In just a few weeks I will begin the next phase of my intellectual career: graduate school. It’s a hazing ritual, rite of passage, cognitive fitness program, and clan indoctrination all rolled into one! But right now in the academic world, there is talk going around about whether or not graduate school is what it should be.

The most interesting argument about graduate education is Just Don’t Go. Particularly pushed by English Professor William Pannapacker of Hope College, he has most recently published an article in Slate on reforming higher education. Briefly, Pannapacker’s argument is the following:

Yeah, I will be doing this for the next 7 years

1. Graduate students in the humanities are both naive and typically mislead about the job opportunities available after graduation – namely, that there are very few, and getting one is a matter of luck rather than skill.

2. The academic system is an exploitation racket wherein an overglut of underpaid grad students and Ph.D teach undergrads, who do not deserve inexperienced teachers.

3. As such, the system needs to be updated, through pressure from the grad students (unions) and from the undergraduates (demanding colleges who use full professors for teaching). The system is unwilling and unable to change itself.

4. Graduate school in the humanities does not do an adequate job of giving students skills which are useful outside the humanities, thus trapping them.

5. You can’t make money or get job security from graduate school in the humanities and this fundamentally makes it a scam.

Now, I believe that Pannapacker is making a lot of astute points. He is taking a lot of heat at least in part because he is challenging the fundamental vision of what graduate school is. It is supposedly a place where reasonable adults discuss exciting things and add to existing human knowledge. It is hard work, of course, but very rewarding. Pannapacker bluntly points out that one of the implicit rewards – that the student will get paid to do this sort of thing for the rest of professional life – simply doesn’t exist anymore.

However, he swings the pendulum too far toward a monetary valuation of a graduate degree. Grad school is a scam in his mind both to the grad student (who loses the chance to earn high wages or advance in another fulfilling career elsewhere) and the system in general, because of the resounding negative effect the oversupply of qualified graduates has on wages for everybody. Plus, undergrads shouldn’t be taught by inexperienced grad students. A lot of other grad students I’ve discussed this with are offended by this particular point, because new teachers have to start somewhere. If they are thrown to the lonely front of the classroom with no support from a professor immediately out of the gate, that speaks to bad practices in general at a university and not to grad student teachers in particular. A comparable example is that new doctors perform surgeries under the guidance of more experienced surgeons; ideally, this is the practice in for university teaching as well.

Personally, I think of my TA position as job training, not Pannapacker-esque exploitation. Admittedly, I probably won’t get a job in academia, but if I didn’t go to grad school at all my chances of staying in the academy would be zero, so there you go.

Read More >>

A variety of healthy options for your penis

On Wednesday, January 27, the Senate Healthcare Committee in Olympia heard six citizens opposed to Senate Bill 6452 and six in favor. Three of the opposition’s speakers were women who described bad abortion experiences. One particular woman testified against the bill by describing a traumatizing abortion she had had. The Committee chair gently interrupted her choked-up testimony to ask the question, “But what do you have to say about the bill?” The woman, though she pulled herself together, was clearly confused. She thought she was talking about the bill.

The Basics

SB 6452 (also introduced concurrently in the House as HB 2837) was introduced by Senator Rodney Tom of the 48th District. Its purpose is to regulate “limited service pregnancy centers (LSPCs),” also known as “pregnancy resource centers,” “crisis pregnancy centers” or “alternative pregnancy centers.” These organizations are usually listed in phone books under the heading “abortion alternatives.” The bill defines them as “an organization that advertises, offers, or provides pregnancy tests or ultrasounds, and information about abortion and adoption, whether for a fee or as a free service, but does not offer any of the following: Prenatal medical care, comprehensive birth control services, abortion or referrals for abortion.” The bill does not include Planned Parenthood or other family planning healthcare providers because these organizations are already heavily regulated by various laws as medical service providers, while LSPCs are currently classified as non-profits and have no medical oversight by law whatsoever.

The bill has several goals:

1. To require LSPCs to disclose immediately to patients that they do not provide abortion services, referrals for abortion, comprehensive birth control services, or medical care for pregnant women. That is, the LSPC can at no time lead clients to believe that they are in a medical clinic equivalent to a family planning clinic.

2. LSPCs must follow the same privacy laws protecting client information as all other medical providers. This includes giving clients all medical records in writing, including pregnancy test results. LSPCs generally refrain from doing this as a strategy to prevent low-income women from using the records to apply for state funding for abortions.

3. LSPCs must only give out medically accurate information. At this time, LSPCs often mislead or lie to clients about medical facts such as the way pregnancy tests function, the failure rates of condoms, the risks of sex and sexually transmitted infections, and even the psychological effects of abortion (which is, admittedly, controversial).

The bill recently died in committee due to a lack of support. No formal vote was taken, so there is no record of which senators supported the bill. However, it is currently under revision and will probably be introduced next legislative session.

The Survey

Planned Parenthood of the Greater Northwest (formerly Planned Parenthood of Western Washington), Legal Voice (formerly the Northwest Women’s Law Center), the National Organization for Women and other women’s rights organizations became concerned about the conduct of LSPCs in Washington after hearing stories of inappropriate behavior from women who had used LSPC services around the state. They were crucial in gathering more information about the common practices of LSPCs and bringing it to the attention of representatives in Olympia as an important healthcare issue. I was one volunteer who helped gather crucial information by using the services of two LSPCs, Care Net Tacoma and Care Net Gig Harbor.

The legal basis for doing this originates in part from the Fair Housing Act and its enforcement. There is no way to prove discrimination unless one has proof that identical applications were approved or rejected depending on the race of the applicant, and so it is a legitimate legal strategy for certain people to pose as applicants for a service and to see what happens. Lest you think that this is something only pro-choice organizations do, Lila Rose is a notorious pro-life activist who surveys Planned Parenthood clinics across the country, secretly and often illegally taping her phone calls or visits in an attempt to reveal misconduct. In some cases she has been successful. Or look at this survey by STOPP: “The data used in this survey come from a variety of sources, including, but not limited to, printed Planned Parenthood material, Planned Parenthood internet postings, and reports from individuals around the country [emphasis mine].” It is clear that a strategy that is appropriate for one side should be appropriate for the other.

Furthermore, myself and volunteers were given legal briefings about our rights and how to protect the rights of the organizations we surveyed. We were told several times, for instance, that taping people without their knowledge or consent is illegal in the state of Washington. As a result SB 6452 and HB 2837 are responses to the documented bad behavior of LSPCs rather than being based on unsubstantiated rumors.

The Opposition and Freedom of Speech

The primary and most robust argument against SB 6452 comes from the First Amendment right to free speech. In regulating what can and cannot be said – that is, in requiring LSPCs to disseminate only medical facts – isn’t this bill treading on the rights of people to say what they believe? Moreover, since they are not medical clinics, why should they be held to the same standard as healthcare providers? Isn’t this inappropriate state intrusion into the affairs of community organizations?

The main sticking point behind the freedom of speech objection comes from the provision to regulate the medical facts LSPCs give. Moral speech, religious speech, and personal opinions by staff will still be legal under this bill – when they are specified as such. But LSPCs push their religious/moral agendas by twisting medical facts. However, they don’t see it that way, as evidenced most strongly by this statement from LifeNews: “One woman who testified [in favor of SB 6452], Glynnis Kirchmeier, claimed a pregnancy center she visited withheld pregnancy test results and that it informed her of the problems with condoms [emphasis mine].”

Here, for the record, is what I was told about condoms: At Tacoma Care Net, I was told that “the AIDS virus goes through condoms like rice through a tennis racquet.” (This is incorrect, a rumor probably dating back to this 1992 controversy when the AIDS virus was still poorly understood. In any case, if condoms did not prevent AIDS then pretty much everyone would be infected already.) At Gig Harbor Care Net, I was told not only that condoms fail 50% of the time, but that the CDC says that condoms fail 50% of the time. “That’s not true in my experience,” I said. “Well, you must be really lucky then,” was the reply. (It is statistically unlikely that I would be so lucky. Think of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.) Though reports of condom failure rates differ between studies, they are highly effective at preventing disease transmission and pregnancy when used consistently and correctly.

And yet Care Net claims to offer “clear and medically accurate information.” It is clear that they think “medically accurate” is a matter of personal, not medical, opinion.

Here is what the CDC says about condoms, effectiveness, and the AIDS virus:

“Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HIV.

“Theoretical basis for protection. Latex condoms cover the penis and provide an effective barrier to exposure to secretions such as urethral and vaginal secretions, blocking the pathway of sexual transmission of HIV infection.

“Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection.”

LSPCs and the pro-lifers who run them think that medical fact is not objective, but merely opinion. However, most of us believe that laboratory studies, carefully designed to control for outside variables, with clear methodologies and replicable results, published in peer-reviewed journals, have a level of objectivity that greater than the objectivity of personal opinion. Most of us know that epidemiologic studies, carefully designed to control for outside variables, guided by ethics committees, with clear methodologies and replicable results, published in peer-reviewed journals, qualify also as “fact” rather than “opinion.”

Medical fact can be objectively obtained by anyone following the same experimental standards, and as such it is not opinion. As such it is fundamentally different than the speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect. Therefore to require LSPCs to give out accepted medical fact (as they claim to do) only does not violate their rights to express their opinions. They can still make moral, religious, or philosophic statements about sex, abortion, and so forth. They can even give their own personal opinions about medical facts (e.g., “Well, the CDC says that condoms work, but I don’t believe that.”) And after all, they may refrain from mentioning particular medical facts – they just can’t misrepresent the ones they do give. Other healthcare providers are held to this same standard – why shouldn’t LSPCs?

I should also note that, under the Washington State Healthy Youth Act, it would be illegal for an LSPC to teach its “medically accurate information” to students in schools, because they are not, in fact, true.

During the 2008 Presidential elections, the Obama campaign rightly identified queer people and their straight allies as a crucial liberal base to be pandered to. Upon taking office, however, the Obama Administration seems much more interested in expending a lot of effort claiming that it has policies that expand and entrench GLBT rights while not doing much in particular. Sure, the James Byrd/Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act was a great thing, and Obama took the opportunity of signing the bill to compare himself to another leader with dubious human rights claims, President Johnson. (However, the bill includes gender expression as a category of protection, an advancement that is hugely important for the transgender community, and one that the gay community is too often satisfied to leave out of other anti-discrimination legislation.) The HIV travel ban, which prevented HIV-positive foreigners from visiting the United States, has been finally lifted.

Yet these are merely tokens compared to what the Obama Administration could really do for queer rights, if they were actually an interest. Not even a priority – merely a sideline. Dan Savage, for instance, suggests that the president should order Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to not be enforced, an action that would free up important personnel and time from ridiculous investigations into gay soldiers’ personal lives. This has something that the President promised but has not gotten around to it. Lt. Dan Choi’s recent visit to University of Puget Sound has magnified that particular issue in local news, but there is a huge list of things the President could do – and isn’t. This inaction has not played well in the gay community, and the administration has been on the defensive, mostly to secure funding for Democrats from its liberal base. The gay community has become the fundamentalist Christians of the left: we get pandered to, but the deliverables are scanty.

Therefore, in order to promote the advancement of legal rights for the GLBT community, I am writing this open letter to Malia Obama.

To:

Malia Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20006

RE: Your Future Sexual Orientation*

Dear Ms. Obama,

At eleven years old, you will soon begin to experience certain…changes. Aside from growing hair in weird places, you will soon have uncontrollable and frequent sexual thoughts and fantasies. As you begin to develop an adult understanding of your sexuality, I urge you to consider going gay.

Women have a lot to offer as sexual partners. Aside from the capacity for multiple orgasms, the huge and interesting variability in tastes between women, and our generally more attractive bodies (though men are okay, I guess), women have better communication skills and are more likely to take care of you if you become sick. Thus women offer great advantages for short- and long-term relationships.

As you explore your sexuality, I urge you to share your thoughts on the desirability of women with your parents, particularly your father, the President. One advantage that men can offer you in all states is spousal rights – insurance coverage, equal custody of children, medical decision-making, burial rights, inheritance rights, financial rights and protections, and so forth. You can change this. One hint that one or both of his daughters have the hots for ladies and your father President Obama will suddenly take a huge interest in the status of lesbians and other sexual minorities in this fine nation. I am sure that your parents have instilled in you the values of equality and justice for all, but there is nothing like the possibility of injustice to a family member to motivate those in power to rethink the status quo. This is the benefit and purpose of coming out: to change the hearts and minds of those that love you.

But, Ms. Obama, you only have a short window in which to do this: before Inauguration Day 2013, on the off-chance that your father does not get re-elected. Many people choose to come out in college, but you would be joining a new wave of young people exploring and discussing their minority sexual preference with their parents and communities. Even, after a short period of contemplation, you conclude that men rather than women tingle your clitoris, the good you could do for the queer community may be substantial. In one day, you could accomplish what your father would not do for ten months. Think about it: your adolescent bi-curiosity could produce the same number of rights for American queers as every gay rights activist since Stonewall. Isn’t that a fine goal for any right-thinking American daughter of the President?

Sincerely,

Glynnis Kirchmeier

Queer Citizen

*Note: I am not, other than posting this on the internet, actually sending this to Malia Obama in any way. Because she is a child.

Scene: Tacoma, 1885

Mayor Jacob Weisbach: Okay, so, we’ve got this problem here where all y’all want jobs but there’s not too many extra ones about. You know the reason why? The Chinese.

Group of White Dudes: Yeah!

Businessman: I would venture to suggest that the problem lies in the fact that you white dudes won’t take jobs you perceive as “Chinese,” and also that you don’t work hard.

Weisbach: Also the problem is profit-driven businessmen!

White Dudes: Let’s burn down his factory!

Weisbach: No, no, that’s not a lawful thing to do. We want to become a state, guys. States don’t do that.

White Dudes: Well, what should we do about the Chinamen?

Weisbach: I have a great solution: sewers. We’ll refuse to connect city sewer lines to privys and laundries in their part of town, and then we’ll arrest them for not being dirty like they are! Drive ‘em out that way! (wipes nose with shit-encrusted handkerchief)

White Dudes: Aw, that’s booooriiiing. But those Chinamen are totally gross.

A White Dude: (raises hand) Um, Mayor Weisbach? You said we’re not a state yet, right? So…this is still the wild west. Technically.

White Dudes: We still live in the wild west? Then fuck it let’s form a mob!

Weisbach: Okay, but you guys – you guys, listen! Hey, I’ve made myself police chief now so you have to listen, so there. You guys, we have to be orderly about all this, ‘cuz we’re almost not the wild west, just a little. So don’t kill anyone on purpose.

Mob: Okay! (They round up and kick out the Chinese, steal their property, and burn their homes. Two men die of exposure while forced to wait through the November night for a train to Portland.)

Seattle: What the fuck, Tacoma? You’ve just totally gone and done something, like, way unlawful.

Tacoma: You’re just jealous ‘cuz we thought of it first and now you’d be copycats.

Seattle: Well, duh. Though you do make Washington Territory look pretty unlawful, FYI, so don’t be so bitchy.

Broadside reproduction courtesy of Washington State Historical Society Digital Collections, http://digitum.washingtonhistory.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/ephemera&CISOPTR=106&CISOBOX=1&REC=8

Last Wednesday night I attended the community ballot issues discussion at the downtown Tacoma Public Library. It was an informative session. Initiative Measure 1033 (everybody now: when I say, “Tim Eyman,” you say, “Taxes booga booga!”) didn’t seem to receive too much support. No one supporting it was available (read: they didn’t have enough manpower) to speak on the panel, and attending voters were more concerned with asking clarification questions about it than debating its merits. The Pierce County Charter Amendments got lopsided discussion toward Charter 3, which would eliminate instant runoff voting and restore the two-party primary system. Even Alex Hays, providing the supporting argument for Charters 1 and 2, spent the balance of his time arguing for Charter 3. (As a side note, after the event I went up to speak to Mr. Hays about whether moving elections to odd-numbered years would cost more money. He’s of the opinion it would not. While we discussed this, another voter came up and asked what we were talking about. Mr. Hays turned to him and said, “Oh, we’re talking about how IRV is a waste of money.” I exclaimed, “What? That’s not what we were talking about at all!” I’m not sure why he thought I wouldn’t notice him lying.) But only the most dedicated of the audience stuck around for the Pierce County Charter Amendment discussion. Clearly the issue of the night was Referendum 71.

Note: I personally support Ref. 71

Laurie Jinkins provided admirable arguments to approved Ref. 71. However, she had clearly been instructed not to say that domestic partnerships are in any way equivalent to marriage, nor will they lead to marriage, nor that approving Ref. 71 will ever, on its own momentum, lead to marriage. A voter asked (I paraphrase, but she was pretty explicit), “If I give you my vote on this, will you then use that to legalize same-sex marriage?” Ms. Jinkins hemmed and hawed at this, varying between “Who, me personally? I will support all families!” and “I can’t speak for the future, but this law provides important benefits to all families now!” She used “families” a lot. This whole strategy came off as extremely weasily, and is one of the most immature and tiring aspects of politics. Her opponent, Mr. Steven O’Ban, was absolutely correct when he pointed out that people who support gay rights see this as just one more step to full legal equality – that is, probably, eventually using the term “marriage.” By attempting to sidestep what is actually true with emotional buzzwords, Ms. Jinkins lost some of her authority to at least one of her supporters (me). What is the point of denying what is obvious to everyone, true, and not merely a disingenuous slippery slope argument from the opposition? It’s not like anyone is going to be tricked by this strategy. “Oh, she didn’t answer the question, so this must exclusively be about families!”

Mr. O’Ban’s arguments against approving Ref. 71 pretty much rested on fear of the government and backwards theories on gender in the family. We all know it: if this passes, it’s government intervention in homes! (As though anyone would somehow be compelled to change their sexual or romantic feelings.) It’s government sanction of nontraditional relationships! (So? And that’s if you agree that recognition equals sanction, which I do not.) If there’s not one dude and one lady with rings running the child-raising show, the children will suffer! (Actually, poverty is the primary cause of all children’s suffering, due to its features of instability, lack of essentials, discrimination, lack of social safety networks, etc. Having same-sex parents raise a kid won’t automatically instill the kid with deviant gender ideas, and even if it does, again I ask, “So?” It’s only a problem if you somehow think morality is related to “proper” gender roles, and that people without these are somehow morally inferior. This is an arrogant, self-centered, righteous value judgment.)

Mr. O’Ban also seemed to think the “purpose” of marriage was to produce kids. Well, it was, but it’s been a state-sanctioned expression of mutual love and support for a few decades now. Join the modern era, sir. At least don’t be a hypocrite about it; not that I know anything about the man, but I speculate, based on my understanding of American culture, that his own marriage is based first and foremost on love and mutual respect, not baby-makin’.

Speaking of speculation, one voter got up and ranted (in part) about the dire danger bisexuals posed to children. Oh Noes! European bisexuals, apparently, are arguing for an extension of marriage to include one bisexual plus one man plus one woman. There’s that slippery slope again – except this time, it’s false. The vast majority of people prefer monogamous relationships and are uneasy with the idea of extending marriage to more than two people. Even bisexuals. Even Europeans. Well, the gist of this fellow’s argument appeared to be the assumption that bisexuals would decay the moral fiber of children and make the government do this also. Mr. O’Ban picked up this train of thought, and while I don’t remember his exact statements, they were something along the same lines.

I went up to the microphone to ask Mr. O’Ban a question on why same-sex marriage is a big deal (answer above). But first, I delivered the following statement: “Let me clear up the record on bisexuals. My name is Glynnis Kirchmeier. I am a bisexual woman, and let me say that bisexuality is no barrier to monogamy.” I should know.

Bisexuals are the new homosexuals. Homosexuals, bigots argued originally, are wild creatures of lust whose very nature chafes against the restrictions of monogamy. Legions of dedicated, loving, monogamous same-sex partners (including Ms. Jinkins) have apparently proved that wrong, or at least made the argument too awkward and upsetting to debate. (“Oh, so I’ve been cheating on my same-sex partner for thirty years? News to me!”) However, bisexuals are still rhetorically open to the fears about rampant, uncontrollable sexuality the bigoted religions have. The argument proceeds from the assumption that bisexuality means that a person may only be fulfilled sexually by having partners of both sexes. It assumes, like the argument against homosexuality, that bisexuality is a conscious choice rather than inherent wiring, and that therefore bisexuals are people who choose not to control licentious sexual behavior. They’ll fuck anything, and since pleasurable sex and marriage have nothing to do with each other (in the sex-phobic religious worldview), it is impossible to approve of their relationships in marriage. However, there’s nothing about bisexuality – real, actual bisexuality, the way that real people feel it and live it – that assumes sexual fulfillment can only happen with multiply gendered partners. In reality, most bisexuals, whether they are with women or men, prefer monogamy. Bisexuality isn’t a deficiency, a symptom to be treated with promiscuous sex, but rather a capacity to be aroused by and love more kinds of people. To say that bisexuals cannot be fulfilled by one partner is to imply that heterosexuals and homosexuals are therefore always satisfied by their partners. This is not true; the willingness of considerate partners to satisfy and indulge fantasies is what creates satisfaction. Plus, there’s always porn and masturbation. The bigots assume that they know more about the behaviors and desires of these bisexual boogeymen than the real people know about themselves.

*The opinions expressed here are of the author only. The Melon does not support or endorse any candidates, charter amendment, referendum, or political initiative.

Image courtesy of http://www.voteyes71.com/.

The outbreak of disease holds a special place in cultural narrative. Before bacteriology and knowledge of microbes, cultural explanations for disease outbreaks – angry gods, imbalanced natural orders, the sins of the afflicted – offered not only explanations for disease but responsibility as well. Humans were not at the random mercy of the inscrutable universe, even if it seemed that way.

Yet even after the discovery of microbes, the cultural narrative of disease outbreaks refuses to bow before the supposedly sterile, cut-and-dried logic of evolution and infection. Reactions to news of new diseases (or old ones, back again) reveal the specific fears and assumptions about other peoples’ behavior. Which brings us to zombies.

By far, the most well-regarded disease in pop culture (with billions of dollars spent on movies and books about them and more to come), the zombie outbreak narrative says a lot about what is so frightening about disease. At the same time people may address their fears deliberately, reveling in making themselves scared. The mingled fear and pleasure of horror films allow viewers to indulge and dismiss their fears.* If that is the case, then, what does the zombie outbreak narrative tell us?
Read More >>

Amazon and Sony are waging war. The nascent market for hand-held e-book readers is spurring these two to a knockdown fight for the first viable technological monopoly over digital books. E-books have been around for a while, but the release of Amazon’s Kindle and the Sony Reader mark the first opportunity for consumers to actually have to make a choice between physical books and digital books. Previously digital books were limited on the supply side (primarily by such problems as the high costs of scanning or transcribing already published books and putting them on the Internet) and had low demand (because it sucks to read books on a computer screen at your desk).

Whenever I bring up the mere existence of e-book readers to fellow bibliophiles, I get an interesting response. “I’ve been reading about the Kindle,” I’ll say, and my friend will respond, “Yeah, but I like reading with real books too much. Kindle can’t replace that. There’s no way it can replace that!” And then I will listen to a long rant about the end of books as we know them. You’d think the new technology is committing genocide against the printed word. It is a bit like saying, “So did you hear about the new legal status of gay marriage in Iowa?” and hearing the reply, “Yeah, but I’m against raping animals, even in the bonds of marriage.”

I want to offer a few words of reassurance. First, who’s using e-book readers? Currently only tech nerds and people who read a lot anyway. Average folk are not choosing to shell out four hundred dollars – yet. Oh, as the price comes down it is certain that a chunk of the middle class will get one, but that’s not for a good ten years at least.

Second, why is everyone so convinced that e-book readers threaten the printed word as we know it? While the technological evolution is clearly ongoing, the direction of the readers is that of a general digital use device, with access to the Internet and in the end merely a strong emphasis on digital books. If anything Sony Reader and Kindle are the next big challenge to the iPhone and the Blackberry. Particularly the option to automatically receive newspapers and magazines makes me suspect that e-book readers will make businesspeople a key demographic.

If the opposition to e-book readers stems from a suspicion that they will cause the publishing industry to topple, the fear is unfounded. The newspaper industry has already harmed itself (almost?) beyond repair. The publishing industry should also take responsibility for its own troubles up to this point. Like giving Reagan credit for the fall of the Soviet Union, it hardly seems fair to blame new technology for what would have happened anyway. I believe that even if big publishers go out of business (and they have not yet – thanks, Stephenie Meyer!) that will signal merely a shift in direction for publishing. Small publishers previously specializing in Wicca and poetry will have the opportunity to make a profit at general books. That’s not a bad thing for consumers or the market, just current companies on the brink. (Whether or not it is good for authors depends on the specific problems of a new publishing game.) More concerning than whether publishers can tough it out is whether people read at all in the first place. Publishing companies are always on the verge of bankruptcy because the market is made up of a relatively small number of people who love to read and who buy a lot of books. Reading is not a national past time. But by making books cheaper (after the cost of the device) and access easier, maybe e-book readers will inspire people to read more.

The primary reason that people react so poorly to e-book readers, though, is the total experience of reading. The sensation of holding a book, smelling it, browsing a store or library, or striking up conversations with strangers about books are all aspects of reading that e-book readers cannot duplicate. And that is the crux of the matter: since they cannot duplicate the experience, e-book readers should therefore be no threat to real books. Consumers use them for different purposes. E-books will not pose a threat to the printed word, but merely nuance in consumption. Nor will they threaten libraries. Tacoma Public Library is one of many across the country to jump on the e-book train. Modern libraries are not just places to check out books or study. They are community resources, with classes, meeting rooms, cultural events, historical archives, DVDs and music, and much more. Libraries are more than capable of using technology to expand services.

Photo credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertogreco/

Viet Nam is a quickly changing nation; one employee at the U.S. Consulate told my class that the assessment of the country she was giving us was completely different than the assessment she had given to another group six months earlier. I intend my comments here, then, to be a snapshot of the nation, limited not only to the early months of 2009 but also limited by my experience as a monolingual American student. I intend what I write here to be merely descriptions of my experiences rather than positive or negative judgments (unless explicitly stated).

Read More >>

For the past four months, I have studied issues of development and culture in Viet Nam. I wish to share my observations with The Melon community in a three-part series. The issues included are education, gender, and the government.

The Educational System: A Hot Topic

Everyone agrees the educational system is seriously messed up and needs to be fixed if Viet Nam wants to become a leader in, well, anything in the near future. But giving truth to the phrase “the devil is in the details,” how exactly the problem should be addressed is making the debate arduous and the progress tortured.

Teachers

The first issue here, as everywhere, is low teacher pay. University professors with terminal degrees in their field (usually earned abroad) can expect to make no more than $10,000 a year, while most other professors earn between $3,000 and $4,000. For comparison’s sake, the average annual income in Viet Nam is over $5,000. Teachers at lower levels make less, forcing them to moonlight as tutors.

The ones most forced to find outside income – the youngest, least experienced teachers – also have the greatest workload. In public universities, each department is assigned a certain number of class hours to teach, which are divided up within that department. More experienced professors with more seniority are able to choose a reasonable number of hours to teach, and they also choose their own areas of interest and expertise. However, the younger professors must teach any additional hours left over once the department’s seniors have chosen theirs, which are usually too many to adequately prepare for. They do not necessarily get overtime pay for this. The departments are pressured to have a lot of classes because the demand for them is so high; currently Viet Nam’s higher education system particularly is struggling to meet demand. Every year more students want to go to university, and since the government intentionally keeps education on the cheap side, more students apply than the infrastructure can possibly support. As a result, teachers are flooded with huge classes at every level, distancing them from student outcomes.

In high school, teachers may feel superfluous. Grades in high schools do not necessarily matter for university admissions (though private universities have different admissions standards). Instead, at the end of the year there is a standardized National Examination which high schoolers take. This is the government’s one tool for lowering the number of university applicants. It is extremely difficult and stressful – newspapers report things such as the number of students who faint from the stress of taking them. However, cramming for this test, rather than longer-term learning throughout high school, seems common. Everyone hates the test, but no one knows how to replace it for university admissions. As a socialist state, Viet Nam is loath to deny education to anyone that wants it. In fact, Ho Chi Minh once declared that the two major problems of the country was occupation by the French and illiteracy. There are plans for each city to have its own public university so as to reduce the travel costs of students in the nation.

Even with those stresses, many people may choose to become teachers from a sense of altruism and the prestige being a teacher brings in Viet Nam. There is one major drawback that stops even these people: the societal attitude toward how teachers must conduct themselves. Teachers are thought of as serious and intellectual people. Education students must wear sober clothing – the women wear ao dais, the national clothing, which is hot and restrictive. Moreover teachers cannot act in ways that compromise this image. If they joked too much in class, students would not take them seriously. And if a student saw them drinking in public – well! Combined with low salary, an overwhelmed infrastructure, distance from student outcomes, and no fun in one’s personal life, it is no wonder that Viet Nam struggles with a teacher shortage.

Last summer I visited Holocaust/WWII memorials in four European countries and compared them in a six-part series here at The Melon. The fundamental question I asked (and could not answer to my satisfaction) was “What is the value of remembering, particularly collectively remembering, this crime against humanity?” Recently, during my studies in Viet Nam, I decided to tackle the question again when I visited the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City. Its concern is to remember and represent the crimes and everyday occurrences of the American War.

Opening on September 4, 1975, the museum now has eight permanent exhibits and is in the process of being renovated. When it opened the museum was originally called the (American) War Crimes Museum, but the name was changed after relations were normalized in order to prevent U.S. visitors from feeling uncomfortable. The captions and descriptions were in Vietnamese and English, with a few in French, Chinese, or Japanese. Additionally I observed several tours of the museum for French speakers.

The first stop on the tour, “Historical Truths,” is a room filled with pictures, quotes, and graphs, presenting so called “objective” information. Indeed, the facts contained were about as objective as you can be – tonnage of bombs dropped per year, U.S. budget allocations, locations of important military units, etc. The quotes were mostly from U.S. officials highlighting their attitudes toward Viet Nam, the people here, war in general, and to a lesser extent communism. The presentation of the factual information was where the bias came in, but there was nothing particularly interesting in that. In fact, visiting certain parts of this museum was the most stereotypically “insert state ideology here” experience I’ve had in this country. Exception: a brochure of the Reunification Palace that badly photoshopped the top of it to emphasize the Vietnamese flag. That, however, is just funny.

The second room I liked the best. Titled “Requiem,” was a collection of the photos of 134 war journalists from 11 countries killed in action. Most of the photos were in black and white, with short descriptions of the photographers and/or the circumstance described in the photo. The photo I remember the most was one of the first I saw: a field of rice or grass with U.S. troops a few yards from the camera, moving through it. It was probably the last shot on the last roll of film that particular photographer took before he was killed that day.

Unfortunately, the exhibit was small. It could have been a museum unto itself. Several iconic images of the war, such as a mother and her children swimming across a river, were featured. The captions were minimally political, probably because this was one of the more updated parts of the museum and because funding for it was provided by a French agency. As far as I could tell there did not seem to be censorship or overt bias affecting the display of the photos. By examining the contemporary work of people who were documenting the war at all stages and from all perspectives, remembering took on a new twist. It was fundamentally different from the primary sources displayed in the Holocaust memorials, which were mostly written sources or photographs of victims taken before the war or without their consent. Covering the war was work for the photographers who died, and it was done voluntarily. Their own personal experiences were not the purpose of what they did and how they represented with their cameras.