The Margins Review · Culture-Centered Approach

One of the key arguments of the CCA highlights the ways in which communication is integral to the creation of the margins. How do we as academics gathering stories from individuals, families, and communities at the margins remain accountable for the stories we tell? Whom are we accountable to for the stories we tell? And how are we complicit in reproducing marginalization even as we seek to engage with the margins? The CCA foregrounds the importance of turning narrative accountability to the margins we work with. This notion of being accountable toward the margins suggests that the narrative account voiced by the academic or the NGO has to be evaluated by those at the margins we work with.  Moreover, the notion of "working with" inverts the framework of "extracting stories from" or "targeting messages at." As a research method, the CCA anchors itself in the idea of solidarity. Collaborating with the margins is first and foremost a recognition ...

Across college and University campuses, groups such as Hillel have served as the mouthpiece of Israel, operating effectively to silence any criticism of Israel, the illegal Israeli occupation of land in West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and the systematic apartheid carried out by the Israeli regime. The trope that is often deployed by these propaganda units is one of antisemitism. To the extent that something can be labelled as antisemitic, it is no longer legitimate. The legitimacy of any claim based on evidence can be discounted and silenced to the extent that the claim can be established as being antisemitic. By this logic for instance, this post documenting the linkages between the framing of antisemitism by Zionist groups as propaganda tool will be labelled as antisemitic. Drawing upon heuristics attached to antisemitism, the goal of many of these campus groups is to target vigorously any criticism of Israel and to create a climate of fear around voicing any such cr...

The emails transacted over personal email accounts by the Illinois administration reveal that the Illinois administration had consulted the Public Relations firm Edelman . Now if you take a good look at Edelman, you recognize that the PR company does a lot of talking about values such as engagement, transparency, and trust. These values, Edelman suggests, are the communication values of the new millennium, essential to cultivating trust in a climate of falling trust depicted in the Edelman Trust Barometer . In fact, in an Institute of Public Relations Award ceremony speech on engagement, you hear Mr. Edelman speak eloquently about the interplay of policy and communication, suggesting that communication practitioners have a pivotal role in shaping organizational policy. Here is Mr. Edelman exhorting PR practitioners to practice PR as engagement: Given Edelman's strong claims about its commitment to engagement, it came to me as great surprise to learn that the Illin...

The University of Illinois announced on August 7, 2015, that Chancellor Wise and key administrators on the Illinois campus switched to personal email accounts to communicate about sensitive issues to avoid the scrutiny brought about on the University by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the backdrop of the un-hiring of Professor Steven Salaita. For instance, in one email to a Professor of Law, Chancellor Wise noted "We are doing virtually nothing over our Illinois email addresses...I am even being careful with this email address and deleting after sending." The email is an excellent example of the sort of opaqueness with which Chancellor Wise had been making her decisions at Illinois. It is also demonstrative of a deeper sense of incivility, incivility that is depicted in her unwillingness to be held accountable. In fact, the decision to switch to a private email account and then to delete the emails demonstrates an uncivil preoccupation with holding on to power...

On August 6, 2015, almost exactly a year after the academic Steven Salaita had been informed that his services at the University of Illinois were no longer needed, a federal court rejected the University's argument that it did not enter into a binding contract with Professor Salaita because the offer to employ him was subject to approval by the Illinois Board of Trustees. The court's rejection reiterates the premise under which academic hires are made across campuses in the US, with the signature by the Board of Trustees being just a rubber-stamp, an ornamental step in the hiring process. Presiding on the case, Judge Leineneweber noted, "If the court accepted the University's agreement, the entire American academic hiring process as it now operates would cease to exist, because no professor would resign a tenure position, move states, and start teaching at a new college based on an 'offer' that was absolutely meaningless until after the semester already st...