Post by harumph on Apr 9, 2011 17:34:01 GMT -5
First, let me state that I have absolutely no involvement in the creation of the petition, and have not signed it either.
I do find some of the comments in this thread to be confusing, however.
We agree that transparency is a good thing.
I am unclear as to how being "procedural" correlates with self-importance, and likewise, with how being procedural might be compared to Sonny Wortzik yelling "Attica! Attica!"
Isn't creating a petition which may attract signatories or not entirely dissimilar from an approach that would be motivated by self-importance (e.g. going it alone, trying to form a cult of personality out of your exaggerated emotions)?
Likewise, as a protest movement, isn't the creation of a well-reasoned and clear request for more transparency entirely dissimilar from sloganeering and chanting in the streets?
Meanwhile, coming on this board and posting about this to a bunch of people who are likely to not have a job (that is why we're here, right?) is rich. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd LOVE to have the HUGE PROBLEM of having to pay these dues from my poor Vanderbilt* research and development account. I'm not saying that the she's a thief for having a job, but c'mon: Shut up and pay your dues, and if you don't like it get on the committee and change things. Or just go to a committee meeting. Dollars to doughnuts none of these people ever showed up to a business meeting at the ASA.
*I'm picking the first signatory's home institution, and perhaps incorrectly guessing that because she's first, she's is the author of the petition.
I don't begrudge you your decision to sign the petition or not, but I'm confused as to why you would be insulted that someone has asked you to sign the petition.
In turn, the post that has prompted your outrage reads "Sociologists, please consider if you would like to sign the following petition...". What exactly is the offense that has been done to you in asking if you'd consider doing something or not?
With regards to what I'm reading as your dislike of this petition coming from sociologists with high status jobs, I think this would be relevant if they were the only people impacted by the proposed rise in ASA fees above the annual inflationary adjustments. They are not. You and I are too. More transparency and an ability to accurately judge if, as a body, we support the initiatives with which these fees may applied, is a good thing.
I also might add that if the call was not made by those who do have some degree of status security, who is it exactly who might be making the call? I certainly wouldn't, as, as a graduate student who will soon be on the job market, I don't want to lead any reform charges that might be negatively viewed by a future employer. That's a personal decision, though. Quite frankly I'm glad that folks who suffer from less status insecurity than I are publicly taking up issues that impact me.
Likewise, you'll note that a substantial portion of this discussion has centered around the exorbitant fees (when compared to other like organizations) charged for schools to enter their openings on the job bank. This is primarily an issue for positions that may be open to folks from many fields, only including sociology, and may deter them from listing with us because of the charge. Lena (who you target for scorn) and the like all HAVE jobs, they have no personal interest in this matter, yet they see it as a problem for the people on this board. In short, you and me.
If you read through the background that lead to the creation of the petition, you will see that repeated requests for transparency have been made.
Just my two cents on this.
I do find some of the comments in this thread to be confusing, however.
Apr 9, 2011 6:33:42 GMT -5 @sigh twice said:
I'm not against transparency, and I'm not saying that this isn't an issue. I'm just saying that I think that a petition and all this blogging is a bit like Sonny Wortzik yelling 'Attica! Attica!' The ASA isn't Scott Walker, and these bloggers are acting out as if there's some OUTRAGE. And perhaps trying to self-inflate their importance by being so procedural.We agree that transparency is a good thing.
I am unclear as to how being "procedural" correlates with self-importance, and likewise, with how being procedural might be compared to Sonny Wortzik yelling "Attica! Attica!"
Isn't creating a petition which may attract signatories or not entirely dissimilar from an approach that would be motivated by self-importance (e.g. going it alone, trying to form a cult of personality out of your exaggerated emotions)?
Likewise, as a protest movement, isn't the creation of a well-reasoned and clear request for more transparency entirely dissimilar from sloganeering and chanting in the streets?
Apr 9, 2011 6:33:42 GMT -5 @sigh twice said:
Meanwhile, coming on this board and posting about this to a bunch of people who are likely to not have a job (that is why we're here, right?) is rich. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd LOVE to have the HUGE PROBLEM of having to pay these dues from my poor Vanderbilt* research and development account. I'm not saying that the she's a thief for having a job, but c'mon: Shut up and pay your dues, and if you don't like it get on the committee and change things. Or just go to a committee meeting. Dollars to doughnuts none of these people ever showed up to a business meeting at the ASA.
*I'm picking the first signatory's home institution, and perhaps incorrectly guessing that because she's first, she's is the author of the petition.
I don't begrudge you your decision to sign the petition or not, but I'm confused as to why you would be insulted that someone has asked you to sign the petition.
In turn, the post that has prompted your outrage reads "Sociologists, please consider if you would like to sign the following petition...". What exactly is the offense that has been done to you in asking if you'd consider doing something or not?
With regards to what I'm reading as your dislike of this petition coming from sociologists with high status jobs, I think this would be relevant if they were the only people impacted by the proposed rise in ASA fees above the annual inflationary adjustments. They are not. You and I are too. More transparency and an ability to accurately judge if, as a body, we support the initiatives with which these fees may applied, is a good thing.
I also might add that if the call was not made by those who do have some degree of status security, who is it exactly who might be making the call? I certainly wouldn't, as, as a graduate student who will soon be on the job market, I don't want to lead any reform charges that might be negatively viewed by a future employer. That's a personal decision, though. Quite frankly I'm glad that folks who suffer from less status insecurity than I are publicly taking up issues that impact me.
Likewise, you'll note that a substantial portion of this discussion has centered around the exorbitant fees (when compared to other like organizations) charged for schools to enter their openings on the job bank. This is primarily an issue for positions that may be open to folks from many fields, only including sociology, and may deter them from listing with us because of the charge. Lena (who you target for scorn) and the like all HAVE jobs, they have no personal interest in this matter, yet they see it as a problem for the people on this board. In short, you and me.
Apr 9, 2011 9:38:08 GMT -5 @goodgracious said:
Ten zillion bucks says nobody who signed that petition thought to email ASA and ask for more information before launching a petition.If you read through the background that lead to the creation of the petition, you will see that repeated requests for transparency have been made.
Just my two cents on this.