[organ chords and lightning]

What the is displayed in OP's image is US history as it is related to slavery.

When certain conservatives are crying about "Critical Race Theory," they are complaining that they don't want certain kinds of history taught in school. Anything that might make people feel bad. Making history nice and palatable instead of actually acknowledging the messy realities.

There’s a lot of ways to study literary theory, and this is what you’re first introduced to in university. You move from a generalised interpretive approach to a more specialised one. You have cultural, post-colonial, psychoanalytical, feminist, and evolutionary .etc literary theory.

You can’t have conservative literary theory because it’s such a nebulous concept. The closest thing would be historicism, where you could examine the literature in the context of the political movements of the time that influenced its writing. This was my field because I think it’s the only approach that you can’t ignore in any interpretation. You can argue that almost any other theory may be irrelevant in the interpretation of a particular book, but you can’t argue that the book wasn’t written at a time in the past that was different to today.

And I certainly noticed that more conservative people tended to gravitate towards this field, because conservatives think this is what they’re doing when they do things like argue against trigger warnings because “It was written in a different time”. It’s not.

Unfortunately the vast amount of authors throughout history have been liberal or at least critical of those in power, all the way back to Gilgamesh. Also conservative writers are just…terrible. Bootlicking produces the driest, most mind numbingly boring art imaginable. Basically they discover that nothing agrees with their pre-conceived notions about either the past or literature.

They could analyse the liberal interpretations of the works, while still holding their conservative views because it’s nothing to do with them, it’s about the author and the time they lived. But in general they either try to shoe horn in a conservative interpretation that doesn’t fit and so has to be absurdly, convolutedly applied, or they’ll give a criticism of the work’s liberal message, which isn’t the right kind of criticism for literary analysis.

University of Chicago

Harvard

Illinois State University

Duke, as of right now, isn’t calling a strike, but they are calling for a fair contract. 

(Forgive my generalizations, but here’s how it’s affecting me as a California university PhD student researcher in a STEM field. Many researchers in our union are from humanities and social sciences and funding works slightly differently, but much of the same rights are needed!)

For those who aren’t aware, most science graduate programs rely on “students” enrolled in Masters or PhD programs but function less like students and more as employees. They are often given the worst rights of both groups. It is both common and tacitly (or explicitly) expected that in order to make adequate research progress and be deemed worthy of the degree we work towards, a 40+ hour work week is minimum (laughs in 60+). We work in research groups that can range from 2 people to 20-30, all underneath a single professor (research adviser) who is effectively our Boss. Our advisers are rarely if ever trained in management or mentorship and often treat their lab workers reprehensibly. Even in the best scenarios, there are few codified expectations or protections for graduate student researchers.

For example, when the University of California sent their students home at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, graduate students were told to keep working. When they sent their employees home, graduate students were told to keep working. There were no safety guidances, and health concerns were ignored.

The greatest research progress–technology, medicine, energy science, etc–happens only because of the back breaking labor of trainee scientists: graduate students and postdocs. Postdocs are people who have just received their PhD and go on to spend about two years working for a new research professor as a kind of “trail period” before they themselves can start their careers are research advisers.

Graduate students at some universities are promised housing, health care, and living wages. Postdocs rarely are afforded the same benefits.

Our union wants that to change.

The University of California has refused to acknowledge the newly-formed union for several reasons, but partly because they don’t want to extend protections to trainees and graduate students on fellowships.

A fellowship usually comes from outside of the university–from organizations such as the National Science Foundation, for example. These fellowships are basically just checks that a scientific organization writes to your research adviser that says “hey, instead of making the university pay for your student, we’ll foot the bill for their salary.” When you have a fellowship, you’re not suddenly an employee of the National Science Foundation. You are still an employee&student of the university you attend.

Universities are looking for whatever way they can to escape any meaningful changes to the living wage and benefits they give their workers–workers who give and sacrifice so much out of passion and pride for science, engineering, and the humanities. They don’t want to give us ombudsmen or impartial negotiators and investigations into misconduct.

UC Santa Cruz has their walk out today.

UC Irvine will follow on Thursday, and many other campuses are joining UAW as well.

It’s time for nationwide changes to the unspoken cruelties of graduate student research life.

Pay attention – Call your University Presidents – Call your state representatives – Stand in Solidarity.