Campus Food Insecurity
Emily Kohl
PORTFOLIO INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
When I started my freshman year at JMU in 2008, I was an emancipated minor, meaning I had declared legal and financial independence from my family. In August, my parents sold our home and moved to another state. It was abundantly clear to me that I was on my own. My first years' tuition was covered by a scholarship, but beyond that, I was broke. Over the next four years, I experienced a moderate degree of food insecurity while I attempted to hold down multiple part time jobs and perform well in my classes. Other emotional and mental factors aside, I struggled to pay the bills, buy textbooks, and feed myself with regularity. I didn't talk about my food insecurity as an undergraduate. I had a several supportive, financially stable friends who helped me through tough times. It didn't occur to me that some of my fellow students may also be struggling to meet their basic needs. This just wasn't something we talked about.
Last year, the president of JMU's Graduate Student Association approached the Cohen Center to ask for help in creating a grad student food pantry. As one of the Cohen Center's Graduate Assistants, I jumped at the opportunity to help out. I'd never had an honest conversation with another student about hunger or financial instability, but I knew what it was like to worry about where my next meal was coming from. The Grad n' Go was established in April 2017 with the help of Dr. Melissa Aleman, who first introduced me to the concept of "food insecurity stigma."
I wanted to learn more about this issue as it pertains to JMU, and this class allowed me to do just that. Further, the topic related to my career because it provided an opportunity for me to produce meaningful pieces of communication in a variety of mediums for several audiences. My goal was to understand more about the state of food insecurity at JMU and what our administration is doing to address it. As an advocate, I wanted to create something that would help to raise awareness about this issue and encourage others to help fight the stigma associated with hunger.
​
THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC RHETORIC
There is so much I could say about what I've learned this semester, but I want to focus on a concrete truth from one specific reading. The social activist and rhetorician Linda ​Flower writes that “rhetoric is the art of making a difference through inquiry, deliberation, and literate action in the name of equality and social justice” (75). She warns that the way the field has evolved, we’ve gotten really great at speaking against things, but now we must learn to speak with others and for something.
She writes, "our current paradigms prepare us really well to speak against forces that diminish and oppress, to deconstruct, critique, and resist [...] but how do we go beyond the safety of critique into the vulnerable stance of reflective, revisable commitment to speak for values or actions [...] and how do we go beyond questioning the status quo and step toward praxis, toward deliberative and experimental action based on goals and values" (79, my emphasis). This is what I learned how to do this semester. I practiced moving beyond scholarly critique toward engaged, situated practice. ​
In explaining the important differences between “the act of speaking for something [and] the discourse of advocacy or critique” (83), Flower introduces this concept of ongoing, negotiated meaning. She reminds us that all acts of public rhetoric are inevitably imperfect, but still worth doing. "Arguments must be bold enough to name problems, clear enough that they dare to be wrong, and wise enough that they can transform, not just polarize" (83). This brought me great comfort in the creation of projects for this course, and it comes back to the vulnerability Flower tells us is inherent to the act of speaking for something.
​
​
I often get so caught up in producing something profound and accurate that I fear the possibility of proposing a flawed argument, or having a project fall through. In one of our very first class discussions, someone shared that, “it’s hard to see the point in trying, if I’m losing the debate, to keep using rhetoric and arguing my point” (paraphrase). I completely relate to this feeling. But the actualized practice of creating public works of rhetoric has taught me that it’s okay to not have all the answers, and to possibly not “win” an argument. It doesn’t invalidate the exercise, or even render it futile. Rhetoric is an art, and practicing public rhetoric means bringing that art form to life in the public sphere. It’s a messy, imperfect art that demands persistent, self-reflective practice. The process is essential to the meaning.
​
Flower, Linda. Community Literacy and the Rhetoric of Public Engagement. Southern Illinois University Press, 2008. 75-99.
I am engaged in a process. My meaning can evolve - it should evolve, or it’s not addressing real, situated problems. The work is ongoing. In practicing or constructing a negotiated meaning, I have to make a stance and risk being proven wrong.