“I don’t think you should send any more emails, its bad for your health.”
“Please do! Take on some more issues!”
“You’re going to crash this whole department and next year they won’t hire any of us back!”
“It’s not good for you to stick your neck out by yourself.”
It would be cool if we could manage not to polarize into “sides”. Of course there are varying perspectives on what “should” have been done, or how whatever was done could have been done better. I’m a little uncomfortable with being targeted as “a problem” because I wasn’t as suave as possible. Especially since I wasn’t reporting my own reactions, but others!
I’m also not sure where people got the notion that I was impugning Michael’s character or intentions. Maybe its because that’s the way we frame criticism in general? As about some kind of “fault”? I just think the solution doesn’t match the institutional nature of the problem. I’m not sure if that’s the reason why current TA’s reacted as they did or if there were other factors that were more salient (there were a range of reasons). But it seems a bit off the point to continue to target my delivery as problematic….I heard that, and I’ll try to do better next time. (Chances are good there will be a “next time”.) I’m not sure how to respond to the embedded accusations about my intent/my character, so I guess I won’t say more than that I find them puzzling.
What’s interesting to me is what happens next. Does the event fade into oblivion because it raised too many emotions for too many people? Is the norm of keeping criticism on the quiet reinforced?
I will say “hey hey” to the new camcorder for general department use! One complaint for many has been about equipment (lack thereof, and/or its condition). Maybe if there was a graduate student committee established as Janice said there used to be (I never heard of that before, thanks for telling us) more of the background grumbling could be translated into suitable channels.