Psst.... is it over yet?

Ssh... don't tell, but I think it's over. I hope it's over.

As I sit at command central watching the election returns, I see a glimpse of the cranky old woman I will one day (probably not too far from now) become. If I have to live through another four years of the guy (or pretty much the guy) who brought us such old tyme favorites as the Department of Homeland Security and The Patriot Act, I think I'm gonna skip out on all my responsibilities and sneak over the border. Canada or Mexico? Guess I'll have to decide whether I want to surf or ski.

I love Election Day, but if I ever have a heart attack, ten to one this will be why.

I've been "encouraged" both directly and indirectly over the course of this semester to abandon politics in the classroom. There have been editorials on the subject (but NOT on me specifically, thank goodness) and admonitions from departments and other faculty members. No one has come out and made a rule, but the general message we receive from above seems to tell us to be nice and never offer an opinion about anything outside of a pre-approved curriculum. Normally, we are encouraged to rotate classes around a text but to also include our own materials as bolsters to the campus-wide texts. It's a nice setup. In short, the department says, "here are some tough essays. They have many meanings. You supplement. Begin."

Now, though, the message appears to be hazier. I am not into conspiracy theory by any stretch, but the message is changing, and I don't feel comfortable with its path. I shouldn't talk politics in the classroom? In a course focused on popular culture? In an election year?

I notice small things in this election and it makes me sad. I'm not going to talk about Sarah Palin's admissions (during a crank call supposedly from the "Prime Minister of France" but really from some radio disc jockey) that she enjoys shooting animals from a helicopter. I will interject that if a student told me he liked to kill animals, I think there is a special form I have to fill out, but whatever. I won't dwell.

I'm talking about a hard edge that seems to have appeared on the edges of some of my students over the course of this election. I graduated from a school whose mission is "Pro Humanitate" (for humanity), so I was thrilled when I was allowed to use the NU Reads book Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson. The school even booked him in a private huge event in Matthews Arena. I even got to meet him at a faculty reception (I'm not proud -- imagine a junior high school girl meeting the Jonas Brothers one on one and you have an idea of how I acted -- then again, meeting an author and activist I like IS meeting a rock star for me, so.....).

My students were engaged. They were excited. They applauded his efforts and remembered contributing to "Pennies for Peace" in grade school and the warm fuzzy feeling they got from helping someone in need. (For the uninitiated, Mortenson builds schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan and recently became the first infidel to win the Star of Pakistan for his efforts. And if anyone wants to make a snarky comment, terrorists graduate from madrassas; often, these are the only schools available to the children of rural Pakistan; he builds schools so these children won't go to madrassas.) Then, they started watching the final days of the campaign. And things changed.

When did "community organizer" become synonymous with "socialist?"

When did community action become a dirty word?

When did we form "sides" to an election and attack not the candidates and their positions, but each other?

I don't mean to say that there have been dust ups in my class. We're still to refined for that. I can't even put my finger on what has changed or why, but they seem colder, harder, and I miss the unabashed passion they had at the beginning of the semester. I don't know why, and maybe I'm wrong, but I blame this election.

I also blame my tied hands when it comes to helping them evaluate what they see and feel. I think there's no better place for young people to explore and examine their ideals than in a freshman writing class whose very foundation is the fact that we ask them to accept responsibility for their thought. I step back from any perceived authority over their thoughts. My favorite quote we discuss comes in the first day's reading of the introduction of the book -- I don't have it with me so I'll paraphrase: Young people in college sit in libraries reading Cicero, Locke, and Bacon forgetting that at one time Cicero, Locke, and Bacon were merely young people sitting in libraries reading others.

My job is not to correct comma splices and improve spelling (although thanks to a new trend of teaching grammar and mechanics through the magical process of osmosis in high school). It is to foster a sense of creative thinking. I usually deal in hypotheticals, but once in a while (every four years) I get the opportunity to talk about something that does have a direct impact on my students. The person elected President tonight will make policy that contributes to the state of the job market they will face when they graduate. His policies will affect the housing market in which they will attempt to buy their first house. His foreign policy will shape how the rest of the world views America as my students attempt to jump into the global marketplace. How can they not be concerned?

They are, and my hands are tied. It isn't appropriate.

Where SHOULD our students learn to express and explore their feelings? Are there places more appropriate than among professors the university considers learned enough to teach them? Perhaps that grammar osmosis thing will open up a "political thought" branch and students will one day wake and KNOW.

Maybe they should pick a channel and make Charlie Gibson or Anderson Cooper their personal life coach.

Maybe Matt Damon will speak again.

The truth is that professors are not the hideous liberal gestapo we are often made out to be. Universities are, actually, quite conservative. My personal take on why faculty tend to be more liberal in their thinking is that we, admittedly, live in a world of concepts and ideals. We are professionally trained to see people and things for what they could be rather than what they are (incidentally, this makes us good teachers but hopeless and constantly disappointed daters). Primarily, though, I think the reason is that when you get a group of people together whose only purpose is the pursuit of truth, they have a tendency to think alike. And while we are, as a whole, generally left-leaning, we are also exhaustive in our search to see if what we felt yesterday still applies in today's world. We self-regulate and constantly seek to further our own understanding of ourselves and our world. Every day, I have to accommodate 114 disparate and different opinions in with my own. And every 4 months, I get a new 114 opinions to weave into my own understanding. Can all professions say this? Not in exactly the same way.

Despite this, I get to go in tomorrow and see many shiny new voters. I'm darn proud of them. Our views may be different, but our aim is the same, at least for now. We want to be a part of this process. Maybe one day I'll talk about how it felt to vote for the first time, but this is long and Obama's 206 current votes aren't enough to make me turn off CNN and that compelling touch screen they keep using (is it just me and G or is that thing freakin' sweet?).

To all my students, congratulations guys. You earned your place at the big kids table. In class, I'm supposed to shut up, but here I can say you did it! You're part of the process now. You did your duty, and that's all I can ever ask of you.

Happy election day, one and all.