Analyze

This news article focuses on the 140 "foreign schools" that the German state runs in different countries. However, only 30% of the schools' funding comes from the German government, while the rest is raised through fees paid by parents. The article reports that due to school closures, funding has dwindled rapidly and according to self-evaluations, 64% of schools face bankruptcy unless the German state offers emergency support. The article reports that back in November, the German government decided to foster the schools as a means of cultural and educational foreign politics.  A web conference to discuss the issue is planned for next week.

Our project could keep tabs on how foreign schools as spaces of transnationalism become reshaped during COVID-19.

I filled out a TA multiple choice questionaire recently about teaching during pandemic. Did I feel supported in access to remote teaching tools? Did I need workshops on how to run an online discussion, test prep,? etc.

What was unasked and therefore unstated is the trauma students are facing amid an administrative effort to carry on, do our best, and talks about our "Fill-in-the-Mascot" Family. In my class we hear stories of students forced to leave campus and return to unsafe family home environments. Many students lost their on-campus jobs, yet are still stuck in rental contracts, with full tuition fees, and reduced campus services. Many students discovered they were on-call "essential" workers which has played havoc with their health concerns and class engagement. We also have students with COVID19 trying to stay on top of their course workload because they are supposed to graduate this Spring. 

Meanwhile as I talk to students I hear that most of their classes are recorded lectures taught asynchronously. They tell us that they often binge listen to these at 1.5x speed just to get through them. --This is the mode of online learning that Robert Post in his NCA post describes as "effective and efficient" for the "tramission of information." I wonder who isn't he talking about.

In trying to teaching using zoom during the pandemic, Sharon Traweek and I have held synchronous online class discussions. Many students have told us this is their only synchronous class this quarter. We have tried to teach students to think critically in/of zoom as a built environment. To ask what  assumptions, hierarchies, epistemologies are built into our online classrooms. We have struggled to find ways to disrupt those pathways with alternative strategies.

In answer to the question what is being foregrounded and obscured? I think in all the reflection about the future of residential and online learning and about the multiple crisis Universities, as well as the rest of us, are facing; what gets obscured is how important and how difficult it is to teach to students that they must think critically with and about the tools they are given and expected to learn.

Backchannels Addition to this question:

A SLOW CONVERSATION ON COVID-19 BY MASCHA GUGGANIG AND NINA KLIMBURG-WITJES. 

04 May, 2020

See:  https://www.4sonline.org/blog/post/a_slow_conversation_on_covid_

After reading the essays attached to this question, I was left overwhelmed. I had to walk away before finishing them as it was just way too much...  Returning to any sense of a  “normal” state of affairs is undesirable. And, to remain in the present, I would convey that there is a greater need for mentorship and encouragement of independent thinking/doing.

There are further challenges more specifically related to appropriate ways of guiding and enabling kinaesthetic learning. Those teaching practical subjects usually taught out of a studio will face tactile challenges and many more.

In relation to the online educational spaces, it's really hard to read the micro-expressions of either solidarity or dissent in online interactions. It’s more than just exploring the literacy of online asynchronous online pedagogy, it’s about understanding the limitations of the tools, be that Zoom or Skype or another tool like Slack, Micro, Trello, etc. 

Piecemeal approach to self-regulation forecloses more sweeping structural change as well as an actual check on power thru independent control over corporations

No real audit and no punishment for violating something like the UN Global Compact.

Since the CSR initiatives align with some of the infrastructure/development and personal goals of the village elites, it forecloses resistance to the mine and in fact has spawned violent defense of the mine by local people. 

Mistrust of the NGOs, who come in and out, and who the corporations have carefully targeted with smear campaigns, forecloses certain kinds of alliances that could have put a check on corporate power, but perhaps not improved the lives of the villagers in the way they wanted.

They see their environmental training as enlightening the backward locals who eat turtle eggs or fish in the reefs - so here they are helping the charismatic environment and helping the unknowing locals to preserve natural beauty. They wanted to provide waste management - they believe it’s helpful to the locals and it also would help with their distaste for trash at the beaches. The other CSR initiatives are portrayed as being forcefully demanded by the village elites and given as concessions to improve security, so the narrative of “help” to the locals is less prominent.

Their scientists have neutralized the environmental damage their practices do - defining tailings as nontoxic 

Enviro-rituals - (Gusterson) - -Flamboyantly lick, eat, bathe in the tailings - for media, on road shows… Rituals demonstrate but also produce their belief in the harmlessness - cites Geertz 1973 and Althusser 1971. This is also a kind of diversion - because maybe the tailings are not toxic to a human’s licking them, but they destroy the marine life the way they are dumped into the ocean, and they may react with other things in such a way that the end result is extremely toxic to humans, not to mention that it is certainly extinguishing a staggering amount of marine life by nature of crushing, before anything else 

Charismatic species - they hand-release sea turtles near a resort, very publically, a very feel-good moment that “Feels like social action”, and produce narratives of unenlightened locals being the ones bad for the environment because they eat turtles and turtle eggs - criminalize subsistence - attribute to poverty and ignorance, so they spend corporate $ on environmental education, and tell the kids that what their families do is bad. (The subsistence activities are often social - so people do them even if they can afford to buy food differently)

In-house corporate anthropologist - debunking the idea of the “ecological noble savage” as something first world activists made up - of course there are different ways to be ecologically-minded… 

Things that compete with mining corporations for resources or charismatic cases that are easily blamed on the mine are the environmental issues they talk about and they work to address - missing is greenhouse gas, for example. 

Claim they focus on Western corporations to get Western funding - claim they’re not transparent whereas corps have annual reports to shareholders. Various defaming of the NGOs - saying they are in the hands of “international anti-development” NGOs, that they infiltrate and only create illusion of local resistance, say their clear goal is “to bring international mining companies to their knees” - [which is almost funny]

Clandestine strategies: instead of suing, put the NGO on a watch list of bad/ non transparent NGOs, use the NGO as a workshop case study of bad NGO, held by a different cooperative and influential NGO that allies with the corporation secretly; op-eds “placed” into newspapers calling for regulation of NGOs

Basically turning transparency and accountability against the NGOs

Control of information flow - circulating the inaccurate NGO bulletin to rile up anger at the NGO - 

They define themselves as “environmentally friendly,” “good”, “moral”, “responsible” mining corporation, and their moral narrative is defined against these other groups in different ways: they have healthy competition with the backward mines (also “dinosaur”, will go extinct, they do blatant pollution and human rights violation), patronizing superiority for the poor Indonesians, and they straight up vilify the activist NGOs

Mine managers are proud of the mine and the environmental/ social/development projects, which they raise as evidence 

A lot of local groups want to take credit for attacking the activists - attacking the activists and defending the mine becomes morally sensible to many of these actors

Interestingly the narrative here is that village elites have used tactics, including violence, blocking roads, etc., to force the mining corporation to act as the state and provide patronage, goods, development in the material/infrastructural sense. The corporations use the CSR to quell their protesting. 

State gets demoted to one player of “multi-stakeholder” process in these voluntary self-monitoring/ self-regulating situations. Corps are rhetorically also just one player, but come to these events in force and drive the rhetoric, and in fact it’s all up to them what they actually do

In remote areas, the state doesn’t provide infrastructure and services so the mining companies become de-facto state in the provision of these things.