Yun Liu, A01, Week 9

According to “A Manifesto on Tenure and Promotion in Asian American Study,” Wei Ming Dariotis explains the importance of creating a caring system as “academic symbiosis” in the academia, encouraging people to build a supportive community than an oppressive hierarchy. She states that students and faculty members can rebuild academia based on a commitment to the community rather than on individual success.

I was surprised by this idea because people usually focus on individual achievements like academic performance and honor received. However, I realize that that rigid structure in academia restrains our ability to challenge ourselves and take a risk due to the fear of losing current power. For example, I prefer to write a topic I am familiar with rather than that I am interested in because I am afraid of getting a low grade. I choose to take less risk, following the assessment rubric carefully. However, the rubric may not be beneficial for students because it puts a limit on their creativity and original thinking. The author suggests that instead of the oppressive rubric, faculty scholars can change faculty gatekeeping towards collective learning to help students. Faculty members and students share resources, liberating them from the classroom and fierce pressure. Also, the faculty members can be examined through their different skills rather than measuring everyone against the expectation of the most influential person. The university should construct an equal and joyful environment for scholars rather than the hierarchy to narrowing opportunities for scholars of color.

My question: Is “academic symbiosis” too ideal to impose in the real world? What is the negative impact of “academic symbiosis” such as decreasing the incentive for people to work hard?  

picture source:https://www.pinterest.com/pin/652459064754772050/

Reference:

Valverde, K.L.C (2013). Fight The Tower: Asian American Women Scholars Resistance and  

        Renewal in the Academy. Rutgers University Press