Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Lewine, Mark
    Laura, you should probably discuss this issue with Virginia, she is a real fan of SACC and a very smart, caring person. She would be leading the exec.
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Laura, you should probably discuss this issue with Virginia, she is a real fan of SACC and a very smart, caring person. She would be leading the exec. committee's reaction to our name change and best to discuss it informally with her first.


      From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Lloyd Miller
      Sent: Thu 8/4/2011 2:45 PM
      To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [SACC-L] Fw: SACC


      You're right in fact. Our by-laws and our mission statement (on the inside front page of SACC Notes) have always included all teachers of anthropology. Another fact is that our membership has dwindled over the past several years from over 200 to 170+. Some of us, in discussing this, thought that perhaps our name suggested that we welcomed only community college faculty into our fold, and that if we changed it to reflect all teachers of anthropology, others from four-year colleges and universities (and maybe even pre-collegiate institutions) who shared our interest in teaching introductory and undergraduate level courses would be inclined to join. I'm among those who feel this way.

      However, I have some concerns that I've shared privately with Laura and Bob and would like to share them with 'yall. (And, if I sound like a "spoil sport," well, I can take it.)

      Membership in SACC includes all who pay the $25 dues and add the SACC section to their AAA membership. SACC activities include
      attending SACC annual meetings and SACC business meetings at AAA conferences, and of course presenting papers at each and publishing them in our journal;
      serving as a SACC officer and on committees;
      reading and contributing to our journal, Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes;
      visiting and using our website, saccweb.net, where our journal now resides, all available free of charge to the public;
      belonging to the SACC-L listserv; one must join through the web administrators but it too is free to the public.

      I may have overlooked some things, but my question is, what incentives are there to join SACC? Except for a membership discount for registration at SACC meetings, everything we offer is free to anyone. As Nikki, Tony, Mark and Chuck have all said in different ways, our past and present membership has come from commonalities we have all shared as community college teachers. I think that will continue regardless of our organization's name. And certainly some of the membership decline is due to hard economic times coupled with the ongoing replacement of full-time anthropologists with adjuncts at community colleges. While an increasing number of SACC members are adjuncts, many do not get institutional help with conference expenses, and no matter how hard-working or dedicated they are, adjuncts make only a fraction of what they would make with full-time contracts.

      So, I'm not at all sure whether a name change will increase our membership. I'm not necessarily against changing the name, because I think that our name ought to reflect accurately who we are and what we're about. But our main function as an organization may indeed remain the national "department" of community college anthropologists, as Mark stated.


      On Aug 4, 2011, at 11:44 AM, mep1mep wrote:

      > Reading through my emails backwards (as usual), I came across both Anthony Balzano's and Nikki's concerns (below) which I share. With some of the current interests in pedagogy in the discipline, would there not be some concern that the new blood we might recruit might be focused on issues of pedagogy and not the unique situation of those teaching in Community Colleges?
      > (After all, Anthony's YouTube resonated far more with me than Wesch's, for good reason.)
      > I guess those thoughts could be clarified with a question: it is my understanding that we are only discussing a change of the name but no change in the by-laws and "mission statement" of the group? Would the name change be cosmetic or would it represent a substantial change of group focus?
      > I guess I am trying to sort out my own ambivalence (as Anthony noted).
      > Pam

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.