FW: governing structure discussion

[Trechter, Sara]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Na Va [SMTP:Na_Va at BusinessNet.de]
> Sent:	Tuesday, August 10, 1999 7:20 AM
> To:	STRECHTER at CSUCHICO.EDU
> Subject:	Re: governing structure discussion
>
> ****
>
> Hi,
> I share Sara's concern  "that this should not become an all white,
> > English-only focused, senior academic, good 'ol girl club.  I still
> think
> > that we have some mechanism to facilitate as much diversity in the
> > organization as possible, but I agree that identity politics can be
> > problematic."
> However, I also agree with Anna: "I like the idea of scholars to
> *represent*
> each category rather than
> embodying them, but I wonder how this will work in practice."
>
> Assuming that members who run for office have to present themselves, their
> interests, motivations, aims etc. to the electorate, the following wording
> seems like a good option to get around this dilemma to me:
>
>
> > 1. Graduate and undergraduate students
> >
> > change to, *Representatives for graduate and undergraduate (issues?)*
> Add: "Non-students can only run for this office under exceptional
> circumstances which they would have to explain to the electorate in their
> proposal"
> >
> > 2. Scholars in nontraditional employment situations (e.g., working in
> > industry; independent scholars; part-time and adjunct faculty)
> >
> > change to *Representative for scholars in nontraditional employment
> > situations*
> Add: "Scholars in traditional employment situations can only run for this
> office under exceptional circumstances which they would have to explain to
> the electorate in their proposal"
>
> > 3. Members of color
> > *Representative for issues/research in gender and ethnicity/race.
> Add: "Whites can only run for this office under exceptional circumstances
> which they would have to explain to the electorate in their proposal"
>
> > 4. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual members
> > *Representative for language and sexuality research/issues*
> Add: "Heterosexuals can only run for this office under exceptional
> circumstances which they would have to explain to the electorate in their
> proposal"
>
> > 5. Men who are members of the organization
> > *Representative for language and masculinity research/issues *
> well, no addition here. A male representative seems like overdoing the
> good
> work, and I'd discard the category.
>
> > 6. Members outside the US, Canada, and the UK
> > *Representative for geographic or linguistic diversity*
> I think these are two distinct issues: one is the monolingual-English bias
> of much language & gender research which could be redressed by having a
> representative for linguistic diversity (and an English L1 speaker could
> only run for this office under special circumstances ... see above). The
> other issue is one of geographic diversity in that research conducted in
> the
> US and the UK (and possibly the other monolingual English-speaking
> countries) is central and "by definition" international while research
> conducted in other countries gets marginalized as national or regional. So
> my proposed 7th representative would be one for geographic diversity (and
> a
> US- or UK-based scholar could only run for office under special
> circumstances ...)
>
> Best, Ingrid Piller
> Hamburg University
> piller at uni-hamburg.de
>