Thread by @shengokai

Nothing an institution does is ever "by accident." Not a goddamned thing. Institutional outcomes are the result of a series of choices, choices which become habits, that structure the activities of the institution. Here's the thing: you CAN judge an institution by its choices.

If we're going to take Dewey seriously, that the character of an individual is the result of the integration of their habits in conduct, the same is true of institutions. The character of an institution is an outcome of the integration of its habits in conduct. This is important.

So, when someone says an institution is racist, ableist, sexist, transphobic, or oppressive in a broad sense, we're describing the character of the institution as experienced by its members. Again, the character of an institution is the integration of its habits into conduct.

Don't like Dewey? Try Dogen. For Dogen, the nature of the institution comes into being through the actions it takes. The institution "presences" whatever quality it
has through the kinds of actions it takes. If it took different actions, it would "presence" differently.

All of this comes down to the fact that no institution EVER does anything accidentally. No institution takes action in a vacuum, nor are institutional actions anything but the accrued history of the decisions made which give the institution form.

And this is a history that it carries forward into the present. If your institution is founded on a practice of excluding the "unworthy" from its hallowed halls, that shit is STILL going on. It is an active history carried forwards into the present to shape the future.

The ONLY fucking exception to this goddamned rule is when people choose otherwise. In higher education, ideally this is where shared governance comes into play. However, those with the will to change habits are either too disempowered to exercise that will, or rendered marginal.

And by "rendered marginal," I mean by their own goddamned colleagues. The folks who advocate against change because they're assholes or because they're looking to curry favor with the administration. Corporate structures function the same way.

But let's stick with higher-ed. To paraphrase Chrisjen Avasarala, shared governance is more powerful than any administration and the only reason they think it tips the other way is because some faculty are looking for some fat administrative pay out.

And because shared governance (and Unions too, lest you think "worker solidarity" will fucking save you) is undercut by the very people it was intended to serve, no meaningful change in habit can be made. Unless, of course, you become willing to CHOOSE FUCKING VIOLENCE.

When I say "choose violence," I mean this in the strictest way possible. Use shared governance to do violence to the institution. Take up your committee "assignment" as if it were a hammer and smash the FUCK out of the academy. CHOOSE to fight, and keep choosing to do so.

Weaponize your appointments, your committee meetings. By this, I mean take up the same shit you've seen your asshole colleagues do. You might not succeed in changing institutional habits, but you might force the institution to grind to a halt, and that's a victory in itself.

An institution stopped, is an institution rendered powerless. The longer the institution is stopped, the longer its habits are interrupted, the more change you can make, but you have to CHOOSE the fucking fight, and not shrink from it. In some cases, you need to insist on it.

Again, Avasarala: If institutions won't change we need to rain hellfire down on them; we need to freeze their actions, cripple their business. And faculty have the power to do it, because we are the fucking heroes who helped save the academy from the cataclysm admin unleashed.

And we should never, EVER, let administrators forget it.