Collegiality and the Yada-Yada Trope

A Seinfeld episode that first aired on April 24, 1997, "The Yada Yada," draws its name from the frequent use of the phrase by George's girlfriend. At one point she says: "I went shopping; yada yada." George believes that she might be leaving out some significant details with her use of the phrase "yada yada." So, he gets her to fill them in; and discovers more than he wants to know, namely, that she was arrested for shoplifting.

This episode names a common rhetorical ploy, "the Yada Yada" trope. Like George's girlfriend, its users employ empty words in statements and let their audiences "fill in the blank" with experiences they associate with the topic.¹ A friend encourages you to see a film, which she thinks is one of the best films ever made. You oblige but find it disturbing and unnecessarily violent. The next time you see each other, she asks: what did you think? You say: it was very provocative. You use the empty word, provocative, without specifying the ways in which you found it so, hoping that she will fill them in with her experience of the film.

The "yada-yada trope" depends for its effect on words that require you to "fill in the blank" in statements that omit the "significant details." The most obvious empty words are good, better, and best. They can be used to invite comparisons without stipulating any criteria whatsoever. Take, for example, the question: which is the best restaurant in Chicago? Without specifying the preparation of particular dishes (best restaurant for thin crust pizza), the person asked will probably suggest a restaurant that serves his or her favorite dish (Shaw's Crab House).

Less obvious instances of the yada-yada trope depend upon words that have such a broad denotative range that they function as "filling in the blank" expressions. Consider the use of "excellence" in phrases such as—"we demand excellence from our staff." This statement could refer to any aspect of a worker's behavior. As long as persons fill in the blank with a positive attribute that draws them to the business, it does not matter how they specify excellence.

Like excellence, the word collegiality has been applied to so many general aspects of the relations among co-workers that it has been emptied of any specific reference. In "Does Collegiality Count?" (2001), Mary Ann Connell and Frederick G. Savage point out that legal scholars have cautioned administrators that "the subjective nature of collegiality permits its use as a pretext for discrimination."² I take their comment about "the subjective nature of collegiality" to be a recognition ofan "empty" word. Since the term is empty, the courts have allowed universities to "fill in the blank" and consistently uphold their decisions when faculty have been released, fired, or not promoted because their behavior does not meet "the" standard of collegiality. In view of the implications of these legal precedents, we should examine the ways in which the term collegialityhas been deployed.

The Uses of the Word, "Collegiality"

First I take a snapshot of some of the ways in which the word comes into our purview already carrying conflicting meanings. Then, I take a second snapshot of the confusing ways in which the term is used in university documents.

Historically, the term was used to stipulate the relations among members of the Roman senate.

The elected magistrates were held in check by the virtue of collegiality: that is that each office had at least 2 officials with equal or similar power. The noted exception to this rule was that of the dictatorship which granted supreme imperium to a single man. All members of each particular office were of equal rank and could veto acts of other members and higher magistrates (Consuls) could veto acts of lower magistrates (Quaestors).

("The Executive Branch")

In its inception as in institutional term, collegiality was understood to be shared power and authority vested among...