*From a letter sent to WGSS faculty, the Director of the School of Language, Culture, and Society, and the Dean of Liberal Arts on July 31, 2023
Grievances Related to the Graduate Director’s Supervision of Graduate Employment:
- Lack of transparency regarding Graduate Assistantship expectations/the Graduate Teaching Handbook:
- While the handbook and our individual assignments indicate Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) meetings must be attended unless a student has extenuating circumstances, there are no documented requirements in the handbook for how missed GTA meetings will be made up. Dr. Driskill has stated that the meetings must be made up through training or other approved events or work, and when asked if that hour can instead go toward grading or lesson planning, Dr. Driskill has said no.
- During the 2022-2023 school year, our leadership required that GTAs submit a syllabus, a Week 1 lesson plan, and a welcome letter in order to have their courses approved for publication on Canvas. These requirements are not listed in the handbook, and fulfilling these requirements with constant feedback and changes from Dr. Driskill has prevented several folks from moving forward with publishing courses and creating further lesson plans in a timely manner for our students.
- Several times, Dr. Driskill has solicited our input on what would be helpful in GTA meetings, and then they have dismissed or ignored most of our feedback. Instead, they have expected students to lead workshops in GTA meetings, which adds work to our schedules. Dr. Driskill had told us that in the 2023 school year, each GTA must lead at least one workshop. In addition, we were denied time in GTA meetings to discuss our questions and concerns related to our teaching positions. The GTA teaching guide states of GTA meetings: “We make sure there is time to discuss your teaching experiences as well as provide specific trainings and workshops on a variety of subjects, including online pedagogy-specific topics.” This language implies that leadership will provide workshops, and not that students will be required to fill the time with prepared materials.
- The GTA teaching handbook indicates that we must find coverage for our courses if we are unable to teach (for example, if we are sick), but the agreement with CGE is that it is the program’s responsibility to find coverage for the course.
- Lack of transparency regarding assistantship assignments:
- It is unclear how teaching assignments are determined. Several students have expressed concerns over the general topics, or some of the content, of their assigned courses. In particular, students have told Dr. Driskill about personal trauma regarding their course topics that prevents them from teaching effectively. Dr. Driskill has dismissed such concerns and misgivings.
- Similarly, decisions regarding administrative assignments for PhD students are opaque. Students are not consulted about or given reasons for their administrative assignments. Several students have reported that they feel tokenized by their placement within certain administrative roles, especially within the Cultural Centers.
- Disregard for students’ questions and feedback regarding assistantship requirements:
- When Dr. Driskill has been asked to clarify certain expectations, such as GTA meeting attendance, they have changed the subject or refused to answer on multiple occasions.
- Pressure to work through sickness and onerous personal challenges:
- Advice given by Dr. Driskill to one student regarding chronic illness and work completion focused on inaccessible suggestions that did not take the student’s disability into question.
- This lack of support and accommodation from Dr. Driskill led this student to feel like they had to keep their disability hidden in order to stay in the program. They felt like they could not trust Dr. Driskill with how deeply they were struggling. This student shared that it felt more important for them to do as much of their work as they could force themselves to do and prioritize their administrative GTA work over their declining physical and mental health. It wasn’t until this student was in an active crisis that Dr. Driskill shared options for support that matched the student’s needs.
- Students who have experienced this pressure to work through illness have reported feeling like they are “lazy,” that not being able to work without accommodations is “their failure,” and that they are “bad students who are not cut out for grad school.”
- Prohibiting students from seeking outside employment:
- Dr. Driskill has told several students that holding jobs outside of our Graduate Assistantships violates our contracts, although CGE has confirmed that our contracts do not contain such a restriction. Because of Dr. Driskill’s assertion about outside employment, some students have had to resort to onerous means to supplement our unlivable salaries.
- Some students have had to look for jobs that pay “under the table” for fear of getting kicked out of the program if their supervisors learn of the students’ outside employment. This form of employment has caused some students to relive trauma from their time as undocumented immigrants.
- One student had to take out an exorbitant amount of student loans in one year to cover the expenses for her and her dependents. She would not have accumulated so much debt had Dr. Driskill not told her she could not work outside of her GTAship.
- Micromanaging graduate student instructors:
- As a supervisor, Dr. Driskill provides prolonged and unceasing feedback on students’ teaching syllabi, which causes unnecessary delays in our course preparation. Dr. Driskill is also rigid in graduate students’ course design choices and refuses to allow graduate students to implement personal pedagogies that we developed in the WGSS courses we were required to take. In contrast, other faculty on the leadership team have been flexible with our pedagogical choices in the courses they supervise.
Grievances Related to Curriculum, Pedagogy, and the Classroom:
- Clear favoritism towards specific students in the classroom and in mentorship choices:
- Dr. Driskill is dismissive of certain students when they speak up in class or in GTA meetings, but they engage with certain other students’ ideas and questions. Additionally, certain favored students are sent articles, calls for papers, and other career-building opportunities that are not shared more widely, while other students are not sent such resources.
- Lack of support towards students regarding personal and curriculum needs:
- One student was consistently dismissed when they asked Dr. Driskill for support regarding their final project under Dr. Driskill’s supervision as their chair. It was only when this student indicated a desire to drop from the program that Dr. Driskill accommodated their needs.
- One student asked Dr. Driskill for an “incomplete” in WGSS 617 when the student was experiencing panic attacks and a family crisis. Dr. Driskill said the student had to do two pending presentations to qualify for an incomplete. They also stated that there was no way to make up for in-class presentations.
- Inaccessible workload and assignments:
- A noticeable fraction–one PhD student estimates half–of the PhD students who were recently enrolled in WGSS 617 – Feminisms II have had to take an “incomplete” in that course because the curriculum is so dense and Dr. Driskill is not flexible with assignments or materials. In WGSS 617, and other courses taught by Dr. Driskill, there is an exorbitant amount of assigned reading–so much so that only a small percentage of the assigned readings are discussed in class, as it is impossible to thoroughly address all assigned content.
- The requirements for WGSS 611 – Colloquium (the mandatory, one-credit course that PhD students take over consecutive quarters) are wholly unreasonable considering our heavy course load during the first year of the PhD program. Some of the Colloquium requirements for work outside of class are: reading a chapter of a book each week, journaling about the chapter, and turning in the journal at the end of the quarter; finding and taking notes articles written by the scholars that visit during Colloquium class periods; and writing a three- to five-page single-spaced reflection with the same prompts every quarter. Feedback is rarely, if ever, provided on any of these assignments, leaving many of us to wonder if Dr. Driskill even reviews our work. There is also a requirement to contribute to an “Intellectual Genealogy Map” in every term of Colloquium. Some students suspect that the map benefits Dr. Driskill more than it benefits students, especially because the benefits to students are not apparent immediately or even years after they complete Colloquium.
- Refusal to receive feedback on courses:
- Dr. Driskill has consistently refused to take feedback from students on the rigor of WGSS 617 and other courses Dr. Driskill teaches, despite students’ expressing frustrations with being assigned many readings that are often not even addressed in class discussions. When students bring up our concerns with courseload, Dr. Driskill gives examples of reading strategies and time management tips, some of which are helpful and others of which are demeaning of our capabilities and needs.
- Dr. Driskill also tells us they do not read evaluations. We understand that course evaluations are a complicated matter, and some students in WGSS courses use harmful and violent language in their evaluations. However, Dr. Driskill’s unwillingness to even engage with feedback from graduate students, either in person or through course evaluations, indicates a lack of flexibility and concern for effective pedagogy. This mindset and this behavior are misaligned with program pedagogical expectations.
- Lack of transparency regarding student expectations/the Graduate Student Handbook:
- Some MA students were told they had to pass a test to waive the language requirement, while others were told their credits from undergrad fulfilled the requirement and they did not have to do a language placement test.
- In Spring 2023, several students inquired about the NWSA membership coverage that is available for graduate students through our program. Faculty members emailed Dr. Driskill about this question; still, we have not yet received an official response or announcement from Dr. Driskill. According to our handbook, the announcement should have been made in Winter 2023.
- Students are expected to join a job market group that Dr. Driskill oversees. Students are given no information about this group until their fourth year, and this group is not mentioned in the Student Handbook. The group includes an expectation of additional personal time (without pay or course credit), and students are expected to apply to at least 100 jobs.
- Omitting information and blocking students from completing steps that are required to progress in the program:
- Several students have reported that Dr. Driskill has not been timely in giving necessary feedback. These instances include delayed feedback on scaffolded assignments in Dr. Driskill’s courses and feedback related to qualifying exams for PhD students for whom Dr. Driskill is a committee member. Some students have said that Dr. Driskill has forgotten to give feedback on their thesis, exam, or dissertation work–sometimes for months. In addition, when Dr. Driskill does give feedback or asks questions about thesis or dissertation work, it is piecemeal and often contradictory across iterations.
- One student reported that in addition to waiting for extended periods of feedback for exam questions, there were incessant rounds of edits to their exam questions, preventing the student from progressing.
- One student shared with us that Dr. Driskill repeatedly missed meetings that they were invited to and that were vital to the student’s progress. Additionally, Dr. Driskill scheduled a meeting with an OSU office to discuss the student’s progress, but they did not send an invitation to the student and then asked the student why they were not present.
- Dr. Driskill delayed one student’s progress with their IRB approval and repeatedly misinformed the student about necessary steps in the process.
- One student told us that Dr. Driskill told them they would not be able to complete their dissertation on time and would need to take an additional year–without funding–to finish. In addition, Dr. Driskill heavily implied that in order to demonstrate progress to meet requirements and complete the program, the student would need to participate in the job market group.
- While PhD candidates are required to present their research in Colloquium (i.e. give a “job talk”), they are given no guidelines or prompts for doing so. Students reportedly receive little or no support prior to giving this presentation.
- Multiple students have turned in assignments to fulfill requirements of an “incomplete” and reported that Dr. Driskill has not graded the work in a timely manner. At times, Dr. Driskill has even asked students where their work is, despite the students’ submitting it as required.
- Discouraging students from speaking to other committee members:
- Multiple students have said Dr. Driskill, as a student’s MA or PhD committee chair, discourages them from speaking with other members of their committee. Those students fear retaliation or roadblocks completing their work if they do consult other committee members.
- Discouraging students from working with specific faculty:
- Dr. Driskill has discouraged multiple students from working with specific faculty within our program.
- Lack of support and blocking disability access/accommodations:
- Dr. Driskill refused to allow one student–who had a tailbone and back injury, who was commuting over two hours each way, and who was experiencing severe pain and difficulty sitting for extended periods of time–to attend a four-hour class over Zoom. Other students offered to operate Zoom, which has been done successfully in other instances and which would require no additional effort from Dr. Driskill. Dr. Driskill’s stated reason for refusing the temporary accommodation was that the class was not designed to be taken virtually. However, Dr. Driskill themself taught the class over Zoom on at least one occasion.
- Another student submitted an accommodation request with DAS to be “remote as needed” for classes, and DAS told the student that Dr. Driskill indicated this accommodation is not permitted in the program.
- The above examples highlight Dr. Driskill’s tendency toward conflicting and hypocritical information and practices. Dr. Driskill themself uses Zoom to teach when they need to accommodate their own disabilities, but they refuse to allow a student to attend over Zoom as needed. In contrast, other faculty in the program have been more than willing to make the same accommodations that these same students requested.
- Pressure to minor in Queer Studies:
- Dr. Driskill has pushed many students to minor in Queer Studies (QS), including those who have not had the desire to do so. Dr. Driskill has stated that it is important that students add this minor because our QS program is one of only a few in the nation. This adds more work and time commitment that students do not necessarily wish to take on. The pressure seems to be for either the program’s or Dr. Driskill’s benefit, particularly because Dr. Driskill teaches several of the required courses for the QS graduate minor. Many students are under the impression that there is a monetary benefit for the program when students sign up for this minor. However, Dr. Susan Bernardin has confirmed that there is absolutely no monetary benefit for our program when graduate students add a QS minor. She has suggested that students drop the minor if we are not happy with it.
The following are our demands for changes to the WGSS program.
Demands
- Dissolution of Dr. Driskill’s positional power over the graduate program and instatement of democratic structure, one that includes specific and official mechanisms for addressing graduate student feedback to prevent some abuses of power.
- Transparency from leadership on the process for assigning graduate assistantship appointments, and transparency and consistency on the FTE allotment to teaching and administrative work. Specifically, we demand:
- Graduate student input on appointments they need, prefer, or wish to avoid for disability/accessibility/personal reasons;
- Alignment of programmatic practices regarding teaching assignments with guidelines stated in the handbook. Students’ feedback and needs will be considered when determining whether they will be assigned as Instructor of Record;
- No tokenizing assignments to Cultural Centers based on individual students’ apparent identities, but instead based on graduate students’ needs and interests and based on more involvement from Diversity and Cultural Engagement (DCE);
- Restructuring of GTA meetings to better match the needs of students’ assistantship assignments, in addition to flexibility based on individual student needs;
- Clarity regarding involvement in the job market group for PhD students;
- Assignment of an instructor or professor other than Dr. Driskill to teach WGSS 617 and Colloquium;
- Removal of required homework for Colloquium or other non-classroom events or meetings that we attend in our capacities as either students or employees, other than training required for our assistantships;
- Extra support and flexibility for non-traditional students, parents, students of color, ESL students, students with disabilities, first-generation college students, and international students;
- Explicit and demonstrated commitment against grind culture and in favor of healthy educational environments;
- Implementation of feedback processes that give students ample opportunity to talk about issues within the program as we experience them;
- Accurate and timely appointment letters and position descriptions that include hourly breakdown of duties/responsibilities. (In addition, we remind our supervisors that the program owes fifty dollars to each student who was employed by WGSS during the Spring 2023 term, in accordance with our union contract, because we received our appointment letters less than 30 days prior to the beginning of the term.)
- Finally, a timely response that details the actions the program will take to resolve the above issues and the timeline on which such actions will occur.
Graduate Leaders for Equitable Education 