Vallejo, masculinity, war, composition, and being spread too thin

This would be another lead on Vallejo.

And for assignments in the introduction to literature, this looks invaluable.

And the sugar-slave complex started in Madeira in 1452, so I am hardly wrong about sugar.

(These are my two areas of interest. But I am only spread too thin because I am spread to areas in which I do not have expertise and asked not to work in the areas where I have it.)

Posted in Vallejo, Working | 1 Comment

And plan this

For that class I will do this and add more. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/spanish/courses/spanish3330/programa.html

O’Gorman forward, Dussell, Mignolo, and so on.

Also Martí, Ortiz, and so on.

And I will concentrate on that avant-garde period and antecendents and aftermath.

Posted in Working | 9 Comments

And this

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Supreme Court Gives Employees Broader Protection Against Retaliation in Workplace

By LINDA GREENHOUSE NYT

Published: June 23, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 22 — The Supreme Court substantially enhanced legal protection against retaliation for employees who

complain about discrimination or harassment on the job, in a ruling on Thursday.

Skip to next paragraph

Related

Text : Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White

Supreme Court

Go to Complete Coverage »

Readers’ Opinions

Forum: Issues Before the Supreme Court

The 9-to-0 decision adopted a broadly worded and employee-friendly definition of the type of retaliation that is prohibited by the

basic federal law against discrimination in employment.

That law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination and prohibits employers from retaliating against workers

who complain about discrimination. But the statute does not define retaliation, leading to disarray among the federal appeals courts

and uncertainty for employers and employees alike. Under the standard applied by many courts, it has been almost impossible to

win a retaliation case unless the retaliation resulted in dismissal.

By contrast, under the standard the justices adopted on Thursday in an opinion by JusticeStephen G. Breyer, any “materially

adverse” employment action that “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” from complaining about discrimination will count

as prohibited retaliation. Depending on the context, retaliation might be found in an unfavorable annual evaluation, an unwelcome

schedule change, or other action well short of losing a job.

Retaliation claims make up an important and rapidly growing part of employment law. Some 20,000 retaliation cases were filed with

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2004, a number that has doubled since 1992. The cases now account for more

than one-quarter of the federal agency’s docket.

“This is an exceptionally important decision that changes the law in most of the country,” Eric Schnapper, a law professor at

the University of Washington who helped represent the plaintiff in the case, said in an interview .

Lawyers representing employers agreed about the decision’s significance, but with considerably less enthusiasm. Karen Harned,

executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation, said the ruling would lead to “burdensome”

litigation and was “particularly disappointing to small employers.”
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 22 — The Supreme Court substantially enhanced legal protection against retaliation for employees who complain about discrimination or harassment on the job, in a ruling on Thursday.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Text : Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White
Supreme Court
Go to Complete Coverage »
Readers’ Opinions
Forum: Issues Before the Supreme Court
The 9-to-0 decision adopted a broadly worded and employee-friendly definition of the type of retaliation that is prohibited by the basic federal law against discrimination in employment.
That law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination and prohibits employers from retaliating against workers who complain about discrimination. But the statute does not define retaliation, leading to disarray among the federal appeals courts and uncertainty for employers and employees alike. Under the standard applied by many courts, it has been almost impossible to win a retaliation case unless the retaliation resulted in dismissal.
By contrast, under the standard the justices adopted on Thursday in an opinion by JusticeStephen G. Breyer, any “materially adverse” employment action that “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” from complaining about discrimination will count as prohibited retaliation. Depending on the context, retaliation might be found in an unfavorable annual evaluation, an unwelcome schedule change, or other action well short of losing a job.
Retaliation claims make up an important and rapidly growing part of employment law. Some 20,000 retaliation cases were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2004, a number that has doubled since 1992. The cases now account for more than one-quarter of the federal agency’s docket.
“This is an exceptionally important decision that changes the law in most of the country,” Eric Schnapper, a law professor at the University of Washington who helped represent the plaintiff in the case, said in an interview .
Lawyers representing employers agreed about the decision’s significance, but with considerably less enthusiasm. Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation, said the ruling would lead to “burdensome” litigation and was “particularly disappointing to small employers.”
Daniel P. Westman, an employment lawyer with the firm Morrison & Foerster who advises management, said he expected a “huge effect” from the ruling. Mr. Westman said employers would have to take special care to make sure that an employee who lodges a discrimination complaint does not suffer adverse consequences.
The decision upheld a finding of retaliation by a railroad company against a female maintenance worker who was transferred to less desirable duties within her job category and placed on an unpaid leave for 37 days after she complained about sexual harassment. She was reinstated with back pay after a grievance by her union.

Posted in Working | Leave a comment

Organize this, too

 

Posted in Working | Leave a comment

Organize this and give it a title

Emiko panel [LASA]

…LOTS of new quotas in B.

Abdias do Nascimento said myth of racial democracy was project of Black genocide

Affirmative action … a palliative model, like Charles Hale’s “indio permitido”

…Vasconcelos wants to dismantle racial identities whereas DuBois wants to collectivize racial identities (Freyre and Vasconcelos see racism as esthetic and individual choice, whereas DuBois thinks of political economy)

… people like Peter Fry concerned that AA will create more Black self-identification and think this is bad; she thinks this misreads US and how race works here, and degree of mixing there has been in US

…is mestizo an antiracist subject? Many mestizos do not realize that they are seen as nonwhite and have racialized experience

…Wade: todos somos mestizos, but only some are real mestizos: some are indigenous-derived, some are African-derived.

…interesting: idea that America is invented goes against the search for autenticidad (O’Gorman: authenticity is in USA … industry … [?!] … see N. Larsen on O’Gorman … O’G as problematic, then … )

ME:

What letrados say is very different from what actually happens (learned this from ERIP)

Posted in Race | Leave a comment

Avant-garde and surrealist

Look at this, which I must also preserve as a permanent and prominent link.

Posted in Vallejo, Vanguardias | Leave a comment

Robert Creely and more

A secret conversation that reminded me of how interesting things are even if I am not a great fan of Creeley:

Reading Robert Creeley’s letters and coming across him labeling the people at Partisan Review and Kenyon Review “enemies” is fascinating… [Like a] war that needed to be fought to save poetry from the forces of darkness.

At the Olson Conference in Iowa, 1978 the workshop leaders and students staged a collective walkout from Robert Duncan’s reading, and I remember no members of the English Dept. outside of Sherman Paul, the organizer, being actively involved in a conference that featured, among others, Duncan, Creeley, and Dorn.

I would really like to read, meanwhile, about object relations and other topics in psychoanalytic theory, and help move us back toward some new form of philology (you cannot say I am not committed to field), and understand Kristeva and the abject, and so much more. “Neither subject nor object,” this starts out.

Posted in Subject Theory, Vanguardias, Working | Leave a comment