to nca or not nca? part three: affinities

Music: Legendary Pink Dots: Any Day Now (1987)

I have been busy attempting to complete a manuscript by tomorrow, however, I didn't want Rosechron to linger too long on the negative. I've been working-through whether I should attend my professional organization's big conference this year in San Francisco. Thus far the reasons not to go (explained here and here) are as follows:

• Outgoing president Bach's idiotic and offensive parting shot, and by extension, how she responded to the 2008 boycott
• Deceptive rhetoric from the current president regarding the early registration policy
• Not wanting to support the current leadership clique
• The possibility of having to cross a picket line because of a staff labor dispute
• Having two conferences and as many guest talks between now and this next conference (that is, anticipating exhaustion).

I can easily list more reasons for not attending, but these cover the big reasons.

Since I've last posted, however, Dana Cloud and I have discussed the labor situation, as well as a number of the new leadership at the National Office. Dana reports that as soon as she alerted the national office to the labor issues at the conference hotel, the new national director Nancy Kidd and first vice president Lynn Turner were immediately responsive, and are already in negotiations with the labor union. Apparently they are currently at an impasse, however, Dana reports that the tone of these new leaders is so radically different---and responsible---that she has changed her mind about attending and has resolved to continue working on change "within." I trust Dana and respect her judgment, so I confess she also has got me to think differently about San Francisco; I'm encouraged that perhaps the organization is learning from its mistakes from last year and the year before.

This leads me to the second argument in favor of going to the national conference, of course: radical change is not possible and that only by working within---by electing like-minds to offices of leadership---can we make the organization more accountable and take basic humanitarian stances on issues that matter to me and my colleagues. Giving up and leaving the organization, as Shaun and others have noted, is not an option, since maintaining a professional identity is important for job security and a footing in a university setting.

My friend and mentor James Darsey has been serving NCA in a leadership capacity for some time now. He has made a number of arguments to me and others encouraging more active participation. He has not convinced me it is time to fun for office, however (that, I think, is service best given when your institution will support your doing so, and mine will not; it's also the job of a full professor). No other professional organization, argues Darsey, has the heft to work for major professional in-roading (e.g., getting our field noticed by money-bag agencies, national media recognition, and so on). Or to revert to the language of Alasdair MacIntyre, NCA has the power to maintain and pursue external goods (prestige, funding, training) so that the goods internal to our practice (scholarship, teaching) can continue.

I can appreciate Darsey's argument. No practice can survive and cultivate its intrinsic goods without pursuing external support. I think the source of my worry, and that of others, is that in recent years there has been an imbalance in a trend toward increasing corporatization---and that is always driven by the pursuit of external goods. Former director Smitter's decision to remain silent and do nothing about bigotry and abuse in 2008 was not only cowardly, but also ultimately driven by a misguided PR strategy (in that sense, it was also not good business sense). Again, what I'm hearing from both Darsey and a former president is that the new director is very good and is helping restore balance. I hope so.

So, we can say the reasons to go thus far are that (1) the national leadership are responding to the labor dispute at the hotel directly; (2) the leadership as changed; (3) changing the organization requires that people continue to go and participate; and (4) NCA is a big organization with the brawn to get us professional goodies and recognition.

There are, of course, other reasons to go: to see my friends; to network and meet new scholars who may be doing stuff I'm interested in; the conference hook-up. Just joshing about the latter---who am I kidding, anyway? That is, there's a big social factor here, the appeal of finding, giving, and enjoying love, broadly construed.

None of the social reasons, nor the organizational and political ones, however, trumps what I think is the single most important reason to go: to support graduate students! My first doctoral advisee---who truly rocks and is going to impress!---will be on the job market next fall. I may have one or two others who also decide to test the waters. It just seems important to me to be at the conference for them in an emotional, drink-buying capacity.

Now, one might think any advisor should attend NCA to introduce his or her students to potential employers. I really think the field is so huge---and the conference is so massive---that this really has no bearing on job getting. My advisor did not go to NCA to shepherd me around, nor did I think I needed to be---and I got a job. I had thirteen interviews at NCA. Only one of those, Georgia State, actually ended up inviting me out for an on-site interview, and I promise you my short interview with the chair at NCA had no bearing on my invitation whatsoever (she didn't remember meeting me when I actually interviewed in Georgia).

Honestly, I think interviews at NCA are basic tests of craziness. Committees stare at you to make sure you're not a nut-job. They probably already have their ideal two or three candidates in mind, and just use NCA as an opportunity to confirm this ideal is closer to a possible reality, that's all. (Which reminds me, Barry's Spectra essay, "The Search Begins," is absolutely a must-read for grads.)

I think, in other words, most people who are interviewing folks for jobs at their institution are bombarded with so many people that they are much more likely to remember what's on paper, or what's in a file, than who they met at NCA. I know this is not always the case, and a number of programs take interviewing very seriously; still, I don't think even those folks would nix a file if you couldn't make an NCA interview.

No, the reason to go for one's students is just to be there for them if they need to talk, if they need a cigar, if they need, in general, someone to decompress with. Job marketing oneself is extremely stressful and hard.

So, these are the things weighing in my head. I hope to decide by tomorrow morning.