Weekend of the strike (unabridged):
For all my classes, here is the new scoop. I have been advised that I am not allowed to teach my classes online. The main reason given is that the curriculum committee has not approved my class to be so taught, and that this requires state approved procedures. Other reasons are that this is effectively crossing the picket line and that technically any work done by the students is not accredited anyway.
I was expecting something like this and I have to say it isn't all bad. We generally hate bureaucracy but still need formalized procedure when it suits our needs. Our needs are for accredited school work so that you can transfer or get your credential and move on. This affects how I teach and how you work as a student.
But, in an effort to make some lemonade out of some very large and pithy lemons, I will continue to accept your journals on a voluntary basis. You have seen the e-mail addresses that apply to the specific classes. Go ahead and send work in if you want to and I'll read it and comment back as much as I can. But in fairness there will be absolutely no penalty for not doing so. I stated before that this was an experiment.
As this strike thing unfolds, I would like to hear your comments (in journals or otherwise). How does this affect you personally? How do you think that this is bringing to light the interconnectedness of Hartnell and the community at large? What are some of the lessons to be learned here and now that you can apply later in life? How does the contest for power and control here at the local level reflect macro social forces at the national and international level? Compare a micro and a macro view of the Hartnell labor dispute-that is, how do people interact on a personal level (symbolic interactionism) versus how does leadership perform in public (conflict perspective and functionalism). This is, after all, the real thing. Whether you are in the sociology 1 class or the social problems class, it is all the same stuff. This is where theory meets reality. So think about it. I know I certainly wish I had this opportunity when I was a very young man. Imagine taking a class that talks about the various theories of social control, deviance, social stratification, the contest for power and on and on, while having a major social problem and contest for power playing out in your own lap.
For your personal edification I would suggest that the sociology 1 students skip ahead to chapter ten in the Hughes/Kroehler text and read about "social change." This includes a discussion of social movements, which the strike most definitely is. It includes a brief discussion of the Davies J-Curve. Sociology 5 students, if I haven't already talked about the Davies J-Curve, then look it up in Google and Wikipedia.
In essence, it is the change in the gap between expectations (material wealth for the most part) and what you actually get. Most of us get less than our expectations but at a level that is pretty constant and is "acceptable." If, however, things change and the gap between reality and our expectations widens, it reaches an unacceptable level. At this point there is a reaction-which in our case is the strike. Note the element of time as a factor. For the full-time faculty this time has been over two years without a contract and longer than that without any kind of "correction" to bring expectations (of pay and benefits) in line with reality. This can apply to larger scale public responses such as a general strike (the French are notorious for this, but it exists in our history as well) or a full scale revolution (France in the nineteenth century, Russia in the early 20th century, and China to name the big ones). It is hard to imagine this happening to us, but here we are with our lives disrupted, our schedules a mess and having to make difficult (if not life-and-death) choices in the face of uncertainty. (See graphic at the end of this column.)
This is a learning moment. I mean this for you as well as myself. This is true also for everyone else involved, from Dr. Valeau to the ranks of the union and its leadership. One would hope that through discourse and through civil action we will unfold the real issues at stake here. This is an academic institution and as such I would hope that more academic discussion, debate and inquiry would emerge. For most of the faculty this is a time for action as they have been talking for a couple of years now. But now I believe they are talking to a larger audience-that is, you, the students, me as an adjunct faculty member, the public at large (the community) and to other such institutions.
So, you want to know what education is for? It is for just this moment.
