The Best Show That You Probably Don't Get on Your Cable

One of the advantages of teaching classes on U.S. popular culture is that you can order the extra-extra extended cable package with little guilt. It’s part of my job to know how race, gender, and sexuality are presented on television. When I sit on the couch with a bag of baked Snapea Crisps^©, I am not being a lazy slug and a drain on society, I am actually working. These are the noble sacrifices that I make in the pursuit of knowledge. Too bad that I didn’t become a Professor of Media Studies, then I could have justified getting HBO!

If you’re like me – and I know that you want to be –, then you think of the Logo Channel as more or a less a failed enterprise. For those who don’t know, Logo (owned by Viacom) launched in 2005 as an all GLBT-content network. It’s located way, way up on your television dial. Well, if televisions still had dials -- and if those dials went up to channel 163. You know, it’s somewhere past the All Grouting Network and before the Fear Network. Logo might not be available in all cable markets, especially those ruled by a radical Christian theocracy.

Up until now, Logo mostly recycled mediocre GL(occasionally B&T) films and produced even more mediocre original programing. They have a sketch show that just isn’t funny; a news program that tackles hard hitting topics like the music careers of porn stars; and a trying-too-hard stop-action show with a cast of generic Legos. The only bright spot was the short-lived Noah’s Arc (which deserves it’s own post at some point). Inexplicably, that was canceled while Rick & Steve lives on and on. At one point, I began to wonder if the Christian Right had funded Logo as a secret program designed to bore the gay out of us.

Recently, though, Logo stepped out of their usual dead-end programing with television genius: RuPaul’s Drag Race. Okay, we aren’t talking about Cervantes here. Still, it’s more than a little entertaining.



If you have seen any other reality competition show, then you basically know the formulaic premise behind RuPaul’s Drag Race. Probably they borrowed mostly heavily from Project Runway (so much so that one of the former contestants, Santino, is one of RuPaul’s permanent (nonvoting) judges). The contestants, in this case aspiring Drag performers, are given a short time period to complete one or two challenges each week. They then exhibit their hard work in a runway show for RuPaul and the panel of (nonvoting) judges. The two lowest ranked contestants of the week must then “lip-sync for their life” in a final performance. RuPaul, after asking the advice of the judges and her housekeeper, then decides their fates. A winner of the week is declared, while a loser must give a teary goodbye.

Like most other exploitation t.v. reality competition shows, the producers clearly hope that the time constraints and close working conditions will lead to dramatic tensions between the contestants. Like Project Runway, they have also abandoned any pretense of subtlety in their product placements. From Drag Race, we learn that serious Drag Queens only use Mac Cosmetics! And Absolut Vodka has been clinically shown to make you even gayer!

Despite copycat borrowing and corporate shilling, RuPaul’s Drag Race offers a bit more than most. First, it is probably the most racially diverse cast in any television program, reality or scripted, on the air today. The show’s nonwhite-majority cast includes African Americans, a Cameroon national, a Filipino American, and multiple Puerto Rican contestants. What other show can you think of that draws that much from the real diversity of this nation?



This isn’t to say, of course, that other scholars would agree with my rosy view of the show. There is actually a lot we could critique. In other contexts, bell hooks has been remarkably critical of representations of African-American drag queens, particularly RuPaul. While hooks acknowledges the potential for drag to subvert assumptions about gender, in her critique of Paris is Burning, she nonetheless states that “the subversive power of those images is radically altered when informed by a racialized fictional construction of the ‘feminine’ that suddenly makes the representation of whiteness as crucial to the experience of female impersonation as gender.” In other words, she worries that the representations of African American drag queens more often shows them to be fetishizing whiteness than longing to impersonate black women. She has also offered a stiff critique of RuPaul in particular, stating “It’s a deep thing to live in a culture where folks get off on the image of a big black man trying to look and act like a little white woman (a version of Dolly Parton’s petite retrograde femininity complete with big blond hair).”

While I might quibble about some of hooks’ assumptions, it is worth pausing to wonder why that same racial diversity that I celebrated earlier seems to only be possible on a show about Drag Queens. Race, gender, and sexuality are at play here and I have little faith that Logo’s programming managers have spent much time pondering critical theory.

Still, even though I worship at the altar of bell hooks (and I am totally onboard with her critique of the voyeuristic Paris is Burning), I can’t help but see Drag Race as offering a bit more. Of course, I also think Dolly Parton herself offers a bit more than “retrograde femininity,” but that might be why bell hooks is bell hooks and GayProf is just some obscure (though totally hot) guy with a blog.



Certainly Drag Race draws on voyeuristic impulses to see a supposedly “hidden” drag culture. The show includes pop-up definitions of terms and phrases that the drag contestants use throughout the show (e.g. “Ki Ki – When two drag queens have sex”). As mentioned, it also veers uncomfortably around questions of race, including a near miss that might have escalated into a black face performance.

Even with the producers' baiting for cattiness and the unexplored racial dynamics between the contestants, there are also unexpected messages about remembering a sense of community and maintaining your self respect. The contestants often offer each other advice, show their affection for each other, and support each other more than any other reality show that I have ever seen. RuPaul frequently reminds contestants “If you can’t love yourself, then how the hell are you going to love someone else?” Drag Queens’ reputation for sliding into Drama Queens is not shown in force here. There has been relatively little catfighting so far (I am sure to the chagrin of the producers). Moreover, I think that the drag performances can offer a challenge to assumptions about gender and race, too.

Yes, I am going to have to drag out (no pun intended) the ol’ Judith Butler (Not since Susan Sontag made her name off of “camp” has another scholar rode gay culture so hard to make themselves famous). Butler’s now famous argument is that all gender is performance and, therefore, drag performance reveals the disjunctions between anatomy, gender, and gender performance. “In imitating gender, drag implicitly reveals the imitative structure of gender itself – as well as its contingency,” Butler writes, “Indeed, part of the pleasure, the giddiness of the performance is in the recognition of a radical contingency in the relation between sex and gender in the face of cultural configurations of causal unities that are regularly assumed to be natural and necessary.” Or, cutting through the academic clutter, RuPaul put it more succinctly: “You’re born naked, the rest is drag.”



For me, there is more at play with RuPaul and Drag Race than a fetish over whiteness. Instead, I see the mixing and matching of racial and gender signs as intentional play and potentially challenging (btw, this isn’t to say that I have agreed with everything RuPaul has ever said about race and gender, either). Rather than fetishizing whiteness, RuPaul merges together multiple symbols of racial and gender difference in unexpected ways that many would expect to be impossible. At the site (sight?) of that impossibility, the performer then demands acknowledgment of their unexpected beauty. Indeed, RuPaul moves between various drag personas, wearing either the blond wig and high-heels, or appearing bald and in a stiff suit and tie.

In the end, it is RuPaul who necessarily makes Drag Race something to watch. She controls all aspects of the show in true diva fashion. RuPaul (in woman drag) serves as the Heidi Klum figure who introduces the challenge; (in man drag) as the Tim Gunn figure who offers kindly advice as the contestants work on the challenge; and (in diva drag) as the only judge with an actual vote on the show. RuPaul is so much the center of the show, that her face even serves as the clock in the workroom.

Mixed between zingers and critiques, RuPaul also seems to genuinely care about all of the contestants. She sets an unusual tone for such a competition, recently reminding the divias-in-training, “You all are sisters. We are family. If one of us is in pain, we are all in pain, we are all in trouble.” Even when drag- diva RuPaul tells a losing candidate “to sashay, away,” there are words of encouragement and a reflection on the unique attributes of the parting contestant.

Like the best drag performance, Drag Race offers an entertaining spectacle that also happens to expose the artifice of all reality television. My hope is that RuPaul will “chantez and stay” to make Logo a network that we will actually want to watch.

GayProf, The Irritated

Many have asked about this phantom post. It shows that you still care!

GayProf, irritated by some local shenanigans, hastily posted before reclaiming his zen. After spending some time meditating, I remembered, “Nothing really matters.” Never blog irritated. Besides, I become so much more mysterious and interesting this way.

In place of that silly grumble, I decided that we can talk more broadly about things that irritate me. I happen to have a running list:

Creepy and crooked treasury secretaries who should never have been appointed, much less confirmed.

President Obama's willful obliviousness to the fact that the American public will never trust a word coming from his creepy and crooked treasury secretary, who should never have been appointed.

Governors who make New Mexico look bad.

A BBC commentator who confused Arizona with New Mexico a month ago.



That idiot who backed into my car in the garage with enough force to seriously dent my bumper, but drove away without leaving any note or even an apology.

Waiting at the barbershop to get my haircut.

Getting my haircut at the barbershop.

The movie Barbershop.

Ear hair.

The fact that academic events are at the mercy of the football schedule at most universities.

Dirty dishes stacked in the sink.

People who don't know that there is an obviously right way to load a dishwasher.

Corporate CEO’s who imagine that they should receive bonuses and fabulous vacations as a reward for running their companies into the ground.

The refusal of a creepy and crooked treasury secretary, who should never have been appointed, to make the termination of existing CEOs a precondition of taxpayer aid.

Republican Senators who agree to work with Democrats, but then turn out just to have intended to embarrass them.

Democrats who overestimate Republicans’ trustworthiness.

Republicans who continue to demand Reagan/Bush/Bush style economic policies that favor the wealthy despite ample evidence of the destructiveness of such policies.

People who erroneously imagine that my cat desires their attention.



People who erroneously imagine that I desire their attention.

The remarkably cheap laptop provided by BMU that crashes if I attempt to play any music or watch any video.

Knee-jerk recommendations to switch to Apple.

Claims that the movie Che provides a stunning new interpretation of the titular character when, in reality, it is just four hours of watching the revolutionary walk, pause, wheeze, and then walk some more.



The fact that U.S. movie theaters don’t serve liquor.

Lame plot devices that turn Diana Prince into a mortal simply because she isn’t wearing star-spangled panties.

Commercials for cleaning products that lead me to believe that flesh-eating bacteria is lurking on every surface in my home.

My irrational fear that two British women are randomly going to show up at my door, critique my level of cleanliness, and reveal that flesh-eating bacteria is lurking on every surface in my home.



Guests in my home who request a cocktail, but then don't drink it.

The Bee Gees.

The fact that, despite having mastered the Bewitched nose-twitch years ago, I still can’t get my couch to fly around the room.



Graduate students who don’t do their work, but nonetheless have egos so sizable that they imagine themselves as junior-junior professors.

The fact that I still mourn the loss of my Braun FlavorSelect^© Coffeemaker which died after a decade of loyal service.



My shitty Krups coffeemaker that is no replacement for the Braun FlavorSelect^©.

Peanuts contaminated with salmonella.

Job candidates who don’t do their homework before arriving on campus and, thus, ask really obvious questions that could have been answered had they taken two-minutes to consult the department webpage.

Heteronormative and consumer-driven Valentine’s Day.

Accusations that I only dislike Valentine’s Day because I am single, even if it might be true.

Wasteful construction of new buildings when architectural treasures are left abandoned and crumbling.



The nation’s airlines.

People who refer to Wonder Woman as “Superwoman.”

Bloggers who retract entries only a few hours after posting them.

I’ll leave it to you to decide my level of rationality.

Break the Code

My last post exposed some ambivalence among faculty about the role of “official” teaching evaluations from students. Most of us do want feedback on content, but there also seems to be a general consensus that the weight given to student evaluations is out of kilter with the actual hard work that goes into teaching. I also believe that most students are not well informed about the purpose of evaluations.

As many of us are seeing last semester’s teaching evaluations return to us, let me help you read between the lines of those anonymous student comments that aren’t really about your teaching at all. It’s time for one of my favorite segments at CoG, “What They Say and What They Really Mean.”

What They Say in the Written Evaluation: “This class was one of the best classes that I have ever taken.”

What They Mean: “This class was one of the best classes that I have ever taken.”

***

What They Say: “This is the worst class that I have ever taken.”

What They Mean: “This class challenged many of my most basic assumptions and required me to work hard.”

***

What They Say: “This professor was really condescending.”

What They Mean: “I can’t take criticism.”

***

What They Say: “This class required too much reading.”

What They Mean: “To pass this class, I actually had to crack a book on my own time.”

***

What They Say: "This class was so easy it was a joke."

What They Mean: "After years of reading student complaints in evaluations, this professor has simply given up."

***

What They Say: "This professor is a leading scholar in the field."

What They Mean: "This professor assigned hir own book as required reading."


***

What They Say: “This was one of the funniest professors that I have ever had.”

What They Mean: “I didn't learn a damn thing, but the professor should be given a late-night talk show.”

***

What They Say: “This professor was filled with lots and lots of energy.”

What They Mean: “I think that this professor might have a cocaine problem.”


***

What They Say: “The professor should post the lecture notes on-line so that we can have something to follow in class.”

What They Mean: “The professor should post the lecture notes on-line so that we won’t have to go to class at all.”

***

What They Say: "This professor is a fool."

What They Really Mean: "My hubris as a first-semester freshman leads me to believe that I know more than the people who spent the past twenty years studying this topic."

***

What They Say: “Discussion during class was often filled with awkward silence.”

What They Mean: “My classmates didn’t do any of the reading and therefore had nothing to say.”

***

What They Say: “The professor has the worst taste in clothes that I have ever seen.”

What They Mean: “I have no idea about what constitutes an appropriate professional relationship and will probably be fired from my first job.”

***

What They Say: “This class should have had more films.”

What They Mean: “I was often too drunk to pay attention to the lectures.”

***

What They Say: “This class had a lot of films.”

What They mean: “The professor was often too drunk to lecture.”

***

What They Say: "This class involved a lot of discussion of the cultural significance of Wonder Woman."

What They Mean: "This class was taught by GayProf."



***

What They Say: “Grading for this class was totally unfair.”

What They Mean: “I am getting a ‘F’ in this class.”

***

What They Say: “Grading for this class was totally fair.”

What They mean: “I am getting an ‘A’ in this class.”


***

What They Say: “There was too much reading about women in this class.”

What They Mean: “I think women should be chained to the stove.”

***

What They Say: “This class was so unfair. I passed the AP test in this topic and yet I still ended up with a ‘C.’”

What They Mean: “I have confused high-school competence for university-level work.”

***

What They Say: “I was really disappointed that we didn’t talk more about battlefield strategies in this history class.”

What They Mean: “I get most of my information about the past from the History Channel.”

***

What They Say: “I was really disappointed that we didn’t talk about more contemporary novels in this literature class.”

What They Mean: “I think John Grishman is the pinnacle of American literature.”

***

What They Say: “This professor was too strict.”

What They Mean: “I had fantasies about this professor spanking me.”


***

What They Say: “This professor had a political agenda.”

What They Mean: “This professor didn’t allow me to spout off about my political agenda without evidence to support my point.”

***

What They Say: “I shouldn’t have to read about gay people in a class that is required for graduation.”

What They Mean: “My religion teaches me to think of gays and lesbians as less than human.”

***

What They Say: “The attendance policy for this class treats us like we are children.”

What They Mean: “I had to cancel a two-week vacation in Paris because attendance was required for this class.”

***

What They Say: “This class would have been better if taught by an American.”

What They Mean: “I am a member of the KKK.”

***

What They Say: “The lectures were monotonous and boring.”

What They Mean: “I have confused attending university with watching television.”

***

What They Say: “This woman (or African American, or Latino/a, or Asian) professor clearly favored women (or African American, or Latino, or Asian) students.”

What They Mean: “I don’t like taking classes that aren’t taught by a white man.”

***
What They Say: “This professor didn’t care at all about students and was really detached.”

What They Mean: “This professor expected us to be adults and do our work.”

***

What They Say: “This class really stimulated my interest in this topic. I frequently went to office hours just to talk more about the material. I have now declared this topic my major.”

What They Mean: “I am secretly in love with this professor.”

***


What They Say: The professor was often late to class.

What They Mean: This professor secretly fights crime on the side.

Evaluate This

Every institution generates a class of employee determined to prove that their paycheck isn’t a reckless drain of resources. These are usually mid-level bureaucrats charged with things like “Quality Assurance” or “Systems Analysis.” Many of those bureaucrats imagine that the best way to show that they are invaluable is to create change. That change doesn’t have to make things better necessarily, but it does need to be big and splashy. If that change also includes technology in some unnecessary way, they get super bonus stars. Universities, I am here to tell you, are not immune from this phenomena.

Big Midwestern University recently experienced one such change that transformed the means by which students conduct course evaluations. Previously, professors allocated about fifteen minutes of class time at the end of the semester for students to fill out anonymous paper forms which were returned to a central office for processing. But why continue with that system when we can make it needlessly more complicated and inefficient?

The higher administration decided that moving the system to an on-line format would be so much better. Why? Well, because – um ... It means that – er . . . It will just be better! It’s on-line!

Actually, they did offer us a set of fairly laughable justifications. One was that students must want to fill out evaluations on-line if there are unofficial sites like the much reviled (and often slanderous) Rate Your Professors. The logic being that the driving force of RYP wasn’t student entitlement or a means to trash instructors who required their students to work hard. Rather, it was simply the on-line format that kept students coming back. If they could fill out official evaluations on-line, than their desire for venting about their professors at RYP would be sated. It's on-line!

Another bonus that they promised was that we professors would have our evaluations instantaneously! As soon as we submitted our final grades, the evaluations would be downloadable. Isn’t that exciting? It's on-line!

Maybe I am a bad teacher, but I can’t say that I spent six weeks pining for the return of the old paper evaluations. Why, after a grueling semester, one would want to immediately read a potential list of complaints from students, I am not certain (And, btw, this much vaunted possibility of “instant review” proved untrue as the system become riddled with problems, thus delaying the release of evaluations for about six weeks (about the same turn around for good ol’ paper evaluations)).



Perhaps the biggest jump in logic was that the administration predicted a major rise in the completion rate of evaluations. In what can only be explained as a stunning lack of understanding about students’ priorities, the administration predicted that students would race to their computers to fill out surveys with enthusiasm and vigor in their free time. It's on-line!

Now, I’m not saying the administration is totally out of touch with reality, but did they even try to imagine themselves as a student? Logging onto my computer and finding a set of four or five evaluations, each consisting of twenty tedious questions, isn’t going to look like a party on Friday night. At best, I might fill out evaluations for one or two classes that I really, really loved or really, really hated before losing interest and finding out who is on Facebook.

Moreover, removing the evaluations from the professional context of the classroom might lead to students taking them even less seriously. One has to only glance at RYP to discover that many students have no idea what a professional relationship looks like.



Lots of faculty tried in vain to explain these basic realities to the administration before this system went on-line. They answered these critiques with a massive advertising explosion on campus encouraging students to use the new system. After goddess-knows-how-much-money went into the new system, what was the result? Less than 50 percent of students submitted reviews for my classes. Comparing notes with my colleagues, I was lucky to get even that level of response. Keep in mind, with the old paper system, I almost always had a 95 to 100 percent response rate.

So, has the university learned a valuable lesson from this colossal failure? Not at all – They have placed the blame on faculty for “not encouraging” students to fill out these on-line forms. If we really cared about evaluations, they claim, we would have made filling out this on-line evaluation an official assignment.

If you work at another university and find yourself chuckling at BMU’s silliness, let me sober you up. Right now, as you read this, your own institution is probably planning an identical shift. My sister (there is another) reports that her college is about to institute the same on-line system (Despite comparable protests from faculty on that campus). Indeed, it must be one of those things that is recommended in this month’s issue of Unnecessary University Expenses magazine. It's on-line!

I hear you asking, “Why does any of this matter?” and “When is this blog going to be about gay porn again?” Both of those are fair questions.

It matters because the value attached to student evaluations is escalating on campuses across the nation. When student evaluations first appeared, they were intended to be a means for students to provide constructive feedback so that professors could fine tune their courses. Indeed, I think students should have a means to offer their perspective on the learning. The evaluations would also be a means to alert administration to very serious problems that would only be available if written anonymously.

Over time, though, the consumer-mentality started to infiltrate universities. Students stopped being students and, instead, transformed into customers. Inside Higher Ed recently reported that Texas A&M University is offering a $10,000 bonus to the faculty member who receives the highest student evaluations (That’s big money for a humanities prof, but small potatoes for a Wall Street executive). Apparently the idea had its origins in a conservative Texas think tank known as the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The Chancellor of A&M, Michael “Burger King” McKinney, explained the program as “customer satisfaction . . . It has to do with students having the opportunity to recognize good teachers and reward them with some money.” No offense to the fine students at A&M, but should a professor's career be determined by these guys:



So, with the new on-line evaluation system at BMU, many of us are wondering how we will fair in the consumer-oriented world. Since students are not likely to fill out these new evaluations unless they are throbbing with love or hate, it will skew the results considerably.

Faculty who recoil at comparing their classroom to the gift-wrap counter at Macy’s are disregarded, or worse, assumed to be “bad teachers” who are bitter about it. But that assumption places a huge amount of faith in students’ abilities to measure what is important in their instruction (For the record, my own evaluations are usually fine – not stellar, but not a horror show. Given the amount of work that I assign, and my inclination to give texts that are outside students’ comfort zones, I am amazed that I do as well I do).



The same article in Inside Higher Ed pointed to many problematic assumptions about teaching evaluations, including studies that refute the accuracy of evaluations as a measure of learning. One study by three economists at Ohio State found, not surprisingly, that students are more likely to give higher course evaluations if their own grade is high. They also reaffirmed that gender and national origin impacts evaluations. Women and non-U.S. faculty receive lower evaluations than their peers on average.

When those same economists charted the student’s grades in subsequent classes that depended upon content from the evaluated class, they found no correlation between professor evaluations and the learning that is actually taking place. In other words, a student might have learned a great deal, but still hated the class and given a negative review.



Student evaluations are important and I am not suggesting their demise (though we can dump this on-line nonsense). Students' goals in the classroom, though, are often about reducing their work load and being entertained. Instead of depending on their viewpoint as the sole measure of teaching effectiveness, we need to consider tools that actually measure whether students acquire new skills. Until then, do you want fries with that history class?

Obama Nation

Like millions of U.S. citizens and people around the world, I watched Barack Obama’s inauguration with keen attention, enthusiasm, and a bit more emotion than I expected. There are many things that we will be talking about for the next few weeks: the new president’s implicit (and sometimes explicit) indictment of his predecessor’s failed policies and arrogance; the Chief Justice stumbling over the oath of office (Gee, for those who imagined John Roberts as a strict Constitutionalist, they might have been surprised to find that he couldn’t be bothered to learn the 35 words needed from the document for the day); the call for U.S. citizens to work hard; Aretha Franklin’s decision to say something with a hat.

Then there was the prominent place given to the creepy nominee for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, at the luncheon. I’m not saying that Geithner is a crook. If I were on the staff at the Capitol, though, I would have made sure to count the silverware before letting him leave. He seems to have trouble knowing what is his and what belongs to the government.

Most importantly from the day, though, I did have the surge of hope. Somewhere in the middle of Bush’s second term, I could no longer even watch the news because the sound of his arrogant voice sent me into a tailspin. Sure, I kept informed by reading about the day’s events, but live-action shots were out of the queston. It was an astounding day of relief that we now have a president who is smart, kind, and at least wants to do the right thing for the nation and world. Basic competence is so refreshing!



Much like election day, though, Obama’s inauguration proved bittersweet for queer folk. While I hardly think that the inclusion of homophobic Christian minister Rick Warren is tantamount to sending gay folk to concentration camps, it didn't really suggest that the gays are anything other than a second thought for the new administration (as are Latinos, I might add). Most of us want to believe in his soaring rhetoric and promises of justice (VUBOQ sent me the link to the WH’s promises for LGBTQ people). It's clear, though, that all us queers are going to have keep pushing that gay agenda. Fortunately, unlike the previous administration, this one appears willing to listen and open to being convinced.

Since I am sure that the new administration is waiting breathlessly to know the recommendations of an obscure blogger, here are some of my own ideas for Obama’s first 100 days in office:

* Mobilize your landslide victory and astounding approval ratings for rapid changes. I appreciate being cautious, but the people actually support you. Use the rosy glow of their approval to accomplish your priorities: Economic stimulus? Foreign Relations overhaul? Painting the White House a nice mauve color? Whatever you think is the most important issue, do it now while there is still time. Except the people who live in Texas and South Carolina, all of us are behind you 110 percent.

* Crush Texas and South Carolina.

* Give Michelle Obama something more profound to do than model pretty, pretty dresses. Okay, I will confess that when I had a drink with some of my gay peeps on inaugural night, the first item of discussion was her yellow brocade number (Two were in favor, one opposed). Still, she can look fabulous and do something that draws on that Princeton degree. Heck, I sometimes get the impression that she might be a wee bit more savvy than you.



* Remember Mexico? Well, with the all the drug wars, political corruption, and kidnapping, it seems to need some serious help at the moment. Since you have never been south of the border, this might be a good time to brush up on your Spanish.

* Either allow me to keep my shoes on through airport security screening or take liquids on board in quantities bigger than three ounces. I’m willing to settle for one or the other.

* Hire more gay, Latino historians to work in your administration. What? I can’t have some petty self interests?

* Update the twenty dollar bill. The Bush regime couldn’t stop fiddling with the money – color changes, font adjustments, security stamps. Apparently instead of keeping an eye on the economy, they went crazy with Photoshop. Well, they aren’t the only ones who can be creative with our currency. Take a look at my proposal:



It looks good, doesn't it?

* Stop sending me e-mails asking for more money. I was happy to donate to your historic campaign, but it seems downright tacky to keep asking for more after you have won and taken office. Hit me up again when it’s time for your reelection, or, at the very earliest, midterm elections.

* Lay off the Abraham Lincoln parallels for awhile – We get it, you like yourself some Lincoln. Seriously, though, we better not see you sneaking around the White House in a stovepipe hat and mutton chops.

* Sign an executive order that destroys all copies of the “prequel” Star Wars movies and order that we, as nation, never speak of them again.



* Don’t, under any circumstance, trust political advice offered by Tom Daschle. His reappearance during your campaign, and now in the cabinet, sends chills through my spine. He too often compromised (or flat-out gave into) the Bush administration. For many like me, he represents the worst elements of the old Democratic party: Cowardly, weak, and unwilling to fight the hard fight for justice. He will almost certainly recommend compromising when you shouldn’t.

* Sign an executive order ridding foods of high fructose corn syrup. The agri-corn-empire recently started advertising on television to convince us that high fructose corn syrup is not as unhealthy as some suggested. Such a move can only mean that is even worse than we suspected. High fructose corn syrup is the most toxic thing on the market since Philip Morris experimented with those asbestos-flavored cigarettes.



* Figure out a way to turn Air Force One into a hybrid vehicle. Failing that, see if you can turn it into a Transformer robot.

* Recruit some drag queens to work in the press room. If you want witty retorts to reporters’ tough questions, they are your gals.

* Reconsider keeping Guantanamo Bay Prison Facility open, but only for former members of the Bush administration. They built it, they might as well enjoy it and its many amenities.

* Try having a bit more of a sense of humor in public. You know that I think that you are a doll, but do you have to be so serious all the time? FDR, John Kennedy, and, yes, even Abraham Lincoln all liked a good joke. Maybe you could ask Jon Stewart to the Oval Office for a few lessons.

* Remember that the gays love you (for now) and most [white straight] Christian Evangelicals never will. It might be nice, therefore, if you stop treating the gays as if we are the subject of a high school debate where a “big tent of disagreement” should be entertained. Our basic rights are not some trivial matter, like arguing over whether the bald eagle or the turkey should be the national bird.

Besides, we gays have much better parties. Have you ever been to an Evangelical party? It’s nothing but cheeze-wiz and generic 7UP.

Come to my house and we’ll listen to Billie Holiday on the hi-fi while I serve my current cocktail du jour, the Palmer (Citrus, bourbon, and bitters – Simple, but beautiful). Never heard of a Palmer? Stick with the gays -- we are always one step ahead.

Thanks for the Bad Memories

President George W. Bush delivered his farewell address. I had imagined that he might use that time to offer some apologies for breaking the country or for his general assholeishnes. Or, even better, he could have used the speech as a confessional for the many crimes he committed over the past eight years. Instead, he spent fifteen minutes trying to convince people that his two terms in office weren't the total disaster that they appear to have been.

Bush decided to give his farewell address a little early, five days before he actually steps down from office. He would have done it the night before, but he decided to take the rest of his time in office as vacation days at Camp David. That is the story of this man’s administration. He has literally spent more than 450 days on vacation in his two terms in office. Wouldn’t that be nice to have a job where they gave you 1.5 years of paid vacation for every six years that you work?

Still, nobody looked happier than George W. Bush when Barack Obama won the election. “Finally,” he seemingly thought, “I can go and play baseball, which is all I really wanted to do.”



With all these farewell addresses and news agencies running retrospectives, it got met to thinking that CoG should do one as well. Here are some of the classic moments of Bush’s nightmare presidency that you won’t hear about from other sources:

2000: Bush comes to power through a coup. Until the day I die, I will never understand why this nation accepted the completely illegal installation of Bush. He did not win the popular vote. He did not win the vote in Florida (though the news buried that tidbit months later when a statewide recount was finally completed).


Uniquely Special Moment: The media made those of us who objected to the illegitimate seizing of power feel like we were nuts for expecting the person who won the election to actually take office.


2001: Bush's first nominee for Secretary of Labor, Linda "English-Only" Chávez, is quickly forced to withdraw her nomination. Chávez's neighbor revealed that she once helped an undocumented worker by giving her cash and a place to stay (though not employing her).




Uniquely Special Moment: Latinos across the nation, who best knew Chávez for her draconian visions of assimilation and anti-Spanish rants, were shocked to find out that she once did a nice thing for another Latina.


2001: September 11 is one of the darkest moments in the U.S.’s history – Bush tries to make a run for Canada. Republicans cynically made September 11 one of the cornerstones of Bush’s reelection campaign in 2004, but nobody seemed to remember his abysmal lack of leadership on that day. Only later did some point out that Bush sat dumbfounded and watched the clock tick away while reading The Pet Goat. Though, to be fair, The Pet Goat was probably beyond his assessed reading level.



When he finally did get off his ass, he ran away and hid. Rather than returning to Washington, D. C., Bush first ordered (or, more likely, somebody else ordered) Air Force One to fly in big circles. Then he started to zig-zag across the country from air force bases in Louisiana to Nebraska.


Uniquely Special Moment: The White House was later caught making up stories that security around Air Force One had been compromised to explain Bush’s basic lack of character, leadership, and courage.


2002: Homeland security, under pressure to show that it was doing something, announces the entirely laughable color-coded “Threat Advisory System” for the nation’s airports. This same agency would also respond in knee-jerk fashion to any threat, thus leaving passengers having to more-or-less disrobe before entering a gate and, of course, keeping liquids to under three ounces in a one-quart baggie. 'Cuz obviously a group of terrorists wouldn’t think to bring on board multiple baggies of three-ounce explosives as a group.


Uniquely Special Moment: With all the fanfare associated with the color coded system, I have never seen it budge from “Orange” level. Apparently the risk of terrorist attack is always “High,” much like the person who came up with this color-coded system.




2002: Radical-Christian Extremist John Ashcroft, Bush's first Attorney General, spends $8,000 on fancy drapes to cover up art deco statues titled “Spirit of Justice” and "The Majesty of Law" at the Justice Department. Ashcroft disliked that the statues were seminudes. We can only assume they gave him impure thoughts.


Uniquely Special Moment: Having millions of Americans claiming that they couldn't find justice at the Justice Department wasn't enough for Ashcroft. He need to make sure that they literally couldn't find the spirit of justice as well.




2003: More young people report that they get their news from the comedy program The Daily Show with Jon Stewart than any other source.


Uniquely Special Moment: Sadly, the fake-news program actually provided better coverage of the issues than the twenty-four news networks.


2004: The Bush administration prompts the return of the protest-song genre. Green Day’s “American Idiot,” P!nk’s “Dear Mr. President,” Eminem’s “Mosh,” and whatever the Dixie Chicks sing all expressed disdain towards Bush. Protest songs hadn’t been this popular since LBJ was yanking beagles around by their ears.




Uniquely Special Moment: The phrase “Fuck Bush” sounds even better when put to music.


2004: Bush wins reelection (barely) through a four-point campaign based on fear, war, greed, and homophobia.

Having little to show for his four years in office other than a tragic terrorists attack, a collapsing economy (Yes, problems were already evident), and unwinnable wars, Bush and the overly-praised Karl Rove masterminded a campaign that drew on voters’ worst impulses.


Uniquely Special Moment: Mary Cheney, lesbian daughter of Dick Cheney, is surprised that other gay folk find it distasteful that she campaigned for an administration that sought to harm people like herself.



2004: Warner Brothers releases the film Catwoman starring Halle Berry. I haven’t figured out how exactly, but I am certain that the Bush administration was responsible for this piece of celluloid detritus.




Uniquely Special Moment: The New York Times and other newspapers go to town with bad cat jokes in their reviews of the film (e.g. “Catwoman coughs up a hairball.”)


2005: Bush nominates a groupie, Harriet Miers, to be on the Supreme Court despite her total lack of qualifications.





Uniquely Special Moment: Miers claims that she only wanted to be on the Supreme Court because she lost the role of Catwoman to Halle Berry.


2005: Bush reveals that he believed himself to be on a religious mission delivered directly by God to invade Iraq.


Uniquely Special Moment: God files a libel suit, demanding that Bush not besmirch Her good name through false claims.


2005: Rumors emerge that war-hawk (and perpetually "single") Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is a lesbian when a Fox reporter encourages her to get "friendly" with pianist Lauren Green.


Uniquely Special Moment: Upon learning that Rice might be sexually attracted to women, millions of lesbians across the nation throw up a little in their mouth.




2005: As Katrina is about to hit New Orleans, Bush hosts a barbeque for his sycophant press corps (while on vacation at his ranch – ahem). In one swoop, the depraved indifference of both the press and the president is revealed as 60,000 people are trapped in the drowning city of New Orleans.


Uniquely Special Moment: Oh, gosh, too many to count – In a supposed show of interest, Bush ordered Air Force One to circle above the city so he could look out the window (Hey, at least he didn't hide in a bunker this time). After countless incidents of mismanagement, Bush praised Michael D. Brown, head of FEMA, by stating, “Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.” Totally unaware of the magnitude of problems that faced average Americans, Bush mourned the loss of the multi-million dollar mansion of Senator Trent Lott.




2006: Bush provides a graphic lesson in what constitutes a workplace “bad touch” when he gives an uninvited massage to German Chancellor Angela Merkel.


Uniquely Special Moment. Upon learning of the massage, millions of Germans throw up a little in their mouth.




2007: People embrace the new Battlestar Galactica because it uses science fiction as a vehicle to question the current state of affairs and U.S. policies.


Uniquely Special Moment: Many viewers saw a dystopia where heartless robots attempt to slaughter the last surviving members of the human race as more hopeful than contemporary life under the Bush regime.


2006: A dedicated blogger uncovers the horrible truth that Donald Rumsfeld isn't really a man at all. He is actually one of the evil taking trees from The Wizard of Oz.


Uniquely Special Moment: The press really should have suspected something when he threw apples at anybody who asked questions about looting in Iraq.






2007: Alberto Gonzalez, after either committing perjury before Congress or having a case of amnesia heretofore only experienced by soap-opera characters, resigns in disgrace as Attorney General.


Uniquely Special Moment: Gonzalez, the first Mexican-American to hold the position of Attorney General, was given a statue of the Texas Rangers as his parting gift. It was only fitting that a man who had undermined the rights of people like himself should be given an object commemorating a group that historically terrorized people like himself.


2008: Bush tours the Middle East after promising a democratic Iraq and a “road map to peace” between Israel and Palestinians. It turns out that he really should have invested in a G.P.S. for peace.


Uniquely Special Moment: The people of Iraq are so overjoyed with Bush’s role in their nation that they offer him the shoes right off their feet.


2009: Against medical odds, Dick Cheney lives through the entire administration and has spare time to shoot friends in the face.




Uniquely Special Moment: It proves that good can't live through a stiff breeze, but evil lives on and on forever.

Interview with Kindness

Illness returned to me again this week. Put that with an absurd amount of snow (How much more can I possibly shovel?) and 2009 is off to a complicated start. Given that I am buried in for the short term, it seemed like a perfect time to check in with things around the blogosphere.

ProfBW, HistoriAnn, and Squadratomagico continue to offer advice for academic job candidates about to venture into the “on-campus” interview. For those who don’t know, the “on-campus” interview is a grueling gauntlet where candidates visit potential departments for two or three days presenting their research and teaching skills. Anybody on the market should consult this advice.

I would highlight two things from their sage wisdom: 1) practice your job talk over and over until your retinas dry out and 2) Do your homework on the department, reading at least something from every person on your itinerary.

It's also a good idea to let go of the delusion that you will get a job in your preferred location. Are you a “city person,” who just can’t imagine living anywhere but New York, Chicago, San Francisco, or Boston? Well, guess what – Almost everybody on the job market thinks the same thing. That is why universities in those cities don’t have to try very hard to recruit candidates and often end up with many more applications for their jobs. In the immortal words of Mick Jagger, “You can’t always get what you want.” Of course, he also said, “Hey! You! Get off of my cloud,” so he might not always have made the most sense.

For me, I want to continue offering advice to the interviewers rather than the interviewees. At this point, the search committee has done most of the heavy lifting. Now is the time where the full department comes into play. Here are some things to remember as candidates visit your department:

1. Candidates have bladders that need emptying from time to time. There is a temptation to cram itineraries so jammed packed with meetings that candidates literally don’t have a free moment from 9:00 am until 8:00 pm. Build in a couple of fifteen minute breaks, plus an hour before their presentation(s), where the candidate can compose hirself. (N.B. to candidates: Remember to pee before you presentation. You don’t want to look unusually antsy half-way through it).



2. Keep in mind that things that you perceive as “selling points” of your location might not be construed as such by others. Hopefully we all want to sell the merits of our particular location, but sometimes our zeal and personal interests expose hidden presumptions. Telling a candidate that your town is a “great place to raise children because it has lots of young parents,” for instance, might seem like an innocent statement or even an obvious plus. But is it? Those individuals, straight or gay, who have no desire for children might hear this as “our town is stifling unless you conform.” For those who are single, they might hear, “You will have a better chance of flying on a concord jet than finding a romantic partner in this town.” For those who are gay and/or single and have children, they might wonder if the subtext of that statement is that the town has a narrow definition of [heterosexual] “family.”


None of this is to say that a “family friendly” town is a bad thing or that they can’t also have plenty of attractive options for singles and/or queer folk. Candidates want to know, though, that their hiring units have thought about the possible diversity of candidates and recognize that not everybody makes the same personal choices. Since it is illegal (see the previous entry on hiring) to inquire about the personal life of the candidate, we should remember that not everybody finds the same things desirable.

Comparably, sometimes gendered assumptions can come out unintentionally. Noting that the majority of your department frequently plays basketball during lunch might seem like it shows that the department is relaxed and collegial; however, this might raise some concerns for women candidates (even if they do enjoy playing basketball themselves). Those types of sports activities have historically been associated with a certain type of “being one of the boys” mentality that excluded women (again, even if they have an interest in sports). It can be taken as enforcing a masculine vision of collegiality. Or, for someone like me who hates competitive sports, its might seem like a huge imposition to be expected to participate in such a thing just to socialize with my colleagues. (N.B. to candidates: Do not trash the location of the university where you interview. If you hate small towns, keep it to yourself. Asking things like, “What in the world do people do for entertainment in this god-forsaken cultural wasteland?” doesn't make you sound cosmopolitan. It makes you sound like you don't need a job.)




3. Remember to allow the candidate to eat. Everybody interviewing for a job understands that breakfast, lunch, and dinner are part of the interview and expect to answer questions. The temptation for those interviewing, though, is to focus all of the conversation on the candidate. An hour can pass quickly with the candidate having only taken a couple of bites from their plate. Take time in the middle of meals to redirect the conversation to your other colleagues, thus allowing the candidate to get much needed fuel for the rest of their day. (N.B. to candidates: Keep your blood sugar high and remember that you will get dehydrated through the day. It’s not a terrible idea to carry around a protein bar just in case. Also, if you regularly drink and the other people at your table are having wine, limit yourself to one glass only).



4. Be explicit about the department’s expectations for this particular position. Departments most often decide to hire because of a perceived hole in their unit (e.g. “We don’t have anybody whose research focuses on Latino/as in the U.S., thus making us grossly out of step with the reality of the nation.”). Many units also vary wildly about the expectations for service from junior faculty. It is important, therefore, to be clear about how you imagine a particular candidate filling that hole and serving your unit. Are they expected to teach a particular class or classes? Is it a class that has never been taught at this institution previously? Are they going to also need to teach survey classes? Are they going teach graduate seminars? Are junior faculty responsible for changing the urinal cakes in the men’s room?

Whatever your department’s needs and expectations, be sure to communicate those directly to the candidate. Nothing will make a new hire more unhappy than feeling like they were the victim of bait-and-switch. If you claim that your main goal with this hire is to expand your graduate program, but then forbid your new hire from teaching grad students because they need to teach four sections of the freshmen survey, they are going to feel like you lied. (N.B. to candidates on the market: You will instantly eliminate yourself from any search if you respond to a direct statement about a unit’s teaching needs by saying, “I have no ability/interest in teaching a class like that.”)



5. If you are charged with returning candidates to their hotel, offer to stop by a drugstore on the way back in case they forgot to pack something. It’s a minor courtesy, but one that will be greatly appreciated by somebody who inadvertently left behind their hair gel, pantyhose (Do people still wear those?), or their favorite brand of toothpaste (N.B. to candidates, do not use this time to buy yourself a fifth of bourbon and a package of Ramses).



6. Remember that these candidates will still be your future colleagues even if you don’t offer them a job at your institution. The academic world is a shockingly small one (As the ease with which my Diana-Prince identity is exposed suggests). I have been surprised by some individuals who imagine that their particular department is the beginning and end, the alpha and the omega, of intellectual inquiry. Not every job-candidate fits every job. Maybe you are looking for a central Europeanist who specializes in the Weimer Republic, but found during the campus interview that a particular candidate only touches on the Republic before spending more of hir time on the rise of Nazism. Does this make the candidate wrong for this search? Probably. Does this make this candidate just plain wrong? Not at all. In fact, if you gave them a campus interview, some of your peer institutions probably did as well. It is likely that this candidate’s name will constantly reappear among Central Europeanists in the future. Perhaps they will even train the next generation of scholars. It’s a bad idea to have an army of former job candidates out in the academic world talking about how unprofessional your department was in the interview process. Even if they don’t get the job, work to make sure that everybody is friends before they leave campus.

The academic job market is a crazy business. The candidate you interview today might just be interviewing you for a job ten years from now.