour, in our classes — we’ll talk about freedom of speech and how it’s integral to our work.
2. You might also contact the Kansas Board of Regents, and let them know your views.  Contacting Governor Brownback is also a fine idea.
3. Come to “Academic Freedom and Responsibility in the Age of Social Media,” at the University of Kanas, 27 April 2014. Free and open to the public.

tweeting from regents governance committee reviewing regents controversial social media policy #ksleg #ksregents

— Scott Rothschild (@ljwrothschild) April 16, 2014

regents policy: university ceos fire workers 4 social media posts conflict w/ school; workgroup recommends advisory policy #ksleg #ksregents — Scott Rothschild (@ljwrothschild) April 16, 2014

regent emert says workgroup got off track, didn’t address the assignment. workgroup co-chair johnson disagrees #ksleg #ksregents — Scott Rothschild (@ljwrothschild) April 16, 2014

regents emert and logan defend current board policy as legally defensible. workgroup co-chair johnson sez raises concerns #ksleg #ksregents — Scott Rothschild (@ljwrothschild) April 16, 2014

logan sez people have mistakenly said if faculty criticizes univ president they could be fired, that is ludicrous, he sez #ksleg #ksregents — Scott Rothschild (@ljwrothschild) April 16, 2014

based on dialogue, regents are not in favor of the workgroup’s recommendation #ksleg #ksregents — Scott Rothschild (@ljwrothschild) April 16, 2014

regents governance rejects workgroup recommendation, but is going over some proposed changes to social media policy #ksleg #ksregents — Scott Rothschild (@ljwrothschild) April 16, 2014

com adopts some workgroup language, but policy continue to allow ceos 2 fire workers over improper use of social media #ksleg #ksregents

— Scott Rothschild (@ljwrothschild) April 16, 2014

actually governance com voices support of logan changes, won’t officially adopt later meeting. goes to full regents in may #ksleg #ksregents

— Scott Rothschild (@ljwrothschild) April 16, 2014

I have to dash off to teach now, but wanted to get this info. out as soon as I could.

UPDATE #1 (16 April, 11:30am): Full report

• Scott Rothschild, “Regents leaders remain committed to disciplinary aspects of social media policy,” Lawrence Journal-World, 16 Apr. 2014. My favorite quotation is from Charles Epp (spoken to Fred Logan and the Regents): “You are touching the third rail of higher education here.”

UPDATE #2 (16 April, 2:30 pm): Regents now say they will adopt “nearly all” recommendations of social media workgroup.

@ksregents Chairman Logan thanked the co-chairs of the Social Media Policy workgroup, “which did very helpful work.”

— KS Board of Regents (@ksregents) April 16, 2014

.@ksregents A surprising comment, given that Mr. Logan appears to have dismissed the workgroup’s suggestions. http://t.co/f5anw7vYVx — Philip Nel (@philnel) April 16, 2014

@ksregents Chairman Logan reiterated criticism of the Board, university leadership & policy is protected speech without question. — KS Board of Regents (@ksregents) April 16, 2014

.@ksregents Excellent! So, you will then be adopting the workgroup’s thoughtful revision? Is @ljwrothschild wrong? http://t.co/f5anw7vYVx — Philip Nel (@philnel) April 16, 2014

“When you see what the workgroup proposed, and you see our new language, you will see we adopted nearly all of it.” – Chairman Logan — KS Board of Regents (@ksregents) April 16, 2014

.@ksregents So, then, @ljwrothschild‘s story inaccurate? http://t.co/f5anw7vYVx If @ksregents is adopting revisions, then kudos to you! 1/2 — Philip Nel (@philnel) April 16, 2014

.@ksregents Indeed, if @ksregents adopts revisions, then I of course will retract my criticism & apologize for intemperate comments. 2/2 — Philip Nel (@philnel) April 16, 2014

The new recommend language will be publically available before the next Board Meeting, watch for details: http://t.co/MBZGQ3uZao

— KS Board of Regents (@ksregents) April 16, 2014

15 April 2014

Dear Kansas Board of Regents,

We write to offer strong support for the joint working group’s revision of the Kansas Board of Regents’ social media policy.  The revised policy is laudable in several ways.

First, it recognizes the unique and fundamental duty of public universities to contribute to the discovery, creation, and testing of new knowledge, as well as the educational necessity to encourage critical thinking and ensure breadth of knowledge for students.  These are primary responsibilities of public universities; they differentiate college classrooms, university lecture halls, and campus libraries from nearly every other sort of work environment.  Any policy regarding the sharing of thoughts and language in an academic environment must support this critical role for university employees.

Second, the process of its development models scholarly inquiry.  The group formed for this task includes individuals (faculty and staff) with multiple areas of expertise and experience.  They analyzed existing policies across the Regents’ campuses, searched nationally for parallel policies, debated the goals and language among themselves, and released their draft for further scrutiny and debate within the academic communities where it will be implemented.  This process exemplifies the very practices of scholarship that are so fundamental to academic work.

Third, it offers true guidance for the proper development of campus-specific policies, relying on the specific procedures already mandated for policy development on the individual Regents campuses, each of which has an individual mission in which academic freedom and discourse must function.  This draft is neither chilling nor punitive; to the contrary, it encourages thoughtful, informed examination of how the new technologies of social media complicate as well as facilitate public discourse.

“The proper role of public intellectuals is to question accepted dogmas, conceive of new methods of analysis, and expand the terms of public debate,” John Cassidy observes in a recent review of a Harvard University Press publication (“Forces of Divergence,” The New Yorker, 31 March 2014: 73).

As University Distinguished Professors at Kansas State University and the University of Kansas Medical Center, and Distinguished Professors at the University of Kansas and Wichita State University, we find this draft meets, supports, and exemplifies the role of scholarship for public intellectuals in a democracy.  We endorse it with enthusiasm.

Sincerely yours,

Christer Aakeroy, Chemistry, KSU

Kenneth B. Armitage, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, KU

Victor Bailey, History, KU

Deborah Ballard-Reisch, Strategic Communication, WSU

William A. Barnett, Economics, KU

Raj Bhala, Law, KU

John Blair, Biology, KSU

Frank Blecha, Veterinary Medicine, KSU

Susan J. Brown, Biology, KSU

Yolanda Broyles-Gonzalez, American Ethnic Studies, KSU

Edgar Chambers IV, Human Nutrition, KSU

Gaylen Chandler, Management, WSU

M. M. Chengappa, Diagnostic Medicine & Pathobiology, KSU

C. Lewis Cocke, Physics, KSU

Gary Conrad, Biology, KSU

Ann Cudd, Philosophy, KU

David Darwin, Engineering, KU

Lynn Davidman, Sociology & Jewish Studies, KU

Richard DeGeorge, Philosophy, KU

Rob Denell, Biology, KSU

Elizabeth Dodd, English, KSU

Walter Dodds, Biology, KSU

Michael Dryden, Diagnostic Medicine & Pathobiology, KSU

James H. Edgar, Chemical Engineering, KSU

Charles C. Eldredge, Art History, KU

Paul Enos, Geology, KU

Joseph B. Evans, Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, KU

Steven Farmer, Management, WSU

Stephen B. Fawcett, Applied Behavioral Science, KU

Victor S. Frost, Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, KU

Prasad Gogineni, Engineering, KU

Robert Goldstein, Geology, KU

David Hartnett, Biology, KSU

Jonathan Holden, English, KSU

Joan S. Hunt, Anatomy & Cell Biology, KUMC

Ryszard Jankowiak, Chemistry, KSU

Anthony Joern, Biology, KSU

Michael Kanost, Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics, KSU

Susan Kemper, Psychology, KU

Barbara Alane Kerr, Psychology, KU

Kenneth J. Klabunde, Chemistry, KSU

John Leslie, Plant Pathology, KSU

Robert Linder, History, KSU

David Littrell, Music, KSU

Daniel C. Marcus, Anatomy & Physiology KSU

Richard Marston, Geography, KSU

Charles Russell Middaugh, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, KU

Subbaratnam Muthukrishnan, Biochemsistry & Molecular Biophysics, KSU

T. G. Nagaraja, Diagnostic Medicine & Pathobiology, KSU

Joane Nagel, Sociology, KU

Philip Nel, English, KSU

David Nualart, Mathematics, KU

Berl Oakley, Molecular Biosciences, KU

Rosemary O’Leary, Public Affairs & Administration, KU

Harald E. L. Prins, Anthropology, KSU

Jeffrey J. Quirin, Accountancy, WSU

Teresa Radebaugh, Aging, WSU

Charles W. Rice, Agronomy, KSU

Mabel L. Rice, Speech, Language & Hearing, KU

Juergen A. Richt, Diagnostic Medicine & Pathobiology, KSU

Jim Riviere, Veterinary Medicine, KSU

Thomas E. Roche, Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics, KSU

Dan Rockhill, Architecture, KU

Jan Roskam, Aerospace Engineering, KU

Edmund Russell, History, KU

Paul Selden, Geology, KU

James Shanteau, Psychological Sciences, KSU

Prakash P. Shenoy, Business, KU

Christopher Sorensen, Physics, KSU

Brian Spooner, Biology, KSU

Valentino Stella, Chemistry, KU

Barbara Timmerman, Chemistry, KU

Mike Tokach, Animal Sciences Industry, KSU

Ann Turnbull, Education, KU

H. Rutherford Turnbull III, Education, KU

David B. Volkin, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, KU

Philine Wangemann, Anatomy & Physiology, KSU

Ruth Welti, Biology, KSU

G. Paul Willhite, Engineering, KU

George S. Wilson, Chemistry, KU

Dean Zollman, Physics, KSU

cc: Social Media Policy Workgroup (Kevin Johnson, Max McCoy, Kristin Rupp, Melissa J. Hunsicker Walburn, Julia Keen, Jeff Morris, Browyn Conrad, Dacia Clark, Charles Epp, Easan Selvan, Mark Fisher, Victoria Mosack, Richard Muma), Governor Sam Brownback, KSU President Kirk Schulz, KU Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little, WSU President John W. Bardo, KSU Provost April Mason, KU Provost Jeff Vitter, WSU Provost Tony Vizzini, KSU Faculty Senate President Julia Keen, KU Faculty Senate President Chris Steadham, KSU Director of Government Relations Sue Peterson

---

UPDATE, 15 Apr. 2014, 1:00 pm: Philine Wangemann’s name was omitted from the original version of this letter. It has now been added. Apologies for the omission. Tom Roche’s name was added, but without the final “e.” Apologies for the misspelling.

“I think a lot of people choose their professions out of fear….. But I’ve found that the opposite is true. If you choose something you love, you can become a master of it.”

— Kadir Nelson, Kansas State University, 12 Apr. 2014

As an admirer of Kadir Nelson’s work, I was thrilled to meet him and to hear him speak today.  So, let me start by saying this: if you’ve an interest in art, portraiture, children’s literature, invite Kadir Nelson to speak.  You won’t be disappointed. Not all artists (poets, novelists, etc.) are good at talking about their work.  But Nelson is.

Working without notes and with many illustrations, he took us on a journey from a three-year-old Kadir trying to draw a self-portrait, right up to the inspiration for his latest book, Baby Bear (2014). Happily, Nelson’s mother saved his artwork, offering glimpses of the artist as a child, and then young man. He was always drawing. And, as he noted, “As I grew older, I began to improve because I was drawing every day.” Nelson’s dedication to his craft offers further evidence for Malcolm Gladwell’s “10,000 hours” rule — i.e., that you have to work at something for 10,000 hours to become proficient at it.

Versatile, prolific and immensely talented, he’s had an extraordinary career so far. Since you’re reading this on my blog, you probably know him as the award-winning creator of many children’s books: Ellington Is Not a Street (2004), Moses: When Harriet Tubman Led Her People to Freedom (2006), Henry’s Freedom Box: A Story from the Underground Railroad (2007), We Are the Ship: The Story of Negro League Baseball (2008), Heart and Soul: The Story of America and African Americans (2011), Nelson Mandela (2013), or — his latest — Baby Bear (2014).

But you may not know that Nelson’s art also appears on U.S. postage stamps, magazine covers, album covers — including the latest Drake album. Indeed, he also may be the only children’s author to count Drake, Spike Lee, Will Smith and the late Michael Jackson among his fans.  Indeed, his art not only hangs in galleries, but is in the private collections of Shaquille O’Neal, Venus Williams, Sharon Stone, and Stephen Spielberg.

As he told us today, his first job after graduating from the Pratt Institute was designing storyboards to help Debbie Allen pitch Amistad to Stephen Spielberg. While that may suggest that Nelson lives a charmed existence, it’s actually an example of him following his effort, and pursuing opportunities — because you never know where your business card will land, which person you meet may lead to a job. Addressing any students who might not be taking full advantage of their education (tempted away from their studies by the relatively unstructured time of college), he said, “I would urge you to not waste your time, to be purposeful in what you’re doing. Because you never know how that’s going to impact your life.”

He realized early on that he would only be happy if he pursued his love for creating art. Initially, Nelson thought he would study architecture. He’d heard all about “starving artists,” he said, and “I’m allergic to starving.” A career as an architect seemed a better bet.  However, he soon discovered that his heart wasn’t in it. Even though he was at Pratt on an architecture scholarship (and would have to give it up if he changed his subject of study), he decided to switch his major from architecture to painting. He knew, he said, “even if I had to starve, I would be happy.”  As he observed, “I think a lot of people choose their professions out of fear…. But I’ve found that the opposite is true. If you choose something you love, you can become a master of it.”

Most of his work has been devoted to telling the African American story. “Not only is that my story, but it’s a good story — it’s very juicy,” he said — adding, wryly, “There’s a lot of drama.” But his latest book pursues a philosophical strain that echoes the moments of advice he offered today. I had read Baby Bear as a tale about a child (represented as a bear) finding his way home, gently being guided in the right direction by the other animals. However, Nelson explained, the bear’s search for home is more a metaphor “for finding your own true, authentic self.” In this sense (and this is my observation), the book is more Crockett Johnson‘s The Emperor’s Gifts (1965) than Martin Waddell and Barbara Firth’s Let’s Go Home, Little Bear (1995).

But, of course, the best children’s books operate on multiple levels. The philosophical resonances may elude my niece (who will be getting her very own signed copy of the book!), but the journey resonates with readers of all ages. Nelson’s narrative art keeps us turning the pages. The vivid paintings draw us in, make us feel, make us think. And then we come back to the book and read it again.

Thanks to Kansas State University’s Children’s and Adolescent Literature Community (ChaLC) for organizing this, to all the sponsors for funding it, and to Kadir Nelson for coming!

I have long been wanting to write a general “advice” essay for aspiring academics — recent PhDs, graduate students, anyone pursuing (or considering pursuing) a career in academia. The problem is that my desire to mentor and to encourage always collides with my equally strong desire not to mislead people about how challenging (even bleak) a prospect this is. Somehow, tweeting the advice made it easier to write. Here it is.

(1) @blueclementine Yes, my advice for aspiring academics… 1: Publish everything. Also: always be publishing. You should always have

— Philip Nel (@philnel) April 10, 2014

(2) something in the pipeline (under consideration, forthcoming, etc.). Once it’s under consideration, you can list it on your CV. (Some

— Philip Nel (@philnel) April 10, 2014

(3) list articles in progress on CV, but I only list books in progress. Both approaches are fine.) 2: Believe in and doubt merit. Believe

— Philip Nel (@philnel) April 10, 2014

(4) because it motivates you to produce, inspires you to keep going. But doubt because the vast number of Ph.Ds on the job market means

— Philip Nel (@philnel) April 10, 2014

(5) that merit is not enough. Remember also that “merit” is subjective, masks privilege, and should not be trusted. 3: Seize as many

— Philip Nel (@philnel) April 10, 2014

(6) opportunities as you can, but also be selective. Pursue collaboration with others, conferences, placement in essay collections or

— Philip Nel (@philnel) April 10, 2014

(7) special issue of journal — but only if these help you achieve larger scholarly and intellectual goals (such as, say, a book).

— Philip Nel (@philnel) April 10, 2014

(8) 4: Like academe itself, this advice is sometimes absurd, paradoxical, impossible. Recognize that. 5: Take care of yourself. Exercise

— Philip Nel (@philnel) April 10, 2014

(9) regularly. Sit with correct posture, etc. Do not sacrifice your health. 6: Above all, pursue meaningful work. That is the best reason

— Philip Nel (@philnel) April 10, 2014

(10) to stick with academe, despite the odds. 7: Know also that you don’t have to stick with academe. Leaving is not failure. You’re smart

— Philip Nel (@philnel) April 10, 2014

(11) and capable. You can do many things. [Fin / The End]

— Philip Nel (@philnel) April 10, 2014

For those who prefer to read something that is not a series of Tweets, here it is in a more typical format.

Yes, my advice for aspiring academics…

1. Publish everything. Also: always be publishing. You should always have something in the pipeline (under consideration, forthcoming, etc.). Once it’s under consideration, you can list it on your CV. (Some list articles in progress on CV, but I only list books in progress. Both approaches are fine.)
2. Believe in and doubt merit. Believe because it motivates you to produce, inspires you to keep going. But doubt because the vast number of Ph.Ds on the job market means that merit is not enough. Remember also that “merit” is subjective, masks privilege, and should not be trusted.
3. Seize as many opportunities as you can, but also be selective. Pursue collaboration with others, conferences, placement in essay collections or special issue of journal — but only if these help you achieve larger scholarly and intellectual goals (such as, say, a book).
4. Like academe itself, this advice is sometimes absurd, paradoxical, impossible. Recognize that.
5. Take care of yourself. Exercise regularly. Sit with correct posture, etc. Do not sacrifice your health.
6. Above all, pursue meaningful work. That is the best reason to stick with academe, despite the odds.
7. Know also that you don’t have to stick with academe. Leaving is not failure. You’re smart and capable. You can do many things.

I will expand this into a proper essay.  But, at present… no time to offer more than this (admittedly flawed, hasty) summary.  There’s more advice on my blog, but, really, you should take a look at Robin Bernstein’s page of Advice for Grad Students and Other Academics. Lots of great resources there.

The reviews are in, and they’re good. The Social Media Policy Workgroup‘s revision to the Kansas Board of Regents’ social media policy has won near-unanimous praise. People are saying things like:

“reasonable”

— Chuck Epp, co-chairman of the Workgroup and Professor of Public Affairs, University of Kansas (he is summarizing the response thus far).

“entirely appropriate”

— Susan Twombly, Professor of Education, University of Kansas

“a vast improvement”

— Chris Steadham, Faculty Senate President, University of Kansas

“It begins and ends by affirming academic freedom.”

— Philip Nel, Professor of English, Kansas State University

(Yes, that last one is me.) It’s unusual to have such wide agreement among academics. Because the revised policy is so sound, critics of the Kansas Board of Regents’ current policy have mostly been holding their tongues, hoping that the Regents will heed the advice they’ve solicited. On April 16th, the Workgroup will present the new policy to the Regents, and on May 14th the Regents will let us know whether they’ll accept the recommended changes.

As we await their decision, it’s worth remembering that the Kansas Board of Regents’ current social media policy has met with near universal disdain. Indeed, that disdain is currently what the board is best known for.  Type in “Kansas Board of Regents” into Google, and this is what you get:

Yes, Google only suggests “social media” and “social media policy” as related terms, which in and of themselves do not convey the disdain. However, if you take those suggestions and read some of the search results, you find plenty of criticism, much of it withering. Most recently, the Kansas Board of Regents won a Jefferson Muzzle Award:

The Regents adopted this first-of-its-kind policy without consulting university leaders or faculty who, unsurprisingly, were not pleased. … Reaction to the policy from national academic freedom advocates was also negative. The American Association of University Professors described the policy as “a gross violation of the fundamental principles of academic freedom that have been a cornerstone of American higher education for nearly a century,” while the Student Press Law Center warned that the “breathtaking” sweep of the regulation evidenced “an eagerness to control the off-the-clock lives of employees that is itself cause for suspicion.”

… The Board of Regents could have issued a strong signal of support for the principles of academic freedom and free expression by suspending the current social media policy and pledging to implement the workgroup’s recommendations. Instead, 36 member schools are left sitting below a virtual sword of Damocles, waiting to see how—or even if—the Regents will remove it. This 2014 Jefferson Muzzle is therefore awarded to the Kansas Board of Regents in hopes that First Amendment principles will guide them in resolving this issue as well as those they may face in the future.

The only people speaking out in favor of the policy have been the Regents themselves, and the occasional representative from the Kansas Legislature — a group that, in its current term, has pursued laws making it easier to hit children, legalizing discrimination against gays, nullifying federal environmental laws, and nullifying federal gun laws. (In sum, if Kansas legislators are your only allies, you may want to rethink your position.) Here’s a sampling of what people have said about the Regents’ current social media policy:

I can’t imagine how that would hold up in court. How do you measure harmony among co-workers? To the extent that you can, how do you prove causality? And what about when the “harmony” is either forced — as it almost certainly would be under this policy — or, worse, a form of delusional groupthink? What if the groupthink involves, say, discrimination?

— Matt Reed, “A Lump of Coal for Kansas,” Inside Higher Ed, 19 Dec. 2013.

Does your job own your civil liberties when you’re off the clock? Does it own your thoughts, expressed freely, when you’re home? Are we saying that the government can’t abridge your constitutional rights, but that The Brand can? If you answer instantly, “yes,” think again about what you’re saying, and about the kind of country in which you want to live.

— Charles P. Pierce, “The Tyranny of the Brand,” Esquire: The Politics Blog, 19 Dec. 2013.

In giving university leaders the authority to discipline or terminate even tenured professors for vague, subjective offenses, the regents have set up a chilling environment that runs contrary to the ideal of academic freedom.

— “Kansas Board of Regents social media rules imperil free speech,” Kansas City Star, 20 Dec. 2013.

Whatever threat is posed by social media at state universities should be balanced against the threat of those universities becoming known as places that don’t tolerate the free flow of ideas among their faculty and staff. The possibility that the policy could affect universities’ ability to recruit and retain top faculty members seems like a reasonable concern.

— “Editorial: Curbing Speech,” Lawrence Journal-World, 22 Dec. 2013.

It’s an anti-free speech manifesto that sounds like a pronouncement from the government of a banana republic. The Board of Regents truly should back up, take a deep breath, and decide on something that meets the needs of its great universities.

— “New Regents policy really bad idea,” Manhattan Mercury, 22 Dec. 2013.

The regents seem to have milked the Guth incident for maximum possible censorship, and now the verboten also extends to statements that are “contrary to the best interests of the university” or anything that “impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among coworkers.” It is these two phrases’ ominously wide reach—and overt insistence on lockstep fealty—that are legitimately terrifying. … Of course, the regents may think they’re stemming a rising tide of inflammatory violence-tweets, but in reality theirs is an outsized, reactionary maneuver that harnesses hysteria to further a repressive agenda.

— Rebecca Schuman, “The Brave New World of Academic Censorship: If you’re a professor in Kansas, better stay off the Internet,” Slate, 22 Dec. 2013.

And because of the public role these universities serve, threatening to fire professors and staff members if they post something on social media that is “contrary to the best interests of the university” violates free speech rights and becomes a First Amendment issue.

— “Our View: Kansas regents overreach,” Joplin Globe, 28 Dec. 2013

At its heart, the Kansas policy exemplifies a larger problem afflicting all of government – the hair-trigger use of punitive authority whenever the agency’s public image is imperiled. At many, if not most, government agencies today, it is easier to get fired for making the agency look bad than for actually doing your job badly.

— Frank D. LoMonte, “A Dangerous Policy,” Inside Higher Ed, 2 Jan. 2014.

The policy stifles free expression, adversely affects morale at all universities, makes it harder for us to recruit top-tier faculty, and indeed makes it likely that our own faculty will seek work elsewhere. If we lack the ability to debate controversial ideas, we cannot do our jobs as teachers or scholars.

— “Distinguished Professors from KU and KSU: Open Letter to the Kansas Board of Regents.” This ad ran in the Manhattan Mercury, the Lawrence Journal-World, and the Topeka Capital Journal on 12 Jan. 2014.

if the new policy is implemented, professors could be subject to termination if their disagreement is professed too loudly, or in the wrong way, or even at all.

Fortunately, I happen to be writing from the relative safety of Texas, where repressive tactics like those proposed in Kansas haven’t – as yet – gained much purchase. But I wonder whether, if I raised these same modest objections in Wichita or Topeka, I could be subject to termination. No wonder the Kansas professoriate and the American Association of University Professors are pushing back. The essential nature of the university – in Kansas and elsewhere – is at risk.

— John M. Crisp, “A university isn’t a business, even in Kansas,” The Gulf Today [United Arab Emirates], 4 Feb. 2014.

There’s an abundance of negative reviews — student governments, faculty senates, and many others have called for the policy’s suspension or removal.  I’ve not included all here. If you’re interested, you might peruse this more extensive list of press coverage, at the bottom of my original post on the subject.

If they elect to retain the current policy or make only cosmetic modifications to it, the Kansas Board of Regents can expect more bad press. So, I hope the Regents will adopt the carefully revised policy, created by the workgroup that they formed.  They have a golden opportunity to make Kansas famous for thoughtfulness, and to offer a model social media policy for other universities to emulate.

Will they do the right thing? I guess we’ll find out on May 14th.  Until then, our rights remain tenuous, at best.  Even though the days are getting warmer, a chilling climate persists on the campuses of Kansas universities.

---

Image sources: Kansas Board of Regents, Google search for “Kansas Board of Regents,” Uncensor Kansas (Facebook page). On Facebook, there’s also the more active group, Kansas Universities’ Faculty & Staff Against Regents’ Speech Policy.

A more comprehensive list of relevant links can be found here, and of course there are several posts on this blog tagged Kansas Board of Regents.

This is an open letter to our colleagues at the Regents universities in Kansas (Emporia State University, Fort Hays State University, Kansas State University, Pittsburg State University, University of Kansas, University of Kansas Medial Center, Wichita State University), but anyone who would like to participate is welcome to do so!

---

Dear Colleagues,

As the Kansas Board of Regents prepares to consider the workgroup’s recommended changes to its social media policy, we’re inviting you to join us in helping students understand the important implications for themselves, their university, and their society.  On Monday April 21 and Tuesday April 22, we’re going to do a “Five on the Hour Pause,” where at the top of the hour we each take 5 minutes to talk a little bit about why freedom of speech is important to our discipline, academia, and the culture at large.

We’re doing it at the top of each hour to provide a sense of the unifying, interdisciplinary importance of this topic. We’re proposing two days to cover classes that meet MWF as well as Tu-Th.  If your class meets once a week but not on a Monday or Tuesday, then we invite you to simply take five minutes during that class on whatever day it meets.  We believe this is an important teaching moment for all the students at our campus.

If you are interested in participating, here are a few guidelines we suggest you follow:
(1) Present a clear explanation of academic freedom.  We’ve drafted a statement, but you should feel free to modify it, if you think it needs modifying:

The university is a community of scholars. As scholars, we discover new knowledge and create new ideas. These ideas are different from what has come before, and difference can be controversial. Indeed, sometimes our ideas challenge social mores. To test our ideas, we debate them, refine them, change them. This process of creation and discovery — evaluated through open and unfettered dialogue — is the means by which our civilization progresses. And the only environment under which this process can occur is an environment of free speech.

(2) Identify the discipline-specific implications for the class you’re teaching.  How have unconventional or controversial ideas, research methods, literature, etc. impacted the field your students study with you?

(3) Invite students to read the KBOR’s policy and the workgroup’s recommendation for a new policy.   Inform them about the process involved thus far, who the participants are in these current events, as well as the timetable for public commentary: <http://www.k-state.edu/today/announcement.php?id=13496>.  Invite them to explore further the connection between “real world” current events and the concept of academic freedom as it pertains to the subject they study in your course.  Do not require your students to take any specific action.  Do not use class time to lobby on the issue: remember that this is a teaching moment and not a form of political activity, in keeping with Kansas State law and KBOR policies.

Here are some informative links you might share with them:

• The Revised Social Media Policy: <http://www.k-state.edu/president/initiatives/social-media/Social%20Media%20Work%20Group%20Report.pdf>
• The Current Social Media Policy (under “b. Other”): <http://www.kansasregents.org/policy_chapter_ii_c_suspensions>
• The Kansas Board of Regents home page: <http://www.kansasregents.org/index.cfm>
  • Fred Logan, Chair of Board of Regents (and co-author of Current Social Media Policy)
  • Breeze Richardson, Associate Director of Communications & Government Relations, Kansas Board of Regents
• Social Media Policy Workgroup members: <http://www.k-state.edu/president/initiatives/social-media/members.html>

Thanks very much for considering joining us.

Sincerely yours,

Lynn Davidman, Department of Sociology, University of Kansas
Elizabeth Dodd, Department of English, Kansas State University
Susan Kemper, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas
Philip Nel, Department of English, Kansas State University
Harald E.L. Prins, Department of Anthropology, Kansas State University
Chris Sorensen, Department of Physics, Kansas State University

---

Image source: Uncensor Kansas (Facebook page). On Facebook, there’s also the more active group, Kansas Universities’ Faculty & Staff Against Regents’ Speech Policy.

A more comprehensive list of relevant links can be found here, and of course there are several posts on this blog tagged Kansas Board of Regents.

Books transmit values. They explore our common humanity. What is the message when some children are not represented in those books?

— Walter Dean Myers, “Where Are the People of Color in Children’s Books?”

too often today’s books remain blind to the everyday reality of thousands of children. Children of color remain outside the boundaries of imagination. The cartography we create with this literature is flawed.

— Christopher Myers, “The Apartheid of Children’s Literature”

In case you missed it, yesterday’s New York Times (16 Mar. 2014) carried two essays that should do what Nancy Larrick’s famous “All-White World of Children’s Books” (Saturday Review, 11 Sept. 1965) did nearly 50 years ago: Sound the call to the publishing business to increase representation of people of color in children’s books. If you haven’t read these articles, please take a moment and do so.

• Walter Dean Myers, “Where Are the People of Color in Children’s Books?”
• Christopher Myers, “The Apartheid of Children’s Literature”

As Walter Dean Myers notes, though there are now more people of color in books for young readers than there were in 1969 (when he entered the children’s book field), there are also more young readers of color. So, “Today, when about 40 percent of public school students nationwide are black and Latino, the disparity of representation is even more egregious.”

These articles — and many others that I’ve read over the last few years (links below) — should point to a critical mass of support for increased representation of non-white people in children’s books. There are already efforts under way, like The Birthday Party Pledge (promise to give multicultural books to the children in your life) and Hands Across the Sea (promoting literacy in the Caribbean).

The pressing need for books featuring children of color inspires me to share some resources I’ve gathered for my own research and for students in my graduate-level African American Children’s Literature class — a course I’m teaching for the first time this semester (and which will, I promise, improve in subsequent years; this is my first attempt).  I’m aware that these resources are not comprehensive, and so please feel free to add suggestions in the comments.  Indeed, I’d be grateful if you would.

Essays on the Need for More People of Color in Children’s and YA Books

Essays on the Need for More People of Color on the Covers (a.k.a. Essays Against Whitewashing)

Numbers

• “Adult Literacy: Literacy by Race/Ethnicity,”  National Center for Education Statistics.
• “Agents Address the Diversity Gap in Children’s Publishing,” Lee and Low Books, 6 Nov. 2013. “Literary agents make up a big part of the publishing machine. … So what kind of diversity are agents seeing?”
• “Children’s Books Published in the United States by and About People of Color,” Cooperative Children’s Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin at Madison
• Kate Hart, “Uncovering YA Covers: 2011,” Kate Hart, 16 May 2012.  See also her “Follow Up on YA Covers,” 20 May 2012.
• Malinda Lo, “Diversity in ALA’s Best Fiction for Young Adults,” Diversity in YA. 19 Sept. 2013.

Resources, Both Historical and Ongoing Projects

• The Tar Baby and the Tomahawk: Race and Ethnic Images in Children’s Literature, 1880-1939 (University of Nebraska-Lincoln). Hat tip to my student Erica Ruscio for pointing me to this one.
• The Modernist Journals Project (Brown University & The University of Tulsa): includes The Crisis (1910-1922). Hat tip to Natalia Cecire (@ncecire on Twitter) for this one.
• “Multicultural Literature,” Cooperative Children’s Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin at Madison.
• American Indians in Children’s Literature.  Since I’m assembling these links for my African American Children’s Literature course, I’ve not focused on Native American children’s literature here, but Debbie Reese’s blog is the place to go for info. on this subject.
• Elizabeth Bluemle’s Shelftalker list of books “featuring main characters of color where race is not the driving force of the story. In other words, while race is of course an important part of a character’s identity, in these books, the plot does not revolve around race, racism, intolerance, or political/​historical events based in racial issues.” See her website (scroll down) for the full rationale.
• The Brown Bookshelf, “A Black History Month Celebration of Children’s Literature.”
• Children’s Book Council’s Diversity Committee, which includes this page of Resources.
• Coretta Scott King Book Awards, American Library Association.
• The Dark Fantastic: Emancipating the Imagination. Ebony Elizabeth Thomas’s Tumblr & ongoing book project.
• Diversity in YA Tumblr, curated by Malinda Lo and Cindy Po
• Hannah Ehrlich’s “Where can I find great diverse children’s books?”, Lee & Low Books 21 Mar. 2014. This is a great resource — much stronger than what I’ve assembled here, in fact. So, please do go and check it out.
• Fledgling: Zetta Elliott’s blog. Lots of great essays here. Recommended.
• Langston Hughes testifies before House Un-American Activities Committee, 1953 (on my website)
• Mitali’s Fire Escape. Mitali Perkins’ blog.
• Racebending.com. “an international grassroots organization of media consumers that advocates for underrepresented groups in entertainment media.”
• Cynthia Leitich Smith’s Children’s and Young Adult Literature Resources includes: Exploring Diversity: Themes and Communities, Multicultural Reading Bibliography, and more specialized lists, too.

Publishers

• Cinco Puntos Press
• Groundwood Books
• Just Us Books
• Lee & Low Books
• Piñata Books for Children, Middle Readers, and Young Adults (an imprint of Arte Publico Press)
• Roadrunner Press

Twitter

• Zetta Elliott: @zettaelliott
• Mitali Perkins: @MitaliPerkins
• Racebending.com: @racebending
• Ebony Elizabeth Thomas: @ebonyteach
• #colormyshelf hashtag

Penultimate note: I’ve not included most of the critical texts on our syllabus, because my students already know what those are (and so will you, if you follow the link!).

Final note: As I said above, suggestions welcome. Thanks!

Page last updated, 4:15 pm CDT, 21 Mar 2014. For their suggestions, thanks to Laura Atkins, Sarah Hamburg, Sheila Barry, Kate Pritchard, Keilin H., Hannah Ehrlich (Lee & Low Books).

Image credits: Art by Christopher Myers, from New York Times, 16 Mar. 2014. I decided to photograph my copy of the newspaper rather than just lift the art from the Times‘ website simply because I like print culture. You can find clearer digital images on the Times‘ site.

Happy Pi Day!  In recognition of 3.14 (today) and this blog’s Pi pie avatar (logo?), here are Nine Kinds of Pie (loosely defined).

1. The ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter: 3.1415926535.  When I was a kid, I memorized the number out to its tenth decimal point. On a long strip of paper, I also wrote the number out to about 100 decimal points. Perhaps I thought that learning this irrational number would grant me some greater insight. Or, possibly, I was intrigued by the fact that this simple ratio would be represented by such an unwieldy and unending number. I’m not sure. But I still have a fondness for Pi (and pie!). For the truly obsessed, here is Pi out to 100,000 decimal points. Here’s Pi Day’s “Learn About Pi” page, the Joy of Pi’s “Pi Facts,” and Wikipedia’s essay.

---

2. Pi was also important to Crockett Johnson. In his later years, he worked on the mathematical conundrum of squaring the circle — a problem that also intrigued mathematician and children’s author Lewis Carroll, a century earlier. Johnson even published his own original theorem on the subject.

He moved towards this answer, visually. He literally worked out the problem via his paintings, creating many variations on the idea, and ultimately arriving at Squared Circle (1968).

Then, to get the algebraic notation correct, he corresponded with mathematicians, who helped him express his idea in the less visual medium of the formula. It was published in the Mathematical Gazette in 1970.

---

3. As readers of children’s literature know, this blog takes its name from a scene in Johnson’s Harold and the Purple Crayon (1955), in which the title character “laid out a nice simple picnic lunch.”

I love the way Johnson’s tone both embraces Harold’s matter-of-fact tone and registers amusement at this claim. On the one hand, the third person narrator (via a literary technique known as free indirect discourse) tells us what Harold is thinking: our narrator is so closely aligned with Harold’s point of view that one could easily swap the pronouns and Harold’s name for “I.” These are Harold’s thoughts. On the other hand, they’re not entirely Harold’s thoughts. Johnson’s deadpan delivery of these lines also underscores the mild absurdity of having nine favorite kinds of pie. That is, there’s also an awareness here that Harold lacks — specifically, that “nine kinds of pie that Harold liked best” is  funny.

---

4. Or is it? This somewhat baffling pie chart lists Americans’ 10 favorite types of pie.

It’s somewhat baffling because the percentages don’t add up to 100 — which is the point of using a pie chart. The circle represents 100%, and then each slice some lesser percentage. But this chart doesn’t. As the chart’s caption explains, the total “adds up to more than 100 per cent because people were asked to rank their three favorite types of pie.” And that still doesn’t make the above chart any more illuminating — though it is pretty to look at.

---

5. Pies are among those foods that come in both sweet and savory varieties. When I think of pie, my thoughts drift to the sweet (apple, peach, pecan, blueberry), but there are are also savory pies (meat pie, chicken pot pie, potato pie, pizza pie). The Oxford English Dictionary, which finds the oldest use of the word “pie” (then spelled “pye”) in 1304, offers the following as its  first definition:

A baked dish of fruit, meat, fish, or vegetables, covered with pastry (or a similar substance) and freq. also having a base and sides of pastry. Also (chiefly N. Amer.): a baked open pastry case filled with fruit; a tart or flan.

---

6. Care for some Amblongus pie? Since this is (often) a children’s literature blog, here’s a recipe from Edward Lear’s “Nonsense Cookery” (which appears in his Nonsense Songs, Stories, Botany, and Alphabets, 1871).

TO MAKE AN AMBLONGUS PIE

Take 4 pounds (say 4 1/2 pounds) of fresh Amblongusses, and put them in a small pipkin.

Cover them with water and boil them for 8 hours incessantly, after which add 2 pints of new milk, and proceed to boil for 4 hours more.

When you have ascertained that the Amblongusses are quite soft, take them out and place them in a wide pan, taking care to shake them well previously.

Grate some nutmeg over the surface, and cover them carefully with powdered gingerbread, curry-powder, and a sufficient quantity of Cayenne pepper.

Remove the pan into the next room, and place it on the floor. Bring it back again, and let it simmer for three-quarters of an hour. Shake the pan violently till all the Amblongusses have become a pale purple colour.

Then, having prepared a paste, insert the whole carefully, adding at the same time a small pigeon, 2 slices of beef, 4 cauliflowers, and any number of oysters.

Watch patiently till the crust begins to rise, and add a pinch of salt from time to time.

Serve up in a clean dish, and throw the whole out of the window as fast as possible.

For any readers unfamiliar with Lear’s nonsense works,… you’re in for a treat even tastier than amblongus pie and gosky patties. Go read ‘em!

---

7. John Cage and Lois Long’s Mud Book (written 1950s, published 1983) offers a recipe for mud pie — and yes, this is John Cage, the composer.

 

 

 

As Lane Smith and Bob Shea write in their post on Mud Book (and my source for these images), “Instructions any child can follow with ingredients easy to obtain. Notably, dirt, rocks, water, dirt and more dirt. But remember, mud pies are to make and to look at. Not to eat.”

---

8. Michael John Blake’s “What pi sounds like” is my favorite musical interpretation of the number. (It’s also literally a “musical number.” Get it?)

Many others have composed music inspired by Pi. Lars Erikson — composer of the Pi Symphony — even sued Michael John Blake (composer of the above piece), alleging plagiarism. Erikson lost.

If you like it (and if you don’t), you can  buy Michael John Blake’s “What pi sounds like” via iTunes.

---

9. One could make a long list of pie-themed music, too. The earliest one that comes to mind is “Song of Sixpence” (18th century): “Sing a song of sixpence, / pocket full of rye. / Four and twenty blackbirds / baked in a pie.” There’s A. A. Milne’s “Cottleston Pie,” performed here by Rowlf the Dog on the first season of The Muppet Show (1976).

According to an informal and completely unscientific survey of the “pie” songs in my iTunes, pies usually function metaphorically in music. Yes, there are “The Worst Pies in London” (from Sondheim’s Sweeney Todd) and Zoe Lewis’s “Pies for the Public” (from Sheep), but you’re more likely to encounter Don McLean’s “American Pie” (1971), Jay & the Techniques’ “Apple, Peaches, Pumpkin Pie” (1967), the Beatles’ “Honey Pie” (from The Beatles [White Album], 1968), David Wilcox’s “Wildberry Pie” (1991), Death Lurks’ “Happiness Pie” (from The Kids in the Hall soundtrack, 1996), or Louis Jordan and Ella Fitzgerald’s “Patootie Pie” (1946).

---

And what better way to express one’s appreciation for Pi and pie than by baking a Pi pie?

If you want to make one, the Nerdista has a recipe for her Pi pie (pictured below).

Happy Pi Day! Let’s have some pie. And Pi, of course.

Freedom of Speech is under attack in “public” higher education, from the Kansas Board of Regents deeming any speech a fireable offense, to the South Carolina Legislature cutting funds from the College of Charleston (in retaliation for recommending Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home as a summer read). Offering a more subtle version of the South Carolina model, Tennessee Senator Stacey Campfield is sponsoring two bills, one which would tell the university how it should apportion student fees, and another which would prohibit the university from using any of its funds to pay outside speakers.

What inspired these bills?  Senator Campfield is apparently upset that the University of Tennessee sponsors a sex education week. Last year, he threatened to pull all public funding for the university if the event received any financial support from the university. So, in 2014, he’s offering this more insidious twist on the original idea; no university funds for any speaker. His vigorous attack on free speech is just the latest from a publicity-seeking legislator who maintains a public blog but warns that it is private and that any quotation from it will be charged at $1000 per word.  You will not be surprised to learn that the students and faculty oppose this attack on their rights.  You also will not be surprised to learn that Senator Campfield is not an especially agile thinker — as this email exchange between him and Professor Misty G. Anderson (of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville) demonstrates.

---

On Mar 8, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Misty G. Anderson wrote:

Dear Senators,

I write to you as a parent of a college student as well as a middle schooler, as a Tennessean, and as a teacher to ask you to oppose SB1608 and SB2493. These bills are far too sweeping and undermine the project of inquiry, First Amendment rights, and the kind of professional development we try to offer our students at UT.  Just this academic year, for instance, we were able to host Tom Brokaw.  Two of my students had the opportunity to interview him about his career as a journalist, and he was generous with both his advice and time.  This was a crucial professional development opportunity that would have been completely unavailable to them under the terms of these bills.

Students at UT have chances to weigh in on what kinds of speakers and activities take place, they have chances to participate in a wide array of learning opportunities, and to debate with significant voices in a range of cultural conversations: novelists, political scientists, religious leaders, philosophers, business innovators, and more.  That is as it should be.  It’s part of the strength of our American education system, and it encourages students to debate, develop their perspectives, and become better citizens. Please don’t take that away from them.

I realize, Senator Campfield, that you are the sponsor of both of these bills, but I’m including you in my appeal nonetheless. I urge you especially to reconsider your position and to consider the free and secure future of UT.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.  I will be watching with great interest to see how you all vote, and I implore you to vote down both bills.

Sincerely,

Misty Anderson

Knoxville, TN

---

On Mar 8, 2014, at 11:04 AM, Stacey Campfield wrote:

While I support diversity of thought at the university. What is currently in place is not diversity. Sadly, when you look at a list of the paid speakers for the university the vast majority are from one point of view and balancing points of view are minimized.

Truly, more balance is needed.  The current committee that decides who gets funding is @35-4  from one point of view. And they fund accordingly. The current system also does not allow for changes to the committee because new members to the committee are picked by the current members on the committee. It is impossible for diverse points of view to get a fair hearing. Instead, It is “two lions and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner.” That is not a system that creates a diverse menu. In fact it eats the minority points of view.

To make sure all points of view get a fair opportunity to be funded I have proposed two bills.

The first would say all fees for optional political type speakers should be optional to join or not. No one should be forced to pay for speech they find objectionable. Current student tuition and fees are high enough. People are graduating in incredible debt. There is no need to heap insult on top of injury. If they wish to hear speakers let them decide by joining and paying the speakers fee. If not, they should not be forced to do what they find objectionable. Forced speech is not free speech. It is the oposite.

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently said I couldn’t agree more.

Next,

If a student wishes to pay the optional student activity fee for speakers then those fees should be dolled out on a fair basis so all points of view get a fair hearing. To do this, I think the best way is to allow the students themselves to decide by joining clubs that interest them and allowing funding to be dolled out on membership basis. That way, if say college Democrats have 50 members and college Republicans have 50 members both would receive a fair share of the funding. If it were to tilt to 60/40 democrat leaning, the democrats would receive a larger proportion but not a 100% per portion. Diverse points of view would be heard and have a fair shot at receiving funding.

As I have said from the beginning, I still stand ready to negotiate the system details but leaving things as they currently are is a non starter. We need diversity of thought and not tyranny in action.

Yours in service,

Sen. Stacey Campfield

---

On Mar 8, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Misty G. Anderson wrote:

Dear Senator Campfield,

With all due respect, I had a hard time following your reply because it was full of sentence fragments that did not make clear how one idea flowed from and logically gave rise to another.

Your claim that the current committee is “35-4 from one point of view” is a mystery to me.  What is that one point of view? And how is it that you can claim that the vast majority of speakers on campus are “from one point of view” when they have addressed so many different issues and topics? How can one say that points of view are to be calculated? Most thinking people hold a range of points of view on many subjects.  Are you alluding to two-party politics? If so, I would submit that such a designation hardly summarizes all possible points of view, and to imagine a world where it does is deeply disturbing to me as a citizen and an educator.

You then say that all fees “for optional political type speakers should be optional.” How are we to determine what speakers are political and which speakers are not?  Was Tom Brokaw political? Is a visiting novelist like Elizabeth Gilbert political?  How would we calculate the “interest” represented by such speakers? I would hate to restrict that representation to the number of journalists or novelists in the student body. The bill pertains to all speakers, who can hardly be screened only on their party affiliation.  But on that subject, let me offer an analogous question: I often find your speech objectionable, yet my tax dollars fund your salary.  May I opt out of paying the portion of your salary that I pay, particularly since your speech is not only objectionable to me but has binding consequences on my life as a citizen, unlike open debates in which I can choose to participate or not?

What was it that Thomas Jefferson said?  Because that sentence is actually a fragment and not a complete sentence, it is not at all clear.  I am  not being a mere grammarian about this fact; it is significant because it is fundamental to clear meaning. Thomas Jefferson said many things I cherish as examples of wise and thoughtful statesmanship, in spite of his actions as a slaveholder.  Here are a few of my favorites:

• “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”
• “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people.  They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”
• “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
• “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”

I would hope that we could find a zone of agreement on this important Enlightenment thinker, who was a staunch supporter of both education and free speech.

To conclude, I am writing back to you because I am distressed both by your approach to micromanaging the process of speakers at UT and other universities and your failure to comprehend the consequences of your own bills, which seem to have more in common with a totalitarian nation’s approach, rather than a free country’s approach, to public discourse.  Curiously, you claim the opposite is true, calling the current system “forced speech” and even “tyranny in action.”  But you, sir, are the one in the governing position.  I would suggest you reconsider the language of tyranny and how it reflects on your own position in the legislature.

Sincerely,

Misty G. Anderson

---

On Mar 8, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Stacey Campfield wrote:

Thomas Jefferson so eloquently said “To compel a man to furnish money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical”

---

On Mar 8, 2014, Misty G. Anderson’s final reply to Sen. Stacey Campfield:

Dear Senator Campfield,

Context, so often, is everything.  The short quotation you have pulled is from Jefferson’s 1779 Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (not passed until 1786), which was an argument for more free speech, as well as freedom of religion, by prohibiting the state support of the clergy and state tests for office based on religion or lack thereof. Accordingly, it proposed that “the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical” not “assume dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible.”  Jefferson’s own position as a Deist inclined him strongly to realize that both the state and the church can conspire to compel and restrict speech and behavior in ways that are an anathema to free people.  I quote the 3 sections of the act for your convenience, with some of the more relevant selections bolded:

 SECTION I. Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

SECT. II. WE the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

SECT. III. AND though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

Best,

Misty G. Anderson

---

As added context for Sen. Stacey Campfield’s understanding of “tyrannical,” one might point out that the senator has also proposed legislation banning public school teachers from using the word “gay,” and legislation tying Welfare payments to a child’s grades in school. He is a man of many unusual ideas. Here is another:

Given statements like this, one imagines that Sen. Campfield might benefit from attending some of the University of Tennessee’s sex education events.

Further information & actions:

• If you would like to contact Sen. Stacey Campfield, here is his email address: <sen.stacey.campfield@capitol.tn.gov>. He is also on Facebook. He doesn’t seem to use Twitter, though he does have an account.  The parody Twitter account is active, though: @StaceyCampfield.
• Petition to support the current student fee allocation process, sponsored by the University of Tennessee-Knoxville’s Student Government Association. You can sign this if you’re student, staff, or faculty at the University of Tennessee.  If not, then see the Change.org petition, below.
• Student Fees, Student Freedom.  Petition on Change.org.  Anyone can sign this petition.
• PolitiFact’s Stacey Campfield page. This rates Senator Campfield’s statements, evaluating their veracity or lack thereof.
• Wikipedia’s Stacey Campfield page.
• Claire Dodson, “Opinion: An open letter to Stacey Campfield,” The Daily Beacon, 21 Feb. 2014.
• Stupid Shit Stacey Campfield says (Facebook page)
• Recall TN State Senator Stacey Campfield (Facebook page)
• “Wrecking Balls: Campfield’s SB 1608 and SB 2493, “ Better English for Politicians, 9 Mar. 2014. Prof. Misty Anderson has now posted the above exchange of correspondence, including her own introduction. [This link added on 9 March.]