Secret Faculty union FB page

[polly_mer]

Big picture, Mahagonny: What do you hope to accomplish by posting whatever it is you know that you think other people don't know and should know?

Will sharing your information really change the institution or is "everyone" going to say, tsk tsk, and move on with their lives?

I ask because I once gave a presentation to the board of trustees that was very blunt, very stark news about the future of the college.  We had a lively conversation for a couple hours with good questions and a stunning display of critical thinking all around.

For the rest of the two-day meeting, trustees sought me out to ask additional questions.  However, when push came to shove in the next few months, those same trustees refused to spend money on necessary actions, refused to have additional meetings to discuss necessary actions, and in short basically ignored the entire information that can be summarized as "Change now and maybe still be open in five years.  Keep the course and definitely not be open in five years."  This is year 4 and Super Dinky has been on every list I have encountered of colleges likely to close in the near future and that was before COVID-19 hit.

I associate youth and significant naiveté with the mindset of:

Once I make this information public, then everything will change because then people will know!  No one who knows could possibly ignore this information and will have to take the action I want them to take.


Even people who have literally committed murder sometimes still keep their position when the truth comes out.  Poverty, food insecurity, and homelessness persist, regardless of how many sheltered youths find out for the first time that such things are real and happening in modern America every day.

I have now lived through 2 US presidential impeachments that resulted in the president keeping his position.

I have watched all kinds of figurative bombshells being dropped, in some cases for decades, and the situations don't change just because more people now know all the details.

"All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.

[dr_codex]

It's a bit dated, but there's this Stuart Copeland ditty from his days in The Police

Don't tell the director I said so
But are you safe Miss Gradenko?
We were at a policy meeting
They were planning new ways of cheating.
I didn't want to rock your boat,
But you sent this dangerous note

You've been letting your feelings show.
Are you safe Miss Gradenko?
Miss Gradenko are you safe?
Are you safe Miss Gradenko?
Miss Gradenko are you safe?

Is anybody alive in here?
Is anybody alive in here?
Is anybody at all in here?
Nobody but us in here
Nobody but us.
Is anybody alive in here?
Nobody but us.

[adel9216]

Our union has something called a secret faculty union Facebook page. Is it safe to discuss things there?

Social media "private" groups are never 100% safe. Be careful what you post in there, there's always leaks and people not respecting the privacy of what they've read

[Stockmann]

Unless you're posting in steganography, nothing posted there is going to be that secret or confidential.

[HigherEd7]

Hello NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Aster]

I recommend a more private system, like an old fashioned list-serv or google group. They're both a lot easier to regulate and control than Facebook, which by its very nature is designed to spread and disperse information to as many people as possible.

[marshwiggle]

I recommend a more private system, like an old fashioned list-serv or google group. They're both a lot easier to regulate and control than Facebook, which by its very nature is designed to spread and disperse information to as many people as possible.

You still have the problems I mentioned before:

• Faculty members get promoted to administration. Do they automatically lose group access and/or forget they ever had it?
• Faculty members may be (gasp!) married to administrators. (Especially as relating to item above). Do they automatically buy a second secret computer with a separate secret internet account?
• Some faculty members don't agree with every single position taken by their union. (AS IF!) Some may not even see the administration as inherently and unredeemably evil. (NO WAY!!!!)

The reason I highlighted is the easiest example of how ridiculous the whole "cloak-and-dagger" secrecy plays out in practice.

[Aster]

There is no way to get around people with loose lips. People talk.

A union discussion board should be expected to be fairly open and available for members to articulate themselves. That's part of the whole point of "collective" bargaining.

And really, if I'm being candid, it's often hoped that people do "leak" information to administration. Heck, our own institution's collective bargaining discussion board does this intentionally. And it works very well. We use our discussion board to bring up concerns, and then someone volunteers to pass along those concerns.

So there should be no expectation of high privacy, except for specific things (e.g. pending litigation). For things like that, one does what everyone else does. Closed door meetings with a short list of selected members only. Or a Zoom meeting with an invitee list and a one-time password.

A list-serv or google group's benefit over Facebook is in protecting privacy and security through its vastly more streamlined settings interface. It is much easier for moderators to update member lists. It is dang near impossible for non-members to invite themselves. And list-servs and google group message traffic is not designed to be "shared", "liked", "advertised", "posted" at all like Facebook, which is set up specifically for sharing.

Facebook is basically a hot mess. There are much better options out there.

[mahagonny]

There is no way to get around people with loose lips. People talk.

A union discussion board should be expected to be fairly open and available for members to articulate themselves. That's part of the whole point of "collective" bargaining.

And really, if I'm being candid, it's often hoped that people do "leak" information to administration. Heck, our own institution's collective bargaining discussion board does this intentionally. And it works very well. We use our discussion board to bring up concerns, and then someone volunteers to pass along those concerns.

So there should be no expectation of high privacy, except for specific things (e.g. pending litigation). For things like that, one does what everyone else does. Closed door meetings with a short list of selected members only. Or a Zoom meeting with an invitee list and a one-time password.

A list-serv or google group's benefit over Facebook is in protecting privacy and security through its vastly more streamlined settings interface. It is much easier for moderators to update member lists. It is dang near impossible for non-members to invite themselves. And list-servs and google group message traffic is not designed to be "shared", "liked", "advertised", "posted" at all like Facebook, which is set up specifically for sharing.

Facebook is basically a hot mess. There are much better options out there.

I guess I'm naive, but I find it noteworthy that the culture that makes academic freedom its credo warns against expressing yourself on workplace issues. What better evidence that it has failed.

[dr_codex]

There is no way to get around people with loose lips. People talk.

A union discussion board should be expected to be fairly open and available for members to articulate themselves. That's part of the whole point of "collective" bargaining.

And really, if I'm being candid, it's often hoped that people do "leak" information to administration. Heck, our own institution's collective bargaining discussion board does this intentionally. And it works very well. We use our discussion board to bring up concerns, and then someone volunteers to pass along those concerns.

So there should be no expectation of high privacy, except for specific things (e.g. pending litigation). For things like that, one does what everyone else does. Closed door meetings with a short list of selected members only. Or a Zoom meeting with an invitee list and a one-time password.

A list-serv or google group's benefit over Facebook is in protecting privacy and security through its vastly more streamlined settings interface. It is much easier for moderators to update member lists. It is dang near impossible for non-members to invite themselves. And list-servs and google group message traffic is not designed to be "shared", "liked", "advertised", "posted" at all like Facebook, which is set up specifically for sharing.

Facebook is basically a hot mess. There are much better options out there.

I guess I'm naive, but I find it noteworthy that the culture that makes academic freedom its credo warns against expressing yourself on workplace issues. What better evidence that it has failed.

You missed Aster's point. You're supposed to say this stuff out loud, and to be heard so saying. And you're supposed to not face retaliation for so doing. (Call Bezos and ask how that's working out....) But you cannot expect simultaneously to be able to speak your mind and keep it hidden. Part of the way that unions work is going public -- strikes, picket lines, giant inflatable rats ... you know the drill. You need to be able to demonstrate to other people outside the union that there's a large, committed group already invested. Secret cells of 3 people isn't going to do that; it's good revolutionary practice, but not good union strategy.

The one union that I helped to form, and which got off the ground, came about because there was a large, public meeting at which people shared information. We all assumed that everyone was getting more or less the same mediocre deal. Once we heard just how badly some folks were getting screwed, we knew what we had to do.

Expecting confidentiality on a social media platform, of all places, is especially unwise.

[HigherEd7]

Loose lips sink ships!

[Aster]

There is no way to get around people with loose lips. People talk.

A union discussion board should be expected to be fairly open and available for members to articulate themselves. That's part of the whole point of "collective" bargaining.

And really, if I'm being candid, it's often hoped that people do "leak" information to administration. Heck, our own institution's collective bargaining discussion board does this intentionally. And it works very well. We use our discussion board to bring up concerns, and then someone volunteers to pass along those concerns.

So there should be no expectation of high privacy, except for specific things (e.g. pending litigation). For things like that, one does what everyone else does. Closed door meetings with a short list of selected members only. Or a Zoom meeting with an invitee list and a one-time password.

A list-serv or google group's benefit over Facebook is in protecting privacy and security through its vastly more streamlined settings interface. It is much easier for moderators to update member lists. It is dang near impossible for non-members to invite themselves. And list-servs and google group message traffic is not designed to be "shared", "liked", "advertised", "posted" at all like Facebook, which is set up specifically for sharing.

Facebook is basically a hot mess. There are much better options out there.

I guess I'm naive, but I find it noteworthy that the culture that makes academic freedom its credo warns against expressing yourself on workplace issues. What better evidence that it has failed.

It is common for outsiders, non-experts, or those wishing to tear something down to believe that if something that does not work perfectly, then it can only be a failure.