A
few weeks ago, Tom Dwyer and I wrote an op-ed for The Torch arguing against President Joyner being named one of the
Top 50 Business Women in the Dayton-area by The Dayton Business Journal.
As
reported before, backlash has emerged, of which includes a letter to the editor
[LTE], printed in last week’s Torch, which
is displayed in-full bellow:
Dear Editor,
I am writing regarding the
opinion piece stating that Dr. Joyner was undeserving of the Top 50 Business
Women in Dayton Award. I would first like to say that I fully believe in the
right to state an opinion, so that is what I am going to do in response to the
previous article. Since coming to Wittenberg, Dr. Joyner has, in my opinion,
completely turned this place around. Under President Erikson, students were
unaware of all the financial issues, but Dr. Joyner made it clear where our
university stood and then immediately began to implement change. Let me make it
clear that I am not advocating for lower housekeeping wages or cutting academic
departments, but I am advocating for a liberal art institution that is focused
on students and providing unlimited opportunities to become well rounded
citizens. Every decision that Dr. Joyner makes she has the students in mind and
she has made that very clear. Have you ever heard of another President that
holds open office hours in a dining area so that students can approach her
outside the office? A President that has a twitter and responds to
students? A President that frequently invited students into her home? A
President that attends student and campus events weekly? I can only think of
one other person and that is Gordon Gee. Now I did not go and do a bunch of
research because I am not a journalist, but I am a student and since Dr.
Joyner’s first day on campus she has been a President of the students and that
is something that 100 percent needs to be celebrated. I encourage all students
to approach Dr. Joyner in her office or her open office hours and ask her any
questions that you may have. She has been an incredible addition to this
university and Wittenberg students are more than lucky to have her as our
President.
To
begin, I’d like to note that this letter is particularly frustrating because it
doesn’t engage in our arguments. First, there are no mentions of poverty, and
second, no discussion on how the administration continues to “sell” the liberal
arts experience in a “look-at-how-much-money-you-will-make-after-college”
pitch. In short, the author has merely talked past our arguments.
For
this reason, I hesitate to even respond — to even entertain such an empty
argument.
But
the author’s response is not without problems. Indeed, there are some highly
troubling lines of argumentation in the letter that are worth interrogating.
To
begin, the author suggests that since joining Wittenberg, Joyner has
“completely turned this place around.” This is both insulting and empirically
false. First, to imply the University was in absolute ruins prior to Joyner’s
presence is a slap in the face to the incredible faculty we have at Wittenberg.
Second, Joyner has not “completely” turned the University around for the
better. As our op-ed notes, Joyner signed on to a pay and benefit cut for the
housekeepers: upwards of 40 current- and past-housekeepers were subjected to a
serious reduction in terms of standards of living. Indeed, Wittenberg has not
been positively turned around for everyone, as the author implies. To suggest
otherwise is to not only commit an empirical falsity, but it is to also
completely ignore the humanity of the housekeepers.
Moreover,
the author notes that she is not “advocating for lower housekeeper wages” —
but, in fact, she is arguing for exactly that. More specifically, the author’s central
argument holds that Joyner is great because she has put “students first,” an
argument that has surfaced quite a bit from defenders of Joyner, though not an
argument with much merit. The logical extreme of the “students first” argument
is that the administration ought to enslave housekeepers so the university doesn’t
have to pay them at all, and can thus reduce tuition costs. Indeed, this would
be truly “putting students first.” No one, however, would endorse this — and it
is in this capacity that the writer’s commentary is inconsistent, useless, and
even disingenuous.
Furthermore,
the author goes on to list various “pro-student” exercises that Joyner
practices: namely, inviting students into “her” home — which, for the record,
is a facility paid for with our tuition — holding office hours in Post, and
attending student events. These practices, according to the author, warrant
that Joyner be “celebrated 100 percent.”
Certainly,
Joyner may be accessible, and that accessibility may even be noteworthy — but
it does not expunge, or even excuse, the
injuries she has committed. That is to say: a person is possible of doing both good and bad things. Indeed, the
world is a complex place.
One
could, however, make the argument — though the above-author does not — that Joyner has facilitated more
good through these actions than bad through the one’s Dwyer and I listed, but I
don’t think anyone is willing to endorse that argument, either. Maybe my
worldview radically differs from theirs, but it seems that, for example, a free
ride to Starbucks, or maintaining a highly active Twitter account, are not actions that out-balance the
perpetuation of poverty, or the reduction of our education to a commodity. I
sincerely hope others have the moral and intellectual sense to hold this
sentiment.
What
is most troubling about this point, however, is that the author seems to take
the position that we should refrain from critiquing Joyner completely. We
should, as the author puts it, “celebrate [her] 100 percent.” Once again, this
is a dangerous line of argumentation — it holds that we should never critique
Joyner or the administration, especially if they are dolling out free rides to
Starbucks. While the author suggests she “believes in the right for everyone to
state an opinion,” it seems as though this is not the case for criticizing
bureaucratic officials. This is not only problematic vis-à-vis the points Dwyer
and I raised — i.e., the housekeepers and the commodification of our education
— but it is exactly this line of thinking that leads to and justifies tyranny,
whether it be cultural, social, or political.
Finally,
while being quite generous to Joyner, the author failed, however, to explore
and share the laundry list of hardships that the upwards of 40 past- and
current-housekeepers currently face because they have been subjected to low
wages and scant benefits.
Indeed,
Wittenberg is not Wittenberg for the
housekeepers — a reality that Dwyer and I hoped to shed light on, but a fact
that many, the author of this LTE included, still refuse to acknowledge, presumably
in order to safeguard their moral high ground. That is, to shelter themselves
from the ugly reality that our education comes at the direct expense of materially
poor people.
No comments:
Post a Comment