Marijuana-mexico-posterA few days ago, while trying to open the interwebs thingy to allow me to start entering my grades, I was prevented from doing so by a pop-up menu that referenced LSU's Policy Statement 67. The text included unsubstantiated and highly dubious claims such as that most workplace problems are the result of drugs and alcohol abuse by workers. And this was only a few weeks after all of the chairs at LSU had to provide verification that every single faculty member had read a hysterical message from our staff and administrative overlords that justified expanding the extension of pee-tested employees at LSU to now include faculty. The wretched communiqué justified pee-testing faculty because of new evidence showing that marijuana is harmful to 13 year olds.*

Anyhow, when I scrolled to the bottom of the popup, I had to click a button saying not only that I read the document but also that I "agreed" with it. 

I honestly don't get this. Are my beliefs a condition of employment at LSU? There was no button that said I read it but didn't agree with it.


Moreover, this faculty senate resolution had already been penned at the time we received the pop up thing we had to "agree" with. So clearly faculty don't agree with all of this, at least as it is being intepreted by the people sending out the pop ups. That is, if PS 67 means what the suits in Human Resources, Environmental Health and Safety, and Risk Management think it does, then LSU is about to start randomly drug testing faculty members. Faculty realize what a disaster this would be for an institution with the academic aspirations that LSU has, and are via our Senate desperately trying to save the institution from driving off that cliff (please read the resolution for a succinct statement of why the policy is so disastrous).

I did click that I "agreed" after talking with a colleague in the English department who said that I should interpet the bit about "agreeing"just as saying that I wasn't going to use illegal drugs myself and that I'd follow LSU procedure as far as dealing with students and faculty with substance abuse problems. In this manner I could click it without actually lying and implicating that I agreed with the movie Reefer Madness. So I clicked and went back to grading.

But I couldn't help thinking of someone informing Winston Smith that in some modular arithmetics 2 plus 2 is equal to 5. I mean, what are the chances that the Party really meant anything approaching those modular arithmetics when they got him to debase himself by stating that he agreed with the party that 2 plus 2 equals 5? How is this any different?** And we all know what happened to Winston Smith in the end.

*I'm not exaggerating. Protevi had to read the dreadful thing. He can back me up. There was also a surreal discussion of the fact that two states have legalized marijuana.

**I'm not being faceitious. Can someone who has put in the due diligence by reading Foucault about biopower, the body, regimes of power etc. please follow the above links and explain to me what could possibly be going on here? The LSU system spends several millions of dollars trying to promote the school to other academics in various ways in part because over 22% of the US News and World Report school is based on reputational ranking. And then the system allows staff and administrators to do bone-headed things like this. I don't get it.

Posted in , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 responses to “My Dad went to LSU, and all I got was this lousy pee-cup”

  1. Dave Maier Avatar

    First, let me note the flat contradiction in the tags for this post. The sets in question are disjoint by definition. To flout so egregiously the settled norms of logic undermines anything you might say therein, or at the very least demonstrates intellectual bad faith.
    You should delete one of them and replace it with “The “L” in “LSU” stands for “Louisiana,” in case you’d forgotten”.
    Also, marihuana is indeed harmful to 13-year-olds. Checkmate, liberals!

    Like

  2. Jon Cogburn Avatar

    Well, maybe they’re consistent if they pick out different things in the post? (Cue Quine-Duhem).
    The next time my Texas friends (none of whom are being threatened with peeing in a cup, or have to pretend to agree with administrative fiats just to be able to turn in their damned grades) use the word “Lousyana” in reference to my adopted home state, I’m certainly going to be less passionate in its defense. But things aren’t yet to the point where we’ve made a “Lousyana” tag yet. . .

    Like

  3. Dave Maier Avatar

    So, a linguistic solution, then, an examination of the actual use of the concept “tag”. Well played, sir, very well played.

    Like

  4. Alan White Avatar
    Alan White

    Jon, you have actually given me reason to be thankful this holiday season for teaching in the University of Wississippi, er, Wisconsin System. Never thought I’d say that again.
    Try and have a happy holiday yourself.

    Like

  5. dmf Avatar

    seems to me that faculty are being equated with other “charity” cases receiving tax-dollars, welcome to the mad tea party world…

    Like

  6. Alex Hughes Avatar

    First: WTF?!
    Second: Consider the following hilarity:
    “‘misuse of alcohol’ means any possession, consumption or other use of an alcoholic beverage in
    violation of law, this policy or in any other manner not specifically permitted by LSU.”
    I have not delved deeply enough into the document to know what LSU policy has to say about what happens if one has been found to misuse alcohol. But, note, that on a straightforward interpretation of “specifically permitted”, LSU has almost certainly not specifically permitted that I have a drink at my nephew’s Bar Mitzvah celebration – though it might have attempted to generally permit such behavior. [It is, perhaps, a surprising fact that something can be generally permitted, but not, thereby, specifically permitted!] This example is merely illustrative and (since I guess that LSU rarely specifically permits any use of alcohol) almost any use of alcohol counts as misuse, according to this definition. [And now I (sort of) wonder: Do the people who claim to run LSU permit ethanol to be used as a cleaning fluid on Tuesdays – even generally?]
    Third: Since it is permissible to lie to the Nazi at the door, don’t take the agreeing particularly seriously.

    Like

  7. Mark Lance Avatar
    Mark Lance

    Wow, I thought you were going to focus on the impredicative rule. This policy prohibits consumption in violation of this policy. Maybe some courses in transfinite recursive definitions are called for for LSU admins.

    Like

Leave a reply to Dave Maier Cancel reply