Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Testimonies From Emily and Mary

Two women adjunct professors have publicly testified to their good treatment at CTS. Emily spoke up at the Open Forum last week. She said my situation was a mystery to her. Her main point was how well she had been treated. Mary testified similarly in a letter to the editor in last night's paper. Let me make 3 points:

1. I speak for myself, not for women generally at CTS.
2. I am the only CTS full-time woman professor in history.
3. Even if there were 20 such women, my story stands on its own.

A Question: Why has neither of these women said, Despite my own good treatment, I want to re-read her story and talk with her and try to find out what is going on. My story is shocking. Neither said they believed it to be false.

1 comment:

  1. It's All In The Presuppositions

    Testimonials are a proven sales technique. Theoretically, you could sell ice cubes to polar bears with enough of the right testimonials.

    However, one cannot prove anything with a testimonial, except that someone actually wrote it.

    It's like the "nine doctors out of ten recommend product X" sales technique. But, which doctors? How many were questioned? Were they pre-selected for their answers? Did they get paid a bonus to use the product? Why didn't the tenth doctor also select product X?

    The testimonal presupposes what is true (apparently) for the tester is, or will be, true for others--or would be if they weren't deficient or aberrant in some way.

    However, a testimonial about an employer from someone who is still depending on that employer for their rent, food, transportation, clothing and other necessities is logically less valuable than one from an ex-employee who is not.

    That's not to say it proves one is more true than the other, but that who is getting paid and who is not could be an important element in evaluating the relative weight of a testimonial.

    It could be called the L Factor, L for leverage.

    Pat Gundry