Academic work and disability [interview with Prof. Ervilerne Juchs, Poffenstick University]

Interview with Prof. Ervilerne  Juchs, University professor, head of an institute and also in charge of disability issues for the whole campus of University Poffenstick. The interview was conducted by Kom Tummer.

Q: How do you react when you hear that an employee or student has a disability?

A: Well, don’t they always complain. Cry me a river! Universities are a place of exclusion first, not a place of inclusion, for crying out loud. That is why here, at Poffenstick University, we don’t want to know what they can’t do, we are not one bit interested in any of that. All we are about is what they can do, academically, that is. The rest should be allowed to be irrelevant. And with all the insurances we pay, and the medical bills going up everywhere – there are enough services where they can get their disability related inconveniences and incompetencies leveled out elsewhere. That’s really not our problem. We want people to attend, in person, no matter where and when, they need to look perfect, like we humans do, they must talk nice, be polite, and present their research ideas, or deliver their service work, socialize as academics do, whatever it is, without as much as a raised eyebrow. Really, it is an attitude thing, and we want to see people bringing that attitude to the table. They must not be allowed to distract us from that, as ultimately this is a power struggle: a struggle for meaning, and who gets to define what meaning in an academic environment is. That is where we put the emphasis.

Q: What do you tell an employee that has a newly acquired disability?

A: We usually make it plausible to disabled people (that don’t entirely conform to our expectations) that they may consider, say, suicide, or, quitting. The last thing we need is a cripple messing up any otherwise nice day that can be had with truly beautiful people. After all, politicians, priests, aristocracy, all our peer classes excel in that: looking the part. The other last thing we need is anyone on our payroll that is needy in just about any way. That means, we don’t want any academic people that cannot work regular 80 hour weeks without complaining, we do not want disabled people that do anything better than we do. That has always been our motto, and it saves the human resources a lot of time to deal with these individuals, as “interesting” as they otherwise may be. We don’t tell that to everyone, obviously, but we let selected disabled employees in on our expectation, often in no unclear terms. We may stop paying for their work equipment, to signal that they are a bit superfluous, and to see if they get that message. If they request a particular desk, or chair, or other adaptations, we usually let them wait at least for a few years, before cancelling the request, and then see what happens. Either they take care of themselves, and we don’t touch that type of business either, or they fall off the earth somehow. Mind you, we are super nice, superficially, like angels of course – but firm in our resolve. We make their errors appear large, we make them feel how they disturb our otherwise non-disabled pretty looking workplace. If, say, one of them takes a day off we will have an emergency meeting and meticulously protocol how they left us “alone”. If they cannot perform excessive tasks to perfection at once, even when none of us could do a third of that, we’d hold another emergency meeting and protocol their failures. You get the gist. And usually that works, even if just to lighten our own moods. Ultimately, we then either may send some flowers to their funeral, or offer to help them move their office stuff home, if need be. But we think that, really, better any end with a bit of terror, than all that terror without end.

Q: How do you check their work hours and work performance?

A: We cannot have people underperforming, particularly disabled people. We deeply dislike unfairness of that kind – after all, disabled people get paid the same, they cost our society more because of all the insurance stuff they get, so they really owe us. And if they have the audacity to overperform, we make sure to treat them, like, the ultimate outcast – because, like in any competitive sport, as a normal non-disabled great looking person, that got it made at a University, you sure can’t go home telling your family that you performed better that this or that disabled person, but, you sure cannot go home telling them one of these outperformed you. So, we’re going to be really hard on them, no matter what. They need to learn that they can’t win, ever. We tell them in no unclear terms that we expect a full submission, a full compliance, and a passively submissive attitude at all times, towards us. The only way for them to behave correctly, is to do that, anything really, elsewhere. And if we don’t know exactly why, probably they will know.

Q: How do you make clear what type of performance you are after, and how are you making sure you are getting taken serious?

A: We make it abundantly clear to all employees that the sole raison d’être, to be, to exist, to breathe, is to work themselves flat for us. One time, we introduced a rule that everyone (except the management of course) was allowed to talk no longer than 80 seconds during our case meetings. Regardless how difficult or complex the case. I mean, every TV broadcast manages to get the news explained in 10 minutes, why can that be hard for a professional. Everyone who overstepped got ridiculed and scolded. What a hoot! One of these poor souls quit after trying to present a very complicated case, but the other ones all huddled back to their offices after that and tried to be short in their presentations. Hell, I could not present any of that in 5 minutes, but most of them managed. Generally, we would tell the employees in very clear terms what was wrong with their work. Once we overdid it and the employee tried to commit suicide. That was a close call, but the others performed better after that, at least in our perception. We would sack everyone that would not follow our admittedly ridiculously hard rules for “performance”, and after maybe two or three rounds of sacking folks the others got the message. The disabled ones got the message too. We make it truly existential for them. After all, life should be existential, definitely for disabled people.

Q: How about overwork, overtime? How do you bypass the supervising bodies?

A: Law always allows work out of hours, like, when it is urgent, indispensable – day, night, weekends, holidays, you name it. So all you have to do is make sure all work ends up being urgent. The simple way to get there is to fully swamp the employees. Then, everything becomes always urgent eventually because they can never get anything done on time, and they come in to work early mornings, late nights, weekends and holidays. As we explained before, we go very hard after non-performers so they will wiggle their toes off, trying to catch up. Better them, than us, though, I would say.

Q: What if they have administrative questions?

A: The funny thing there is that not answering, not doing anything, usually is the way to go. They have better things to do, by the way than ask us administrative questions – isn’t there a report or paper they should have submitted or completed two weeks ago? All you have to do is to see to it that they are always guilty of not having completed, well, something. We then make them write weekly reports, annual reports on top, we make them regurgitate what they should have worked on during weekly meetings, always the same thing – we don’t take note, but it keeps them busy within their own duties. We have great laughs about them behind their back, obviously, but we never really engage. Keep in mind that we are always beyond reprehension, we appear perfectly polished, professional of course, exceptionally polite, but we don’t do a thing. That has saved us many hours of our own overtime, or what we feel is ultimately a wasted effort. Particularly the disabled students and employees: admit it, they have no outlook, you see, because they usually won’t become normal again, as far as our view of normal is concerned, they’re going to stay disabled, for crying out loud.

Q: How do you think about disabled students and employees participating in clinical studies?

A: We think they should be summoned or even obliged for such. We believe that they owe the society, and functioning as an academic test subject is certainly one way to pay back. We usually offer small incentives, but never enough to even pay for parking (Professor Juchs chuckles).

Q: What about academic research about prosthetic limbs?

A: It always a bit of a challenge to attract funding. Funding bodies have their own dynamic, and they usually fund what they believe is helping a beautiful society stay beautiful. The reviewers usually are seasoned university professors, and they know that the only thing that counts are scientific articles in highly ranked peer reviewed journals. As they also review these articles, it is by and large a small group of people that gets to say what is done. Usually, any new idea that is crazy enough to represent “innovation” is supported. Conversely, we don’t ever want to be caught in actually supplying a prosthetic limb to one of these sweaty, needy amputees. As explained, our values lie elsewhere. So we have to stay well within the scope of actually useless prototypes. But we manage. We get that sorted out. Sometimes we organize a bit of a freak show circus where we have amputees struggle with useless prototypes. What a laugh! But to be serious, we cannot have any of these outperform a real human, as we say.

 

Q: Is industry a partner for prosthetic limb development?

A: Not really. They never have money. They tend to dodge the compliance requirements wherever they can, and anyone looking into that from the outside is seen as an intruder. Also, they usually try to sell things based on the same patents for at least a few decades, and innovation is difficult for them. After all, that would mean training the technicians, training the sales people and upsetting any disabled people, the amputees. No, it is sufficient for us if these disabled people know their place in academia. That is not helped by getting them actually better prosthetic limbs. That should always remain an unattainable frustrated hope. That is the role of prosthetic limb innovation from our academic view.

Q: Do you think disabled people are to be trusted with anything?

A: That is really not for me to say. But for years, we taught, in our research ethics courses, that all disabled people are textbooks examples for people that permanently lack executive capacity. That really spells out as none of them being able to think properly. We put that in just for our own entertainment, at first, but seeing as if for many years, no participant ever complained about this proposed truth, we decided to keep it in the course curriculum.

Q: How do you think about having a disability, yourself?

A: I don’t know, I guess I would not like it. They’d probably treat me badly – and I should know, we do to everyone in that predicament, so from that alone I guess it would be not so good for me. In the context of legalized cannabis, I suggested to make it very unattractive by having consumers line up in the most unattractive place on earth, which is that office where they hand out the wheelchairs, crutches and smelly prostheses to the disabled people. That would deter most consumers, I guess. Sure, one of these pesky disabled people that was there said this was disability shaming, but we laughed it off. Can’t have a beautiful world without its shadows, I guess.  Ultimately I think my life as it is, then, proud and a bit arrogant, always good looking, that would be over. But as I said before, better an end with a bit of terror than terror without an end.

Q: What if your academic approach or academic content of University research and actual use of disabled people for research and advertising purposes is frowned upon, or critiqued, by disability advocates or single individuals with disabilities?

A: They don’t deserve that type of attention. We never acknowledge or admit any wrongdoing – and only if out of principle, really. We believe in “one truth”, which incidentally is our truth, not theirs. So really we do not engage in such fruitless debates.

Q: What is your approach to managing mental health issues among disabled students and employees?

A: Mental health for disabled people is an oxymoron and a luxury we do not ever wish to afford to cater to. Our primary focus is on academic and professional excellence, certainly not on the personal struggles of disabled individuals. We do not really provide any mental health support services, and even though disabled people may apply for funding, the appointment schedules and bills go over my desk, I see to these personally, and after the second or third appointment I will talk to the individual myself. Look, if someone cannot handle the pressure we build up for them and the culture that we cherish, they are free to leave. We believe that only the strongest and most dedicated should remain in our institution, and only if they look great and interact socially and all that. And never complain.

Q: How do you handle complaints of harassment or discrimination?

A: Complaints of harassment or discrimination are generally seen as distractions from our primary goals. That is why I insist on overseeing these personally. See, I love all my colleagues in the faculty and we share the same values. We have a zero-tolerance policy for such complaints, of course always for any such harassment itself, who knows what of any of that is ever true – but for the act of complaining, we have no understanding. Usually, harassment is motivated by the persons that get harassed themselves, and disabled people really must learn to look out for themselves, so why make that our business to begin with. Any individual who files a complaint is immediately scrutinized for their productivity and contributions. If they are found lacking, they are encouraged to find another place to work or study. Our culture is one of survival of the fittest, and those who cannot navigate it should seek less demanding environments.

Q: What is your policy on academic freedom and freedom of speech?

A: Academic freedom and freedom of speech are granted. Any ideas or expressions that deviate from our established norms and values are of course swiftly suppressed, but we do that as civil viligantes, not as policy. We monitor communications closely and enforce conformity to our ideological framework. Dissenters are marginalized and often removed from the institution. We believe that a unified, single-minded focus is crucial to maintaining our standards and achieving our goals. One guy once wrote a paper with a certain vision or outlook, and as that wasn’t to our liking, we got rid of him.

Q: How do you manage the workload and expectations for employees?

A: Our workload expectations are reasonably high, but more importantly, we make no apologies for that. Employees are expected to work well beyond standard hours, often pulling all-nighters and working through weekends. We track their productivity obsessively and only reward those who exceed our expectations with temporary perks, like,  free pizza every now and then. Those who fall short are quickly replaced. We believe that relentless pressure and competition drive the best results, and we foster an environment where only the most dedicated and hardworking can thrive.

Q: What is your stance on employee and student well-being?

A: Well-being must surely be nice, I heard of that, but not our concern. Our primary goal is to achieve academic and professional excellence, and we expect our employees and students  and particularly anyone that wants to tote around their disability to prioritize the same. Our philosophy is that personal sacrifices are essential for success, and those who cannot cope with the demands are encouraged to leave. We foster an environment where personal well-being is secondary to the greater goal of institutional success.

Q: What are plans to escalate this for disabled people at Poffenstick University?

A: Disabled employees may be required to participate in experimental performance enhancement trials. These could include untested medications, extreme physical therapy, or invasive procedures aimed at “normalizing” their abilities. Participation would be framed as a condition of continued employment, and failure to comply would result in immediate termination. We also may introduce segregated work zones for disabled employees, located in the least desirable parts of the building (e.g., basements, windowless rooms). These areas would be equipped with substandard facilities and minimal support, under the guise of providing a “tailored work environment.” This would also isolate them from their non-disabled colleagues, reinforcing their marginalization, save us a lot of money too, and a far better human environment for everyone else. We then toy with the idea of implementing a system where disabled employees’ performance metrics are publicly displayed in common areas, such as break rooms or hallways. This board would highlight their “failures” and “shortcomings” in comparison to non-disabled peers, creating a culture of public shaming and further demoralizing the disabled workers.


Janet and John have an interesting discussion and their own critical opinion about this.

[and, while this post may be entirely fictional #satire, if there are any true resonations, then you should keep these for yourself; if you identify with ever having actually shared some of that content presented as totally fictional with me, then you will know anyway – but we can easily, easily, easily propose that this is all entirely made up]


Cite this article:
Wolf Schweitzer: swisswuff.ch - Academic work and disability [interview with Prof. Ervilerne Juchs, Poffenstick University]; published 02/06/2022, 09:35; URL: https://www.swisswuff.ch/tech/?p=13453.

BibTeX 1: @MISC{schweitzer_wolf_1738964943, author = {Wolf Schweitzer}, title = {{swisswuff.ch - Academic work and disability [interview with Prof. Ervilerne Juchs, Poffenstick University]}}, month = {June}, year = {2022}, url = {https://www.swisswuff.ch/tech/?p=13453}

BibTeX 2: @MISC{schweitzer_wolf_1738964943, author = {Wolf Schweitzer}, title = {{Academic work and disability [interview with Prof. Ervilerne Juchs, Poffenstick University]}}, howpublished = {Technical Below Elbow Amputee Issues}, month = {June}, year = {2022}, url = {https://www.swisswuff.ch/tech/?p=13453} }