Ripping a page--again!--out of the annals of old-school Soviet political technique, the UT News has published a photo of the forum with Fingerhut. And someone has to be rubbed out. Can you guess who? Can you guess why?
First, above, original scene showing everybody. This is followed by the published version.
UPDATE: For those who were not there, I'll answer the question above: cut out of the picture was, of course, the panelist sitting just to the right of the panelist closest to the edge of the frame in the published photo. In other words, there were 8 panelists, not seven. It so happens that the missing/excised panelist is A&S student Betsy Yeary, who used her time to excoriate the administration for their abandonment of the fine and performing arts, humanities, etc. at UT. She was quite impressive (if you ask me) and many in the audience took her lead and pursued the issue of the liberal arts. She garnered much applause, unlike the other panalists. In other words she shaped the discussion. And now: she is gone. There has been a debate in comments as to whether the omission is intentional. I say "yes." None, the apologist for University administration who sometimes haunts this blog, has said said "no." Doesn't that leave the score at one to none?
But let us now see how the words of Betsy Yeary cast light on the propagandistic intentions of the omission. Jacobs is heavily involved in selecting what information he wants people to see and hear and takes an active hand in the propaganda process. Betsy writes:
From: Yeary, Betsy
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Subject: RE: panel presentation
I have been reading the ASCforum blog for a while now, and I was
glad to see that I wasn't the only one who noticed my missing face when
I read the post concerning the UT News photograph. I feel that cutting me out was
an immature and foolish thing to do. It was clear that my speech upset
Jacobs and the whole lot--Jacobs didn't say another word until the end
of the discussion and Rosemary Haggett was the first to approach me when
I stepped off stage, inviting to take me out to lunch. I wonder why.
At the pre-meeting that we had on June 12 (everyone on the panel
except Fingerhut and Wagoner attended), Jacobs asked Ujvagi and I to
speak about the importance of a well-rounded education. He specifically
told me to "stay away from UT" as in, don't discuss the importance of a
well-rounded education at our specific institution. Well, there was no
way I could sit on stage in front of so many people thinking the same
thing and NOT discuss it. After receiving numerous congratulatory
e-mails and a few phone calls, I know that I did the right thing.
Especially after seeing my face cropped out of that picture.
The actions my fellow students have been taking lately literally
made me jump up and down with joy and clap my hands. I'm so glad that I
am not the only one who so greatly values my education as well as the
faculty at UT.
Again, thank you so much. I said it before, and I can't say it
enough.
Sincerely,
Betsy Yeary
No, thank you Betsy. You have our respect and admiration.
21 comments:
sarcasm: The lowest form of wit. -- Oscar Wilde?
baracade: 1) Obaman rhetoric, designed to stonewall his opponents.
Lafcadio is indeed a dimwit. I have told him so many times to his face. Yet, he continues to love me! The Cause is greater! It binds all the brothers and sisters who embrace a shared vision of a UT purged of this business model along with the scoundrels, sychophants and toadies bred within its stinking stew of profit and secular instrumental- rationalism. We lack only a hero. A Champion!
None has again confused outrage with irrationality. There was no "argument" in the post to which you've attached your trollfullness. It is a playful post intended to shine a little light on the comical, unnecessary, propagandist and heavy-handed exclusion of a critic of the administration in a photo that includes everyone but her. Moreover, any description of the event is incomplete that does not mention her or the fact that her comments echoed in many--maybe all--the comments that followed. To cut her out of the picture is symbolically significant, and plainly dishonest. It is deceptive and wrong. Or is that irrational? And so, None, what exactly is innocent, honest, plain and simple straight-up no worries copacetic business-as-usual about a photo that dissembles? Don't you find it at least amusing and pathetic? One? Both?
Now THAT's discussion, and well received (at least by me). I would characterize less of what happens on this blog and elsewhere as "twittering" than you might, but clearly hard times produce forces that are counterproductive as often as they produce helpful and productive ones (I can't bring myself to long for a hero). Many adults are acting adult-like and are trying to solve problems in an adult way. Would that they were listened to.
I don't think blogs have the power to dilute pools of intellectual heft. At their best, they focus it, but it's really hard to do. I wouldn't worry too much about this one. The tone of some of this blog reflects frustration and hard feelings, and as you point out, it sports the occasional helpful piece. If upper administrators are "laughing" at it, then they don't have to read it. Or better yet, they can read the President's blog (remember "Jakes Takes"?). I doubt prospective students are looking at it, and I'd wager we had as many failed searches before the blog as we will hereafter.
I really do think it is naive to think that the picture was accidentally cropped to exclude the vocal critic. (There must be hundreds of shots from that day, and they pick the one that has all but one participant in the frame? And this one has a blurry scalp in the foreground, which means that composition might be sacrificed for other purposes. Or maybe blurry scalps are a compositional tool. I'm no photographer). I am quite sure it was intentional. Is it a HUGE deal and worth contacting the national press over? Of course not. It's just funny, a little pathetic, and unfortunately, I think it symbolizes something about the brave new world we're in.
One more thing:
I don't think that the hard feelings here and elsewhere are the product of not feeling enough parental love or getting enough hugs. There are some really seriously awful things happening at many levels, compromising the core of the college. Will they carry the day? Probably not. But I'm not confident that they won't without strong, often angry push-back. I'd hate to take the high-road too early in a cage-fight. This is a scuffle, and it may be over soon or it may not. In any case, I think this is less about a loss of love than it is about a wholesale shift in the value, purpose, meaning, scope and centrality of the college. That's kinda serious.
It is only right and just that in discussing UT upper administration we resort to sarcasm--the lowest form of wit according to None.
For are we not discussing the lowest form of administration?
So now None is claiming to be Oscar Wilde?
And I always thought Odysseus claimed to be None. (Depending on the translation).
"So, to review, it was me, Oscar Wilde."
[I cropped out what I didn't like. The outcome is nothing to get excited about. Right?]
Hey guys, I just want to point that in the original post you've failed to communicate to a *wider* audience who's been cut out and why you think that matters. In this case, it's Tully's post, but that failure to write to a wider audience has been a problem in other posts by other bloggers. Regardless of what tactics and rhetorics you think should be used (to satirize or not to satirize, etc.) I just want to remind the bloggers that this is a *blog* on Blogger than anyone can read. It's not a ListServ. Write to the larger audience you want to have or else ask the blog administrator to make this a password-protected, invitation-only blog.
I was there and I remember her comments being somewhat more astringent than that! Indeed, she was quite hard-hitting. She received a round of applause, her remarks were repeated and supported. Some report that she was warned not to do what she did, and she did it anyway. None wants to quote the Blade's report of the incident as if it reflects what happened. And we trust the Blade to report accurately on UT affairs...why?
Your rhetorical strategy here and elsewhere is to minimize. "Look, the Blade account has nothing worthy of outrage. Anyone complaining is badly behaved!" But it just isn't so, and you haven't given any reason to think it is.
To the issue, once again: Let's assume she was cut out of the picture by accident. Wouldn't someone familiar with the event catch it and say "hey, this will look like a symbolic exclusion of a harsh critic of the administration"? It's really unlikely that this was accidental, but if it was, it is no less problematic.
SaveUT is absolutely right, and None, as much as you've been wildly off target and somewhat delusional about the depth of the awfulness we're in, the more voices the better. If you want to dissent, then do it. So far, though, you've only taken issue with the tone of other bloggers. I admit that I cringe when I read issue-oriented blogs more often than I cheer, and yes, anger isn't necessarily a great read, but I would encourage you to speak up if, for example, you perceive some genius at work behind all the madness. What do you see of value in the steady destruction of the A&S college and mission? How do you see the college being better off in five years? (Or ten, depending on whether LJ's contract is extended).
Oops! My bad. You weren't quoting the Blade, were you. You were quoting...UT News! The same organization that printed the photo!
OK--maybe your point is that they wouldn't have even mentioned her if they'd decided to excise her from the photo. But I would argue (or is this an example of dishonestly) that the mention she receives here is akin to the mention Tibetan radicals receive in the Chinese press: they just "inject their concern" into the discussion.
I honestly think my explanation is better: she was cut out of the photo deliberately, and her remarks were minimized in the report. But what else would you expect from the UTNews? And I don't say that angrily! That's their job.
Post a Comment