Think Again RPCVs: Robert L. Strauss

\ 3 Comments \ by

Sargent Shriver, the agency’s first director, recognized that a “Peace Corps, small and symbolic, might be good public relations, but a Peace Corps that was large and had a major impact on problems in other countries could transform the economic development of the world,” according to former Pennsylvania Sen. Harris Wofford. Because the Peace Corps has tried to be all things to all comers, that grand vision has never been realized or even approached. To become effective and relevant, the Peace Corps must now give up on the myth that its creation was the result of an immaculate conception that can never be questioned or altered. It must go out and recruit the best of the best. It must avoid goodwill-generating window dressing and concentrate its resources in a limited number of countries that are truly interested in the development of their people. And it must give up on the risible excuse that in the absence of quantifiable results, good intentions are enough. Only then will it be able to achieve its original objective of significantly altering the lives of millions for the better.

Think Again: The Peace Corps, Robert L. Strauss, in Foreign Policy, April 2008

I have to say that, even though I am a “Returned Peace Corps Volunteer” (RPCV) myself, I don’t like what I have seen of RPCV culture, here or abroad. It’s too often self-congratulatory, if not self-righteous.

On the other hand, I haven’t sought out other RPCVs, and when I am contacted by the Peace Corps it is usually in the context of promoting the program or celebrating our service. None of these situations are conductive to critical self-reflection.

The people I knew in the Peace Corps would welcome some sort of critical discussion. Strauss makes a great start although he leans towards hyperbole. Still, I can’t help but agree that the Peace Corps has not achieved is original mission and could use an overhaul.

I think this new, revised Peace Corps ought to be coupled closely with it’s domestic parallels, such as AmericaCorps, and linked to a wide-spread initiative to expand higher education and to make college fully accessible.

An ideal program would include several components. It would have to begin, as Strauss says, with specific countries making specific requests. My sense is that much if not all of this sort of development would require a little expertise, and a lot of labor.

In any case, the basic bargain would be a trade of overseas development work for college expenses. I think this might best be done as a year long program either before or after college. It might also be possible to have a program that allows you to do two-months at a time, starting in High School.

I think this sort of program would come much closer to the original ideals of the Peace Corps. If well run and designed, it could accelerate development all over the world. Just as importantly, it would help to create a less insular culture here, which might help the world more than anything else.

Posted in: Autobiographical, Economics, Professional, Writing

DefectiveByDesign.org

\ 1 Comment \ by

DefectiveByDesign.org is a broad-based anti-DRM campaign that is targeting Big Media, unhelpful manufacturers and DRM distributors. The campaign aims to make all manufacturers wary about bringing their DRM-enabled products to market. DRM products have features built-in that restrict what jobs they can do. These products have been intentionally crippled from the users’ perspective, and are therefore “defective by design”. This campaign will identify these “defective” products, and target them for elimination. We aim to make DRM an anti-social technology. We aim for the abolition of DRM as a social practice.

About DefectiveByDesign.org

I like this idea of identifying attempts to technologically corral new forms of property ‘defective by design.’ It’s both rhetorically savvy and true. It’s not just music where this ought to apply, though, it’s also knowledge of all kinds.

There’s a fight brewing over creative writing students who do not want their work available online. “I don’t necessarily want people to go back and read my thesis,” says Jeanne M. Leiby, an associate professor of English at Louisiana State University, in a Chronicle of Higher Education story.

Others report that the problem is just the opposite, that a freely available thesis cannot be published. Something tells me that the implicit end of that sentence is “for profit.” I sympathize with the embarrassment, though; with a little work you can read my thesis on Paul de Man from 20 years ago.

I think some of this pressure is coming from ill-paid professors hoping to make it big with their novel or screenplay. It’s a sign of the times, though, that the public missions of universities is ignored in favor of a so-called ‘right’ to self-aggrandizement. There’s more than a little vanity in that notion, too.

I have to agree with West Virginia’s electronic thesis director, quoted in the same story: “All theses and dissertations should become open access,” says Mr. Hagen. “It’s important in terms of being able to trace the cultural and historical aspects of academia.” He won’t say it but I will: it’s public property.

Posted in: Autobiographical, Economics, Online Places, Professional, Writing

Education and Class

\ Leave a Comment \ by

Phrasing class-talk in terms of job types or income sits well with the American discomfort with class-differentiation. Putting people into classes seems like it’s defining who they are, whereas defining them in terms of job describes what they do and defining them in terms of income is by what they are getting. Doing and getting are activities, and activities are changeable. Being is a state, and more time-stable (a term from linguist Talmy Givón), and therefore perceived as less inherently changeable. If you’re uncomfortable with describing someone as being something, a solution is to describe them as doing something or having something done to them. This fits with the American notion of equality of opportunity. We know we’re not all equal–and identifying people by their job or income acknowledges this. But by identifying people by what they get and do, there’s an implicit suggestion that they could have taken other opportunities and had better jobs with better pay. Or that they didn’t have the skills or talents [or connections] necessary to make the most of the opportunities presented to them–but in a culture in which we tell children that “anyone can grow up to be President”***, we tend to gloss over the things that make ‘equality of opportunity’ an unachievable myth.

Separated by a Common Language, Thursday, April 03, 2008

I’ve had one of those busy months that don’t allow me much time for reading around the blogs I enjoy. I missed this wonderfully complex post on Separated by a Common Language, for example. It was brought to my attention by the Education and Class blog, on May Day.

I am always trying to talk about class in academic settings and it’s always frustrating. If you talk about it in terms of anyone outside of academia you get a positive reception. Everyone agrees that poverty is unjust, education should be more accessible, the wealthy are often selfish and self-serving.

The trouble starts when you begin trying to understand class within the higher education system. The white elephant in the room is not simply the role higher education plays in maintaining inequity in the society at large, it’s the shocking inequities embodied in the system itself.

What’s rarely acknowledged is the way a very organic self-interest stands in the way of any substantive discussions of class inequity in higher education. At conferences, for example, you quickly notice that the professional conversation is dominated by professors at research one institutions.

It makes sense, given that they are the ones who have the time and support to write the articles and prepare the presentations that earn social capital. It also makes sense that they are going to be the least likely to acknowledge, must less challenge, their own remarkable privileges.

I think what higher education has to begin to talk about is the way it has long distributed resources unequally, giving the most to those who already have the most, at private and research institutions, and the least to those who have the least, at two-year and community colleges, to cite only the most obvious examples.

Posted in: Autobiographical, Composition, Economics, Language, Professional

Writing, Technology and Teens

\ Leave a Comment \ by

Teens write a lot, but they do not think of their emails, instant and text messages as writing. This disconnect matters because teens believe good writing is an essential skill for success and that more writing instruction at school would help them.

Family, Friends & Community: Writing, Technology, and Teens

The perennial cliche in computers and writing is that ‘the kids’ know more about technology than we do. I always thought that was a little odd, coming from professionals who spent their lives studying technology.

In any case, what is more true is that the kids have a different sense of technology, and often different technologies, than their professors, at least if there is a great enough age difference. That became clear several years ago when cell phones and texting hit the U.S.

In the academic world we had been all excited (some still are, oddly) about instant messaging. Meanwhile, right in front of our eyes the kids shifted away from email and towards their cell phones. They will likely never know what P.D.A. stands for, much less use one.

It may or may not be generational but the Pew Report suggests that the gap is growing on both sides. In some ways it just makes sense. College students don’t like the same music that I do, at least in most cases, so why should they favor the same communication technologies?

Posted in: Autobiographical, Composition, Language