I was just at a graduate student orientation where the head of the office of affirmative action was bragging about the expansive non-discrimination policy at the UO, including "gender identity and expression."
I have less right than others to be chagrined about this, but it was annoying to hear the UO bragging about a policy they fought and fought. I guess it's better to be annoyed hearing it than to not hear it all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Given our experience, I wonder if there is a possibility that this administrator was actually for it the whole time -- or was at least brought around to it. On the one hand, some administrators can actually be proud of it while, on the other, the administration as a whole (and particularly those in charge of things like policies and contracts) drag their feet, obfuscate, and generally disagree with it.
I always thought that it could be one of our advantages to not think of the administration as a huge monolith but as individual rational actors hoping to pass work onto onto anyone but themselves.
Speaking of gender identity and expression...
OMFG!!! that is unbelievable. glad we could help them out with their UO PR.
mike: if our administrators were actually for our proposal all along, they should be awarded oscars for best performance by a dean, HR Rep, and University Legal Counsel in a bargaining session. i thought this would be the easiest of all our proposals, but they brought out the big guns and fought us until the very end. i was really surprised by their reaction...almost as surprised as i am to hear that they're now bragging about it!
and good luck, michigan! i hope the new language passes with the regents.
ash, I believe that it was a miserable experience trying to get the language passed - it has been miserable in Michigan. What I am saying is that single administrator (the head of the Affirmative Action office) might actually be proud of it while the rest of the fuckers in the administration sat on it.
I mean, in the article that dr linked to, the head of the LGBT office was, I believe, actually for this proposal the whole time (I am not sure if that is completely true) - so she might be proud of it while the rest of the administration hates it.
Trust me, I know how difficult it is to get something like this passed (and enforced effectively, which is still an ongoing battle) -- I'm just saying that maybe there are ways to manipulate different people within the administration.
mike: i hear what you're saying. and i am not suggesting that no one in the UO administration was for the contract language; just that the particular administrators at the table either (a) didn't get why the language was needed/important, (b) git it, but thought it was unnecessary, or (c) were the sort that just reflexively said, "sorry, we couldn't possibly" to anything we proposed.
believe me, i'm glad they're proud of the language--whether this is a new development, or something they felt deep down all along. i think it is something all sides can and should be pleased about. i think dave and i are just saying that it feels a little bittersweet to hear that praise from people who put up such a fight. know what i mean?
(git = got)
i thought that was just the south coming back through
oh, trust me, I hear you. That makes complete sense and I understand what you are saying. I didn't mean to make it sound like there is no reason to be frustrated.
btw, I thought that the "git" was as in "git 'er done" which would have been really funny. especially since I end up with a strong southern drawl when I am tired or drunk (although not so much anymore).
hey, that reminds me of something i've been meaning to ask (someone--not necessarily you folks--but since mike brought it up): what is the origin of "git 'er done"? and does it have, um, undertones, or am i just reading too much into the expression?
Post a Comment