fix quote marks

uva.md

@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ Note: One key thing that transforming the neoliberal university would require is
 Note: The only way to prevent anything, including something as metaphoric as sacrifice, from rolling downhill is to build structures to channel it otherwise. So my focus right now is on those structures, on what is required for us collectively to build a more generous environment in which we can do our work together. I'm far less interested in radicalizing individual leaders who can rise through the administrative ranks than I am in building cohorts of leaders who can work together to transform those ranks. 
 
 
->  "the model of the single leader who carries everything themselves, who is heroic-seeming and so on, is super toxic, and outdated, and not working." (Interview with Dianne Harris)
+>  “the model of the single leader who carries everything themselves, who is heroic-seeming and so on, is super toxic, and outdated, and not working.” (Interview with Dianne Harris)
 
 Note: This is true not least because, as Dianne Harris told me, "the model of the single leader who carries everything themselves, who is heroic-seeming and so on, is super toxic, and outdated, and not working." That heroic model of individual leadership is damaging not just to the institution, whose welfare lies at the mercy of such an executive's successful navigation of an increasingly complex economic, cultural, and political landscape, but also to the well-being of that executive, who must convincingly appear omniscient and invulnerable and who will inevitably fail at pulling that off. We need a new framework for academic leadership that is collective and collaborative rather than individual, enabling leadership to become a mode of connection that can be centered anywhere within the org chart where people have ideas about how to make things better. If we can come to appreciate and authorize the collective potential that exists within our institutions, we can begin to make them not only more generous but more resilient.
 
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ Note: That decision is a big one, and it often requires overcoming a great deal
 Note:  We need a new *collective* model for academic leadership not least because the crises in which our institutions are mired demonstrate that the model under which we currently labor is irreparably broken. I want to be clear in what I'm saying here: there are some very good people doing the best work they possibly can in many of our campus leadership roles. It's not the people that need replacing, or at least not *all* of the people, and in fact the exercise of replacing them with new leaders with new visions has become a form of institutional deck-chair-rearranging. The problem lies not with the people, but with the structures within and through which they work. That's the model of academic leadership we need to contend with, a model with its boards and its presidents and its innumerable vice-presidents that comes to us directly from the hierarchical structures of corporate governance. Those structures are ill-suited to the operation of non-profit entities in general, as can be seen in the extensive recent literature on reimagining non-profit leadership. And those structures are doing grave damage to the purposes of higher education.
 
 
-## "like a business"
+## “like a business”
 
 Note: This is why our mission statements die a little every time that someone says that the university should be run more like a business: because all of our institutions already *are* being run like businesses, and long have been. Of course, what that someone means when they say that the university should be run more like a business is that we should be keeping a closer eye on the bottom line, we should be relentless in our pursuit of innovation, we should be eliminating the product lines that aren't producing sufficient revenue, we should be keeping our front-line labor in check, and so on. All of which we've been subjected to for decades now, and all of which has contributed to the sorry state we're in. 
 
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ So here's the core of my argument: universities are not meant to be profit cente
 Note: Dean Spade defines mutual aid as "collective coordination to meet each other's needs, usually from an awareness that the systems we have in place are not going to meet them. Those systems, in fact, have often created the crisis, or are making things worse." And as Peter Kropotkin argued at the turn of the 20th century, mutual aid, mutual protection, and mutually beneficial cooperation have been as important to the development of both animal and human societies as the Darwinian mode of competition for survival. In fact, though history focuses on the role of conflict in societies -- it makes for a more thrilling narrative than does cooperation -- Kropotkin indicates the significance of mutual aid for our subjects of study:
 
 
-> <smaller>the practice of mutual aid and its successive developments have created the very conditions of society life in which man was enabled to develop his <span style="color:red">arts, knowledge, and intelligence</span>; and that the periods when institutions based on the mutual-aid tendency took their greatest development were also the periods of the greatest progress in <span style="color:red">arts, industry, and science.</span> (Kropotkin 296)</smaller>
+> <smaller>“the practice of mutual aid and its successive developments have created the very conditions of society life in which man was enabled to develop his <span style="color:red">arts, knowledge, and intelligence</span>; and that the periods when institutions based on the mutual-aid tendency took their greatest development were also the periods of the greatest progress in <span style="color:red">arts, industry, and science.</span>” (Kropotkin 296)</smaller>
 
 Note: (**READ SLIDE**) The development, then, all of the forms of knowledge studied across our campuses, required mutual aid. And they still require mutual aid in order to continue developing. And that need should press us to consider that the ideal model for the university is perhaps not the corporation but the cooperative, in which every member has a stake in the successful outcome of the whole, and is as a result committed to full participation in its processes.
 
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ Note: In collective models such as that of the co-op, leadership is of necessity
 Note: In fact, most of what comes down to us from above is management rather than leadership. Don't get me wrong; good management is crucial to any organization. Management, as John Kotter has argued, is focused on "coping with complexity," on organizing and directing the people and resources necessary to conduct an organization's work. Leadership, by contrast, is a matter of "coping with change." This is a distinction with a difference, especially for Kotter, who has argued that most organizations today are 
 
 
-## "over-managed and under-led"
+## “over-managed and under-led”
 
 Note: "over-managed and under-led." Adrienne Kezar's research further demonstrates the degree to which many positional leaders in higher education fail to understand the nature of change. At every level of our institutions, we have been  disciplined into an inability to cope with -- much less create -- change. Transforming our ideas about campus leadership could allow us to people together to create change, to model and to create the conditions for more thoughtful, more inclusive, more just ways of working. Leadership, in other words, ought to be about building the relationships necessary for collective action. It should be connective, and compassionate, and generative. And it could emerge anywhere in an institution, if cultivated.
 
@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ Note: "over-managed and under-led." Adrienne Kezar's research further demonstrat
 Note: I choose the metaphor of cultivation pointedly, with deep thanks to my colleague Beronda Montgomery, whose brilliant book _Learning from Plants_ explores the ways that an understanding of botanical life can help us develop more productive, more supportive, more collectively attuned ways of working in human communities. As Montgomery argues, such an understanding encourages us to focus on remediating the environments within which we work together rather than attributing the difficulties some individuals experience in taking root and growing in those environments to internal deficits. This approach also calls upon us to develop a new kind of leadership "vision," one that can
 
 
-> <smaller>adapt to changing circumstances, and … enable leaders to see the potential collaborations and benefits in diverse communities. This approach contrasts with the traditional <span style="color:red">gatekeeping</span> approach, in which leaders determine who gains access via conceptualizations and assumptions about who can function and thrive in a particular context. Instead, this distinct form of leadership is sense driven and environmentally adaptive; it attends to individuals while at the same time tending the ecosystems in which these individuals exist. I call this form of leadership <span style="color:red"> groundskeeping</span>, in recognition of what we know about the conditions that plants need to successfully thrive. (Montgomery 149)</smaller> 
+> <smaller>“adapt to changing circumstances, and … enable leaders to see the potential collaborations and benefits in diverse communities. This approach contrasts with the traditional <span style="color:red">gatekeeping</span> approach, in which leaders determine who gains access via conceptualizations and assumptions about who can function and thrive in a particular context. Instead, this distinct form of leadership is sense driven and environmentally adaptive; it attends to individuals while at the same time tending the ecosystems in which these individuals exist. I call this form of leadership <span style="color:red"> groundskeeping</span>, in recognition of what we know about the conditions that plants need to successfully thrive.” (Montgomery 149)</smaller> 
 
 Note: **(READ SLIDE.)** Groundskeeping rather than gatekeeping. Cultivation rather than control. These organic metaphors allow us to think about leadership as something that is grown rather than something that is built or inhabited, something that requires an awareness that our institutions and organization are more akin to ecosystems than they are to the org charts we draw to represent them. Leaders must work in concert with their ecosystems, rather than operating from the top-down management perspective to which we have become accustomed.
 
@@ -152,12 +152,12 @@ Note: So how do we re-organize ourselves in ways that will enable us to create t
 Note: When I talk about politics in this context, I do not mean to point to any of the politician-driven horror taking place across the country and on many of our campuses. Rather, I mean to point to Iris Marion Young's definition of politics in _Justice and the Politics of Difference_:
 
 
-> “all aspects of <span style="color:red">institutional organization, public action, social practices and habits, and cultural meanings</span> insofar as they are potentially subject to collective evaluation and decisionmaking" (Young 9)
+> “all aspects of <span style="color:red">institutional organization, public action, social practices and habits, and cultural meanings</span> insofar as they are potentially subject to collective evaluation and decisionmaking” (Young 9)
 
 Note: (**READ SLIDE**) and in particular the ways that she suggests “the concept of justice coincides with the concept of the political,” arguing that every effort must be made to enhance collective evaluation and decision-making if we are to create the possibility for just institutions.
 
 
-## "shared governance"
+## “shared governance”
 
 Note: In most colleges and universities in the US, the potential for "collective evaluation and decision-making" is contained within the structures of shared governance. Those bodies, including a wide range of working groups, committees, and senates, serve to gather faculty and (in some cases) staff opinions and perspectives on many questions concerning the operation of our institutions. On a few such questions — such as the curriculum — those bodies exercise a kind of ownership, and the decisions issuing from them have the mark of authority. On many campuses, however, and on many issues, faculty and staff governance is advisory at best: votes are taken, decisions are made and communicated to the administration, and that's it. The administration has the freedom to take those resolutions up and act upon them, or to ignore them at will.
 
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ Note: As a result, the collective deliberation and decision-making bodies on man
 Note: As Young points out, "the values of bureaucratic organization" indicate that decisions should be made "according to merit." And the reliance on merit in bureaucracy is, she notes, among "the important positive developments in the history of social organization." What is missing, however, is a deep engagement with and debate concerning the meaning and determination of _merit itself_. Our institutions have devised metrics and measures and processes that allow us to believe that merit is a quantifiable thing we can assess outside the realm of the political. But merit as a category is always and inevitably ideological, in the sense that it provides a common-sense explanation that transforms highly contingent relations of domination into something natural or neutral. And so:
 
 
-> <smaller>The rules and policies of any institution serve particular ends, embody particular values and meanings, and have identifiable consequences for the actions and situation of the persons within or related to these institutions. All of these things are open to challenge, and politics is the process of struggle and deliberation about such rules and policies, the ends they serve, and the values they embody. The ideology of <span style="color:red">merit</span> seeks to <span style="color:red">depoliticize</span> the establishment of criteria and standards for allocating positions and awarding benefits. (Young 211)</smaller>
+> <smaller>“The rules and policies of any institution serve particular ends, embody particular values and meanings, and have identifiable consequences for the actions and situation of the persons within or related to these institutions. All of these things are open to challenge, and politics is the process of struggle and deliberation about such rules and policies, the ends they serve, and the values they embody. The ideology of <span style="color:red">merit</span> seeks to <span style="color:red">depoliticize</span> the establishment of criteria and standards for allocating positions and awarding benefits.” (Young 211)</smaller>
 
 Note: **(READ SLIDE.)** That depoliticization sounds like a good thing — making the awarding of benefits as objective a process as possible — up until we remember that the individual people involved in defining and implementing these processes are not and can never be objective. We are all inescapably subjective, bringing our own experiences and perspectives to everything we judge. What depoliticization means in the bureaucratic, and particularly in the meritocratic, is a closing-off of the opportunities for debating the criteria, the processes, and the objectives through which we might keep notions like merit from becoming forms of oppression. As it becomes depoliticized, bureaucracy errs in treating the rules as the _ends_ that it seeks, rather than a _means_ to those ends.