In which case, we could try introducing a Sonoran Desert ecology into Pacific Northwest old growth forests and lush, green golf courses into the Sonoran Desert.

How neat would it be to have a world with a single bio-scape–an endless and unvaryingly selfsame vista of uni-culture, uni-flora and uni-fauna?

Why do you think they call it a uni-versity?

Refusal to participate makes you into a crank. Forcing the issue requires that others in the institution take sides and, if the stars are aligned, actually discuss, debate, even deliberate. Cranks can’t stand in the way of any concerted effort to change.

Should they fire you at your current college you can always come to East Liverpool and teach at the Kent State branch. They’re librul but aren’t sure why.

Refusal as a step towards losing academic freedom, Ted? I can see that, if my refusal is taken as simple grumpiness, and my reasons for dissent are never articulated. But they are–which, I suppose, means I’m actually taking your third step.

“glocal”: a cringe-worthy word

Don’t forget “coopetive”: it’s cooperative and competitive! It’s the best of both worlds! It’s win-win! It’s a new word invented by a bunch of specialists in word creation, so they must know what they’re doing! Excuse me while I vomit.

Batten down the hatches and wait for the “You are not being a Team player” letter, an indelible blot on your record because the proper Globalista is supposed to smile benignly and accept every cockeyed reverie sent down from the Directory.

I don’t know about the Globalista, but I do know our Director of Institutional Research and Outcomes assessment doesn’t like me too much. She accused me to some higher up of “sabatoging” their efforts to transition the university into a set of procedures that will enable them to collect more accurate evaluation data. I did this, apparently, by telling my students, when they received another (lengthy!) assessment/evaluation form for the second week in a row, to play connect the dots with it. I am unrepentant (thus far, anyway).

Perhaps you should fail a few students on the account of not being “properly global” and then you can stand back and watch that mind game work its many charms on the Big Brain In The Sky Office.

But another indication that Academia has utterly lost its position as a place apart…an independent world of the mind, free of the everyday moronica that urges our lives into manifold stupidities.

Waitaminute — I don’t get it. You’re being told that you have to teach them how to get drunk?

Umm… I don’t know how to break this to you, but yes. In fact, many point to Academia as the origin of this particular worldview that has now permeated society.”

Cynical nonsense.

I’m sure Professor McAllister can look forward to a thoughtful and productive discussion with the administration on the complex and nuanced issue of diversity. A discussion reminiscent, of, say….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na2W38tLp_Q

I do wonder whether the best way to respond to these sorts of demands is by using the vocabulary of the globalization-diversity police albeit to a different end a la Mr. Deneen, or by directly and bluntly refusing by issuing reasons for the challenge a la Mr. McAllister.

1. find language that satisfies those who require such proof of my fidelity to diversity thus conceived while ignoring the intent in my teaching.

2. Refuse, as Russell suggests, to take the first step and see how they react.

3. Take my stand at this step and refuse to participate while provoking a debate as to the merits of the requirement.

I’ve heard many suggestions that we academics should take one of the first two options, but I’m not persuaded that this isn’t slow suicide for academic freedom. I think it matters where we take our stand and when we seek to confront those whose moral imperialism threatens our own moral obligations.