Of Cliques and Community

I had a whole five days off last week and you would never know it. This week has been filled with a lot of discussions and some were intensely good, like the meeting of the trauma-aware UDL discussion group, and some were intensely not good at all, like the crap that unrolled on the POD listserv this week. After the discussion group meeting I was going to again write a nice post on the tension of comfort and discomfort and the way that trauma aware is framing of the most value now when all the narratives seem to want to paint everything with an egalitarian homogeneous brush. But no, instead I will let those thoughts sit a bit more for another week and expand on something that is tangentially connected in some way which is the way we build so called "community" in academe amongst scholars and faculty and staff and how it is often not community at all but rather a real exclusionary clique which is very problematic and often unethical.

This week I saw no less than 3 examples of cliques working in academe and of course many more are there and work their exclusionary powers everyday. The first was a refusal to hold accountable someone for clearly having and promoting exclusionary and ableist pedagogy because he has published many well-known books and edits many more. The second was someone promoting someone else for a position while still being in a position of power. The third was so much name dropping in a podcast, that I now call it name dripping, and I had to delete that podcast from my regular roster because golly gee it was almost embarrassing the amount of sycophancy on aural display. 

All of these examples were examples of folk throwing their power around and making sure that others who may have had an equally valid opinion were silenced. Folk who have already sold thousands of books don't need promotion on a well listened to podcasts. What those podcasts should be promoting are the lesser known authors and scholars; that is how you build community and inclusion. The other way is how you maintain a clique. Also there are so many associations that refuse change or new more inclusive directions because friends of friends always promote from within. And it is friends of friends that always hold the same thoughts and use the framework as the previous person. That again is not how you build an inclusive community, that is how you maintain a clique. Finally, I want to really reinforce that selling lots of books does not make someone infallible. In fact if someone has sold a lot of books, we actually should have a duty to make sure that the ideas in the books are tested and inclusive and if there is lack of inclusion (or ableist assumptions) that is highlighted and seen as a teachable moment, instead of an opportunity to speak over the lesser known voices who have brought very valid points to the debate. Points that very few folk actually consider. 

It is this kind of stuff that really discourages me, because of course I am always thinking about modelling and how our work and the way that we react to critique is something the students are watching and seeing play out in classrooms, hallways, or public media spaces. What I saw on display this week is maintain the status quo at all cost, and don't have different opinions, ideas or resources, only those who have published books that have been purchased in masses are allowed to have ideas on display. Only the people with editor roles in educational publishing should be promoted. Only those who know the people who are already in charge should be the next in charge. 

Community, true community, brings in voices that have not been heard as often, and demonstrates a commitment to keep bringing in those voices that may have been marginalized. Voices from different countries, voices from different positionalities, voices from different lived experiences. Collaboration (community) and trust are two of the five principles of a trauma aware approach to care and pedagogy. None of those were seen in what happened this week. In fact I would love for some of those folk, and all people in fact, who consistently promote the cliques they already are a part of, to think about the ethics of what they are doing and how the same voices, the same faces, the same names being promoted again and again can mean some folk just leave because that is seen as a not space for them. So the academic spaces become whiter and whiter, and straighter and straighter, and more and more abelist, and more and more focused on pedagogical ideals that were cool about a decade ago with no awareness of advancements in the pedagogy of educational technology. 

I ask, are these educational spaces we want to promote? Are these the cliquey spots we want to welcome new graduate students or undergraduate students who do research to? I know I don't. Why would I want to actively say, please come to a space where your voice will be minoritized and your access needs dismissed and shamed. We are rounding month 16 of this pandemic and instead of more empathy, I am seeing more "normalcy" and even less reflection and awareness. And if that is the academe you want to promote, I don't know if I want a part of it.