University Presidential Search Processes and the Imbalance in Discourse Control

Though the availability of money to public institutions is of even more vital importance today, funding shouldn’t be a university’s top priority. Rather, the success of students, teachers and the university as a whole should be the guiding principle. But as of late, a focus on money has seeped into the hiring of university presidents. Why? Because discourse of the search processes caters excessively towards board members, when it should invite an open conversation between all people involved in the institution. Trustees may want the best for the university, but their vision of what is best is not the same as others. Presidential search discourse reflects a focus on the ideas of a board, and not the school and its parts. The discourse should invite an open conversation and debate on who is qualified for a position. Ignoring voices in a conversation isn’t the way to do this.

As seen in recent instances, like at Purdue University, the College of Charleston, Louisiana State University, and Florida State University, presidential search processes can lend to restricting public discussion of a candidate. At the beginning of its search process, FSU’s search committee was prepared to make the decision to interview Republican Senator John Thrasher as its sole candidate. But, only after facing student and teacher outcry and opposition did the search committee decide to make the process more open. The discourse of candidate selection was already concealed and one-sided. And though the process eventually invited more candidates and became open to public discussion, the feeling that a decision was already made lingered.

And that feeling seems replicated in the other search processes. David Kaufer questions in “A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments” how we decide between two competing analogies. He says “the substance of the views an arguer expresses is not alone a sufficient test of his or her skill at resolving issues of values,” (66) meaning just because a person or group may have a subjective view doesn’t mean they can’t argue for a clearer resolution. The goal should be for multiple groups of different subjective views to collaborate in order to find the best resolution. But, when there is a lack of collaboration, this goal can’t be met. The discourse of discussion in university president search processes indeed seems to be misrepresented.

Though students and teachers may cry out, a decision is already made. How can trustees elect a president, without reasoning with the argument of teachers and students? Former provost and interim president at American University Milton Greenberg suggests in his commentary article “You Don’t Need a Search Firm to Hire a President” that “search consultants are hired by and report to the board of trustees, often diminishing the influence of traditional campus constituencies.” Greenberg highlights another inherent problem in the discourse of presidential searches: the trustees dictate the discourse of the process, focusing on their own ideal candidates instead of publicly discussed ones. From the beginning, the control of the discourse of search processes lies in the hands of one group: the administration of the school and its trustees. This makes it less likely the discourse will encompass all players in an argument.

In other words, including all the players in “the discourse community” is ideally the only way a reasonable conclusion should be attained.  James Porter defines the term “discourse community” in his article “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community” as “a group of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated” (38-39). The presidential search process discourse community is all those involved in process of selecting a president and those involved in a university. But, the power in the discourse community is imbalanced, so that the discourse is dictated by one particular group within the community. In this case, it’s the trustees or the selecting committee. Controversy from search processes comes from the inability of committees to hear the opposing side of an argument for or against a candidate. The goal of a discourse community should be to strive for fair and balanced discussion, where all sides and views are given equal opportunities to be heard and reasoned with. All participants in the discourse community of a university president search should want collaboration in discourse when picking a candidate. Otherwise, the resolution is heavily in favor of one side of an argument, without consideration of the opposition.

Public deliberation is one key component that assures all sides of an argument are heard. In “Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation” James McDonald says “public deliberation is a practice by which each party is exposed to the knowledge and interpretations of its adversaries. All parties involved can therefore discover, even create, new knowledge that changes their initial position” (200). But was public deliberation really present in recent search processes that stirred controversy? Students and teachers were able to pose questions and raise issues publicly, even in front of candidates. But, this doesn’t constitute public deliberation. Where is reasoning and conversation when the board of trustees dismisses the argument of students and teachers? There is no deliberation when sides refuse to consider the arguments of the opposition. In FSU’s case, the discourse gave the appearance of public deliberation, rather than actually having public deliberation. The discourse wasn’t fostering balanced discussion, which lead to an imbalanced resolution.

The discourse of university presidential searches needs to be hinged on the collaboration and discussion of trustees, search committees, and teachers and students. But with recent searches in mind, the discourse appeals to the ideals of trustees only, and what they see is best for a university. They aren’t the only ones in the community. Students and teachers need also to be equally represented and heard. Arguments should be reasoned with and should help reach a better solution. The discourse community needs to be balanced. With deciding power in the hands of a disproportionate member of the discourse community, it’s vital that the trustees be compelled to listen and collaborate with opposing sides of the community. And finally, the discourse needs true deliberation, not just the appearance of it. Without healthy deliberation, a discourse is ineffective.

Works Cited

Kaufer, David S. “A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments.” College Composition and Communication 35.1 (Feb 1984): 57-70. JSTOR.

McDonald, James. “I Agree, but … : Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects through Public Deliberation.” Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation. Ed. Christian Kock and Lisa S. Villadsen. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 2012. 119-217. Print.

Porter, James E. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review 5.1 (Autumn 1986): 34-47. JSTOR.

Milton, Greenberg. “You Don’t Need a Search Firm to Hire a President.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Educaton, 1 Sept. 2014. Web.

Short Assignment #4

In one aspect, Wikipedia is a platform by which a compound rhetorical situation on a subject can be presented on one page. At least, that’s what it seems to be intended for. Keith Grant-Davie says in his article “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents” that compound rhetorical situations are “the discussions of a single subject by multiple rhetors and audiences” (265). Wikipedia articles don’t provide a new entry to a rhetorical conversation. Rather, Wikipedia articles seek to provide a discourse aiming to inform the readers of all angles and information of a subject.

But the public can edit Wikipedia articles. So the question arises as to whether ordinary citizens can be trusted to contribute to articles in an unbiased manner and by using accredited sources. From my observations of different terms we’ve explored in this class and an article from Wikipedia’s “Did You Know?” section, which I’ll explain further later, articles on Wikipedia seem for the most part to adhere to attributing information to peer-reviewed and trusted sources. From my experience, a lot of the information is even verbatim. The content in the articles is not a new interpretation of sources or the introduction of a new idea. If it’s not straight facts, it’s an explanation of what’s being said in the sources.

credit: Flickr

In the case of the article I read, much of the page was factual information and encapsulated what was said in the referenced sources. I chose to read about the Pyrenean Frog, an endangered species of frog located in the mountain-rivers of France and Spain. The article was brief. Most of its information came from databases that collected their information from peer-reviewed studies. I wouldn’t have trusted the databases otherwise. In the article, the databases were referred to mostly for factual information on the frog: body size, habitat, reproduction, etc. But the article also drew information directly from a peer-reviewed study about the frog’s declining population because of its diminishing habitat. And while the some of the content might be paraphrased or shortened, the article didn’t really stray from the important facts or add any unconfirmed information.

This is what I imagine and hope most Wikipedia articles are like. They should aim to provide discourse that informs the public of all relevant information on a subject, and views if a subject is disputed. And that information should be based on reputable sources.

In a way, Wikipedia works like a science accommodator. In her article “Accommodating Science” Jeanne Fahnestock says magazines like National Geographic and Newsweek seek to provide the reader “’the wonder’ and ‘the application’ appeals” (279). Wikipedia articles might take information from science-accommodating articles like those in magazines, but they might also draw directly from “forensic discourse”. They take information, peer-reviewed and fact-based, forensic and awe-appealing, and put them in one available space. With regards to science-accommodation articles, Wikipedia articles make information that is supposed to be understandable to the layperson even more understandable.

But I did find an example of an article that doesn’t necessarily follow the strict guidelines that all Wikipedia articles should be written by. I searched some of terms we’ve discussed in our class. Some, like the term “citizen journalism”, came back with an article, but there was a notification at the beginning of the page requesting help finishing the article. It said that information was flawed or unclear. Some searches for terms, like “citizen critic”, returned no articles. This might be seen as open invitation for a person to give their thoughts on the subject. This can be dangerous for readers. Unless all information in an article refers back to a peer-reviewed or trusted source, the article is irresponsible. In this instance, I wouldn’t trust it. But, for the most part, Wikipedia seems to verify when references in articles are peer-reviewed.

Carolyn Handa in her article “The Multimediated Rhetoric of The Internet” preaches that students should be able to understand digital rhetorical skills in order to compose their own rhetoric on the Internet. The rhetoric of Wikipedia imitates an encyclopedia, with information from peer-reviewed articles and studies. It’s important to acknowledge this context when reading content and contributing to it.

Class 10/14

Answer to Question #1:

I found that the three terms from Lazere's article that most closely aligned with Corbett and Eberly's discussion of Citizen Criticism were "Rogerian Argument", "partisan viewpoint", and "guilt by association".  Lazere explain that Rogerian Argument is the technique of addressing the opponent in order to fully understand their argument and thus empathize with them. This is similar to the way Corbett and Eberly says Citizen Criticism should invoke and address the opponent. Lazere defines partisan viewpoint as simply a view that someone sides with, which in Citizen Criticism can be defined as one's bias. Lazere's "guilt by association" is similar to Corbett and Eberly's description of "personal attacks". Personal Attacks in citizen criticism is a diversion by attacking the opponent and advancing the issue instead of addressing it. Guilt by Association can be considered a form of personal attack, as Lazere defines it as distorting the ideas of the opponent with extreme positions.

In "The New Jim Crow", Michelle Alexander reveals her bias or "partisan viewpoint" in the explanation of her exigence for writing the article. Alexander not only explains her viewpoint, but she also says how she came to have it, revealing that she use to think differently. She's able to identify with her opponent and reason with them, instead of attacking them.

Alexander also uses Rogerian Argument technique by identifying with the viewpoint of her opponent. By sympathizing with them, and understanding why Americans who haven't spent time incarcerated may not be aware of a caste system, she aims to make her opponents empathize with her.

I don't think Alexander really uses "guilt by association" in her article, but something else that's noteworthy is her example of "THE DRUG WAR IS THE NEW JIM CROW". When she didn't believe incarceration was a form of a caste system, Alexander took this as extremist, but she eventually came to this viewpoint once she took her new job.


Answer to Question #3:

I found that Corbett and Eberly's and Lazere's articles furthered the definition of Miller and Shepherd's "Blogging As a Social Action". The blog is a popular and accelerated form of citizen criticism. Miller and Shepherd emphasized the importance of kairos and the content of blogs. They say semantics is a vitally important part of blogging for readers, as bloggers are able to combine the "immediately real and genuinely personal". This also seems to be a hallmark of citizen criticism, as citizens use their own experiences to comment on the state of the public or certain communities. Corbertt and Eberly and Lazere in their articles seem to give framework for citizen criticism in any medium, but particularly through blogs.

Incorporating Killingsworth's Idea of Virtual Appeals to Place with Handa's Multimediated Rhetoric

In her article “The Multimediated Rhetoric of the Internet”, Carolyn Handa is pushing the idea that students need to be taught how to compose using rhetorical skills “that translate to the digital” (Handa 151). Web sites today incorporate more than just the written word. Web sites have transformed rhetoric into a “fusion” of writing and everything that is “remediated” into the web sites. As I understand it, Handa is telling us that so much goes into the creation of a website in order capture the interest of a reader that the definition of rhetoric has been altered and broadened. And because of the analytic nature of Web-based businesses, Handa thinks it’s not only important for business people to understand the nature of this rhetoric, but also students, so they may “analyze multimodal texts they encounter” (151).

Meanwhile, M. Jimmie Killingsworth in his article “Appeals to Place” says that the Web has allowed writers, or makers of web sites, the ability to create a text that is not connected to any one place in particular. Killingsworth says the website is “a claim to empower the individual in new and extraordinary ways, to make us the masters of worlds formerly inaccessible because of their diffusion” (Killingsworth 66).

This idea of appeals to place in the virtual world is something that could be incorporated into Handa’s ideas of a multimediated rhetoric. Handa wants students to understand what it is about web sites that

credit www.thatericalper.com

draws the readers in and grabs their attention. Killingsworth is emphasizing the importance of an appeal to place in any form of writing, and in particular how the Internet allows the writer to appeal to many places at once, yet at the same time none at all. Understanding the nature of appeals to place on the Web is equally important as understanding the little intricacies that compose a web site. This doesn’t mean that appeals to place on web sites falls under the definition of multimediated rhetoric. But, appeals to place are the driving ideas behind multimediated rhetoric. The different visuals on websites - images, textboxes, hyperlinks, etc. - are all composed with the idea that the reader doesn’t have to be confined to one space or associated with a particular place.

This is why, Killingsworth says, “virtuality is one of several components in a utopian vision” (67). The web allows web site creators the ability to grant readers a release from any particular place, while offering them a connection to multiple places at once. Each singular website can hold a link to some other website, creating a giant web of interconnected places. This concept is something that students should keep in mind when analyzing the make-up of web sites and the significance of multimediated rhetoric. Multimediated rhetoric is the tool that allows web site creators to create a text that isn’t associated with any one place in particular, yet is connected to a huge web of other sites or “places”.

But does this mean the appeal to place becomes stronger or weaker? I wonder if writing 2-dimensionally, as Handa would describe purely written word in a book or magazine, is better suited to appeal to a reader through place. Could writing 3-dimensionally result in a disassociation with any place, and a failure to fully capture the audience?