Advisory Council composition

[Candace Lee]

I am thankful to Anna Livia for promoting creating a more inviting
atmosphere for discussion.

I am an African-American lesbian undergraduate-- quite the minority.
(I assume I fit into the "people of color" category-- I'm not certain whose
included:-)   My reluctance to speak has been partly due to my sense of
incompetency.  Nevertheless, I would like to share my thoughts on the
constituency of the Advisory Council:

I question the idea of using such a direct relationship between identity and
validity of scholarship.  If the goal, (in part), is to secure diversity, it
seems the intensity and consistency with which the constituent has and is
pursuing her/his field would be of more importance than identity.  *I hope I
don't get spammed for this*  I think it unwise to make the assumption that
we will respect constituent's work more because they have a more
experiential connection to their field.  For example, I have seen
African-American spokespersons "representing" their race in the political
arena, passionately taking a stand against issues that the majority of their
race would support.  Furthermore, I would be comfortable with, say, a
*straight woman* representing the sexual diversity member slot if she was
ardently committed to that area of scholarship.

I do not believe that identity equals authenticity. My point being, solid
representation of the issues, will guarantee intellectual diversity.  In
addition, a physical representation should be strongly encouraged.

No doubt we will encounter negatives regardless our final vote.
I am interested in seeing the outcome.


Candace




>1. Governing Structure versus Advisory Council
>
>I've been following the debate around the composition of the advisory
>council with great interest and I appreciate the chance to hear the
>different points of view expressed. I think this is an important discussion
>for us to have prior to agreeing on the structure of the organisation.
>However, I am now a little worried that we might be losing sight of our
>goals.  It seems that the posts have started to be divided between those
>that discuss the Advisory Council (which is now a debate on the ideology of
>representation) and those that discuss the governing structure (see Sara
>Trechter's last message). These are not, or rather should not be, separate
>threads.  The more separated they become, the more the ideological debate
>will appear to hover above the more "practical" concerns. I think it may be
>the increasingly theoretical nature of the debate which is raising the
>emotional tone of posts.  Absolutely no objection to emotional posts per
>se, but they seem a little at cross purposes, which is something one needs
>to look out for when engaging in debate via the Internet.  I believe
>everyone is responsible for maintaining the conditions under which a
>thoughtful and considered debate can take place.
>
>2. Representation is Also a Practical Concern.
>
>I believe it is imperative to know things like:-
>
> >>1) What was intended by having both an advisory council and an executive
> >>committee,
> >>2) how the two would communicate,
> >>3) possible term lengths and whether to have limits or not, and
> >>4) a secretary or secretary/financial officer combination position.
>
>*while* we discuss the make-up of the advisory council.
>
>As Sara states:
>***The advisory council would be elected by the group as a whole as would
>the executive committee.
>
>The Advisory Council would be responsible for setting policy.
>
>The Executive Committee would carry out the policies by establishing
>procedures.
>
>I thank Sara for clarifying these issues.
>********************************************************************************
>
>I would like now to think aloud about what this means in practical terms.
>
>The members of the advisory council are meant to help the executives in
>various ways, by offering experience, expertise, opinion on issues as yet
>unknown but in areas where, because of their research or because of their
>membership in different constituencies, they are more competent to speak
>(or more sensitive) than the average member.  It doesn't seem to me
>terribly controversial to say that there are indeed areas where greater
>competence or sensitivity is needed and to predict that those areas will
>include domains of social inequality.
>
>The least controversial "advisor" is the student position. I am four years
>out of grad school and it is honestly difficult for me to remember exactly
>what my concerns were back then. What would this advisor do? We don't know
>yet, obviously, but part of our job is to start projecting into the future
>of this organisation and imagining what we would like to see and how we
>would like to it to work. I imagine conferences (such as the one at
>Stanford next year), a journal (already discussed), special issues of the
>journal, position papers,  advisory roles for GALA on other bodies,
>databases of research interests for mentoring, advising and public
>speaking.  Not hard to see that grad students might have a different
>relation to all these activities--less money, no sabbaticals, need for
>mentor rather than being one themself.
>
>OKay, so I agree to the grad student rep.  What about the person of color?
>THat special issue of the journal, how about we do it on Ebonics and other
>minority dialect debates throughout the world, seeing it as a mother
>tongue/official code thing?  Might be reasonable to suppose that our
>advisor would have thought more about this debate than I have-- might be
>reasonable to pick the kind of advisor of color who was interested in
>linguistic issues that particularly affect people of color. They get to
>talk about anything else they want, vote like anyone else, but in this
>particular area we seek their advice because we respect their ideas on the
>issues.
>
>I don't intend to go through each category--though I do find the male
>member slot a little odd, but I would, like to propose we consider what the
>members of the advisory council would do as well as who they would be.
>##############################################################################
>Anna Livia (PhD)
>Visiting Assistant Professor, French Department,
>UC Berkeley, 4125 Dwinelle Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com