UWP Lecturers Fwd: brilliant letter

Sat Jul 11 20:38:01 PDT 2009

I agree with you, Kim.  The people who chose to sign this contemptible
letter should be "outed" -- they shouldn't be allowed to hide behind
anonymity.  I definitely think we should get hold of the letter and have it
printed in a California publication; the LA Times is a good suggestion.  Of
course, you realize that once it gets out there will be loads of doofuses
who will actually think it's a great suggestion to close some of the UC
campuses (if not the whole university!) and will write letters to the editor
and to their congresspersons to that effect.  But that's the risk one takes
in a (ahem) democracy.  Everyone has her say, even those with a minimum of
brain power and capacity for critical thinking.

Stephanie (Kay) came up with a couple of good suggestions also:  that we get
this letter (along with appropriate editorial and ironic commentary on it)
into the Chronicle of Higher Education; and that the Academic Senates of
UCSC, UCR, and UC Merced either separately or jointly censure those who
wrote and signed the letter.  This might sound like overkill (and the very
opposite of the far subtler ironic tack I initially took) but I think if UC
faculty choose to circulate reprehensible ideas that (at least in theory and
potential) can be highly damaging to their colleagues on other campuses,
they should be held responsible for their actions.  I say "actions" because
what they did goes beyond mere words; after all, their letter was sent
to UCOP with the specific intention of affecting university
policy).  There's no question here about meddling with freedom of speech
(hey, I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU like [probably] most of you)
but when 23 department heads send an official signed letter to the
President's Office proposing a major change in the system (to put it
mildly!),  it enters the public domain and should be treated -- and
responded to -- as such.

Deborah:  I don't know how you found out about those other four department
heads, but if you've discovered the entire list of faculty who signed the
letter, could you perhaps let all of us know who they are (i.e., which
departments they head).  I think we're all curious and dying to know that.
And if you've somehow unearthed a copy of the entire letter, it would be
great if you could send that around as well -- or send us the internet
link where we can see the letter for ourselves.

Speaking of which, I wasn't able to open the third link that you sent us
(the blog with, I gather, an ironic or humorous response to the letter).  It
sounds like at least some of you succeeded in opening and reading it, but I
couldn't.  (The site said I wasn't authorized to read anything on it, or
something to that effect.)  Did anyone else have that problem?  If you know
how to fix it let me know -- as you're probably well aware by now
I'm a hopeless satire buff and hate to think I'm missing out on any examples
of it.

Cheers,
Carole

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:53 PM, kimberly devlin <devlinucr at earthlink.net>wrote:

>  dear all,
>
> i would be very happy to see a copy of the full letter (including the names
> of everyone who signed it) reprinted in the la times, followed by carole's
> response.  any ideas how to do so?  anybody with me on this one?  i am
> impressed by how many other faculty have accepted the fact that the
> state/nation/world is in a severe depression and that we, like many others
> (not employed by uc), are going to be effected.  duh. in any event, thank
> you very much carole.
>
> slainte,
>
> kim
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Carole Fabricant
> Sent: Jul 10, 2009 3:19 AM
> To: adriana.craciun at ucr.edu, Andrea.Denny-Brown at ucr.edu,
> carole.fabricant at ucr.edu, cf7516 at gmail.com, Caroleanne.tyler at ucr.edu,
> Deborah.Willis at ucr.edu, erica.edwards at ucr.edu, George.Haggerty at ucr.edu,
> heidi.braymanhackel at ucr.edu, jamestobias at mindspring.com,
> James.Tobias at ucr.edu, jennifer.doyle at ucr.edu, John.Briggs at ucr.edu,
> John.Ganim at ucr.edu, joseph.childers at ucr.edu, katherine.kinney at ucr.edu,
> keith.harris at ucr.edu, devlinucr at earthlink.net, michelle.raheja at ucr.edu,
> rise.axelrod at ucr.edu, rob.latham at ucr.edu, Stanley.Stewart at ucr.edu,
> Steven.Axelrod at ucr.edu, susan.zieger at ucr.edu, Tiffany.Lopez at ucr.edu,
> Traise.Yamamoto at ucr.edu, Vorris.Nunley at ucr.edu,
> englecturers at listserv.ucr.edu
>  Subject: Fwd: brilliant letter
>
> Hey folks,
>
> The depths to which some of my esteemed and, er, enlightened colleagues
> will stoop never ceases to amaze me.  One is never quite prepared for the
> next act of outrage or idiocy.  Way to go, guy; let's hear it for
> colleaguiality and (more importantly) class solidarity.  In case you don't
> know what I'm talking about, I'll attach a newspaper article (and a half) to
> this email (I copied it into my Word documents) which will explain it all.
> Below you will find my response to His Eminence the Distinguished Professor
> Scull.  There's no way one can deal with this except through satire.  (Well,
> actually there are other ways -- but nothing that can be described in an
> email.)  I heartily encourage all of you to send emails to Scull
> congratulating him on his brilliant satiric wit.  It would be nice if his
> mailbox were filled with such notes.  (Actually it would be even nicer it it
> was filled with something else -- but never mind that for now.)
>
> Read and weep.  Or better yet, read and laugh, and write sarcastic fan
> mail.
>
> btw, Don't forget to address him as "Distinguished Professor" -- given his
> obvious adulation of status and reputation I'm sure he wouldn't want to be
> addressed any other way.
>
> Cheers,
> Carole
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Carole Fabricant <cf7516 at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:00 AM
> Subject: brilliant letter
> To: ascull at ucsd.edu
>
>
> Dear Distinguished Professor Scull,
>
> I very much enjoyed reading portions of your brilliant satire which, had
> you been a less humble and unassuming person, you might have entitled "A
> Modest Proposal for preventing the Inferior Campuses of the UC System from
> being a Burden to their Superiors or the University at large, and for making
> them Beneficial to the Public."
>
> As a Jonathan Swift specialist I can say without reservation that you have
> perfectly captured the tone and spirit of Swift's greatest satire, creating
> a persona whom you've succeeded in making into the twin brother of the
> Modest Proposer:  a man, deeply concerned for the welfare of his community,
> who understands that the sacrifice of some of its members (other
> than himself and his fellow classmen, of course) is necessary for the good
> of the whole.  Your persona, like the Modest Proposer, subscribes to the sad
> but inescapable truth that in every society the weak have to be sacrificed
> to ensure the continued health and prosperity of the strong, the have-nots
> must give way to accommodate the desires of the haves; and while expressing
> regret regret at being forced to "contemplate very, very unpleasant choices"
> he doesn't allow mere sentiment to soften the stark nature of his proposal,
> or to divert him from his noble purpose.
>
> Of course, this being a satire, we eventually come to realize that the
> Modest Proposer's (both yours and Swift's) presumed concern for the welfare
> of his society, hence his eagerness to offer solutions to its problems, is
> merely a cover to mask his own self-interest, delusions of grandeur, and
> dehumanizing outlook (his substitution of abstract quantifiable measures for
> human values) -- but not before we've enjoyed a delightful romp through the
> realms of the satiric grotesque.
>
> I must say that I thought it was a particularly brilliant stroke of wit on
> your part to substitute the image of General Motors "lopping off" Hummer,
> Buick, Opel, Saab, "and who knows what else" for Swift's central metaphor of
> chopping up and eating Irish babies.  The "who knows what else" provides
> just the right Swiftian touch, opening out the possibilities of the satire
> in the same way that Swift's Modest Proposer, after describing the many
> dishes the babies can be cooked up into, adds that "Those who are more
> thrifty (as I must confess the times require) may flay the carcass; the skin
> of which, artificially dressed, will make admirable gloves for ladies, and
> summer boots for fine gentlemen."
>
> Equally ingenious was your remark that because of the funding crisis we now
> have to become "only a nine, or an eight (and a half) campus system."  A
> lesser satirist would have left it at 'nine, or eight,' but your insertion
> of 'a half' of a campus produces an ever-so-slight frisson, evoking the
> image of a half of a baby (somehow more shocking than a whole one) being
> stuffed into a pot to make a stew:  an image that serves to underscore the
> fundamental sadism and cruel indifference beneath the Modest Proposer's mask
> of benevolence.
>
> I will be teaching Swift in the fall quarter and wonder whether you would
> be willing to come and talk to my class about your perspective on the art of
> satire -- perhaps even share with us some of your other creative endeavors
> in this field.  I always tell my students that, given the absurdity of the
> times in which we live, it's no longer possible to write satire.  But I'm
> glad to say that you've proven me wrong.
>
> Yours sincerely (and admiringly),
>
> Carole Fabricant
> Professor of English
> University of California, Riverside
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucr.edu/pipermail/englecturers/attachments/20090711/44c1d99b/attachment.html 