American University’s Writing Studies Program is housed within the English department and doesn’t really have its own major, per se, and while that might cause a bit of tension, Lacey has as often told me how AU’s WSP self-advocates at larers meetings, despite no one on the team being tenured, because of faculty having well-regarded positions and relationships.
I asked Lacey about some of the political problems she faces and she noted the following recurring politics she deals with
- Arguing for additional term lines
- “When I argue for additional lines, I mainly just present the numerical evidence that they’re necessary—and luckily, I (and the program) have enough credibility that I don’t need to argue further.”
- Getting funding for their annual “Writer as Witness” summer reading program.
- “With our Writer as Witness event, the main issue is that author’s speaker fees have gone up a lot, and so we sometimes fall short in being able to afford the person we want. That program has been in place over 20 years, and it’s a central part of the new-student experience, and so I’ve been able to get some additional money from different university offices through the importance of the program and my personal contacts.”
However, as noted before, arguing for various things isn’t as much of a problem for AU’s WSP faculty members. According to Shuster, “most writing specialists are schooled in administration, quite literally, and take advantage of their expertise” for various reasons (331). For many on AU’s contingent faculty, this adroit ability comes out in meetings and negotiations on behalf of the writing program. This week, for instance, I learned that the staff has even written an article called “Building Our Own Bridges: A Case Study in Contingent Faculty Self-Advocacy” found in the collection Contingency, Exploitation, and Solidarity: Labor and Action in English Composition. Here, Lacey and her colleague Glenn Moomau argue that “contingent [meaning full-time, non-tenured] faculty in writing programs are among the best situated to advocate for contingent-faculty issues” and thus by holding higher positions of power in the general studies programs and advising roles, they can better advocate for themselves.
Wootton and Moomau recall their largest issue, saying:
As is the case in many institutions, we faced implicit and explicit barriers to full participation as faculty in the department and university. But one of our biggest barriers was our own timidity, our sense that we were neither qualified nor welcome to engage in the larger work of the university. So in order to exploit the changing conditions of the university, we had to overcome that timidity, educate ourselves in the workings of the university, and make inroads at every available opportunity (201-202)
In order to be more active and be taken more seriously, they go on to stress visibility as “reputation, alliances with tenure-line faculty, and participation in unit and university governance” (Wootton and Moomau 202). For instance, Lacey is not only a former Faculty Senate chair but also a current Faculty Trustee member. (In reports past, I’ve also mentioned how other faculty members hold positions of esteem such as Gen Ed coordinator and advising roles.)
She tells me the story about how this happened, saying that when they wrote the article in Contingency, they were getting a new CAS dean and there was a spot on the search committee. So Lacey ran and “was elected (the advantages of large numbers of writing faculty!). Then when the Faculty Manual changed (see the chapter), I was put onto the committee to help with implementation. And then when a seat was created on the Faculty Senate for term-faculty representation, I was elected to that. And then I became Senate chair. Being Senate chair and past chair means you also serve as a faculty trustee on the board.”
These roles came in handy during political “scandals” within the university. For example, Lacey tells me about how last year they invited Asao Inoue to campus to give talks and workshops to faculty and staff members across the campus. Then she says that it was picked up by a national right-wing media publication called College Fix.
She says that “these groups scan university events and programs, looking for something to react to; AU has been targeted before, so we’re likely on their radar. They found the description of the events on the web page of our Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning and used it as a supposed example of extreme political correctness, arguing that now even standard English is racist. Much of the info was inaccurate and out of context.” However that is rarely an issue for media members looking for a story.
She goes on to say that the “article did get picked up elsewhere, including by Breitbart and by more legitimate conservative publications, such as the National Review” and notes that this is where it most likely became a problem because it was brought to the Board of Trustees’ attention. She notes, though, that her positions of authority and relationships with other trustees helped her smooth over this controversy, saying “I could have a good conversation with this trustee, explaining the situation, and because he knew me, I think he was more able to hear my explanation.”
While Crowley notes that the WPA is the “velcro professor” where negative outcomes of WPA work “stick” to the WPA in charge (277), this effect seems to be lessened by Lacey’s status and well-cultivated friendships with board members, the chancellor, trustees, etc. However, Lacey has advice for a WPA does not have these positions of authority:
For someone who doesn’t have that, I think they would need to very quickly and strategically form relationships. It might be less organic than my experience, but you would want to find out, for example, whom you could contact directly and who would require the “chain of command” to be followed. It’s always a learning experience because situations change and people in the positions of power change. We got a new provost last year, and I’d worked a lot with the former provost and knew him well—including how difficult he could be, but also where he would be supportive. So now I need to gradually build up a relationship with the new person. And I do that by interacting with him when the occasion arises but also making a point of demonstrating why he should trust me and respect the writing program.
I really appreciated the advice Lacey gave and I hope I can use these networking tips in my own WPA work and advocacy in the future!
Works Cited
Crowley, Sharon. “How the Professional Lives of WPAs Would Change if FYC Were Elective.” The Writing Program Administrator’s Resource: A Guide to Reflective Institutional Practice. Ed. Theresa Enos and Stuart Brown. New York: Erlbaum, 2002. 219-232.
Fox, Tom, and Rita Malenczyk, “What Are Institutional Politics?” In Malenczyk, pp. 363-373..
Schuster, Charles. “The Politics of Writing Promotion.” The Allyn & Bacon Sourcebook for Writing Program Administrators. Ed. Irene Ward and WIlliam J. Carpenter. New York: Longman, 2002. 331-342.
Wooton, Lacey and Glenn Moomau. “Building Our Own Bridges: A Case Study in Contingent Faculty Self-Advocacy” in Contingency, Exploitation, and Solidarity: Labor and Action in English Composition, 199-211.
Wootton, Lacey. “Final WPA Report: Politics in WPA.” Received by Bethany Van Scooter, March 23 – April 2 , 2020.