A Open Letter to Executive Director Nancy Kidd
Music: Kings of Convenience: Riot on an Empty Street (2004)
My professional organization, the National Communication Association, has faced some leadership challenges in recent years. One of those challenges concerns presidents and national directors who grossly misunderstand the essentials of public relations. I can recall this started (for me) many years ago when the NCA president published a front-page screed about "deadbeats" at conventions (folks who do not pay the registration fee, but go anyway). This message, while it needed to be said, could have been said much differently and, consequently, alienated a number of members (while I paid my fee, I was part of the group who attended the conference with "Deadbeat" on my name badge). Despite replacing an incompetent director last year, unthoughtful and divisive messages have continued to come from the leadership---especially the outgoing president, which I have detailed here.
Just when I thought the outgoing president is gone, however, she returns as an appointee to the director of research position! I've learned the Executive Director, Nancy Kidd, made the appointment without consulting the key leadership committee (the Executive Council) and against the objections of many folks. A contract has been signed already. Kidd would prefer that this news had remained secret, however, last week the national office actually posted it---presumably by "accident"---on the NCA website. I emailed the Executive Director to ask if she had made such an appointment. Speaking in the royal voice of "we," Kidd responded that there are differing interpretations "about the issue you've raised" and that she and the current president of NCA will respond to my query on March 1st. There is a meeting of the Executive Committee next weekend to discuss the issue, apparently.
These kind of cronyist gestures make my professional organization look childish. It is embarrassing.
The refusal to confirm or deny Bach's appointment is curious, to say the least. I have written an open letter to Kidd and sent it to CRTNET, which is a field wide listserver. I have every reason to believe it will be censored because clearly Dr. Kidd [later edit: or better, the Bach-Braithwaite-Kidd trinity] would like to keep the matter secret. For that reason, I'm posting the letter here and hope members of my organization will read and circulate it widely:
Dear Dr. Kidd,
As you know, word has been circulating among the membership that you have appointed Betsy Bach to the position of Associate Director for Research Initiatives. I have also learned that a contract has been signed and that Prof. Bach is already at work in this new position. It has been reported that you have appointed Bach without consulting with the Executive Committee. I am disappointed that you will neither confirm nor deny these statements in personal communication. Nevertheless, assuming these facts to be true, I'm writing to express my profound disappointment with your decision, to criticize the appearance of cronyism at the national office, and to argue that Bach is a poor choice.
First, I am disappointed with your decision to ignore the Executive Committee, as it is my understanding that the NCA by-laws require you to seek their advice. You are potentially opening NCA to litigation, which would be embarrassing to the organization.
Second, that you did not consult the EC indicates the appointment is a gesture of cronyism, which only diminishes the reputation of our field. Had Bach been appointed in consultation with the Executive Committee, at least the appearance of impropriety would have been lessened. Regardless, like "grease," cronyism would still be "the word" if you had sought the advice but persisted with the appointment.
Third and most importantly, the decision to continue promoting Bach in a leadership role is misguided because her rhetoric is divisive. I'm told Prof. Bach is a lovely person, however, she is the not a good representative of our membership because her messages are unreflective.
For example, as NCA president Bach managed to alienate major constituencies in our organization with the rhetorically insensitive way she attempted to address membership diversity. By giving her SPECTRA column over to "voices from the margins," Bach stated that she was "looking for personal accounts from people who feel 'marginalized.'" Of course, many of those who have been researching and teaching on issues of race, gender, sexual, political, and religious identity find such a criterion misguided, as it requires one to identify as a victim for the permission to speak.
Regardless, after a year of "giving voice" to the "marginal," Bach refused to give voice to those who participated in the 2008 hotel boycott and alternative convention to fight bigotry and labor abuse. "Y'all had your say in San Diego," Bach reasoned in personal communication. Yet, after a year had come and gone and the controversy abated, Bach chose to revisit this deeply schismatic disagreement last December by criticizing participants in the UNconvention as discriminating against members with disabilities. This "let them fight among themselves" move is not only dirty, but contradicts everything this "box of chocolates" approach to diversity was attempting to achieve.
When I asked Prof. Bach to explain the wisdom behind her decision to reopen this controversy, she offered no answer. It would seem the timing of the critique, then, was so that there could not be a rebuttal. Rather, than answer my question, Bach explained that it was her "opinion, and not NCA's," a curious qualification for an outgoing president to make about a SPECTRA column. After stating she was too busy with grading finals to have a conversation with me, Bach concluded by stating that she was "happy to chat more after finals, but frankly don't know what else to say at this point. It is my opinion, and I voiced it. I thank you for voicing your opinion." Such remarks echo her presidential call for "civil discourse," but betray an ignorance of the large amount of research that has been conducted on the topic of civility in our field over past decade.
Moreover, this "it's my opinion and I'll voice it if I want to" sense of entitlement is hardly indicative of an inclusive attitude. Rather, it betrays an understanding of argumentation that many of our undergraduates frequently voice when taking the basic course. Of course, we also teach our students that some opinions are more informed than others, and further, that feelings of entitlement do not a right make.
A second reason why it is wrong to promote Bach to the Associate Director of Research Initiatives is her expressed attitude toward the research community. Bach's presidential remarks at last year's convention raised a few eyebrows---as was probably intended---but they also deeply offended a number of scholars. Although the source of offense was, in part, the tone of her delivery, Bach's "On Practicing What We Preach" speech suggested communication researchers actively excluded the interests of those teaching in secondary and community contexts. She also suggested those of us at research universities were guilty of "making [graduates] feel like second-class citizens if they do not land a job a doctoral granting institution," a controversial claim at best. For a number of members, Bach's remarks were received as an admonition and a snub to those of us who ARE at research universities. I certainly agree the organization serves a variety of constituencies and a many different institutions. Yet, as with Bach's column, her tendency to pit one constituency against another is clear. This does not bode well for an incoming director of research.
My experience to the contrary, I'm told Prof. Bach is widely regarded as a warm and welcoming person. Be that as it may, our professional leaders need to be thoughtful and reflective because the decisions they make will have consequences for the professional lives of thousands of teachers and scholars. I confess I am more interested in thoughtful leadership than I am (seemingly) nice people. I urge you to think beyond the benefits of cronyism and to reconsider your decision to appoint Bach as the Associate Director for Research Initiatives. We need someone whose public messages are not cowardly, divisive, or hypocritical. We need someone whose public statements are reflexive and thoughtful.
If you decide to continue Bach's appointment, I would request that you take the time explain to NCA members why you are willing to risk the reputation of NCA, the alienation of the membership, and the cooperation of members of the Executive Committee and Research Board to follow through on a political gesture.
Sincerely,
Joshua Gunn
University of Texas at Austin