"The Last Professors" an interview

InsideHigherEd.com has a interview with Frank Donoghue about his book "The Last Professor." While the interview sounds a rather pessimistic (realistic?) view of the future of tenor, the meat of the discussion--alluded to but not explored--is in the "the casualization of the teaching workforce"--which I would have liked way more discussion about.

What is interesting about the article is that the bulk of the comments focused on the role and nature of tenor, much, I think, to the dismissal of the larger forces at work.

I think I have more to say, but just not yet.

Response to TA T-and-A

The following comes from one of the responses to the grad-stripper column from Salon.com.
I felt it directly related to the theme of this blog, so I copy it completely from here:

Good luck

One of the things they don't tell you when you enter a PhD program is that you better have family money either from parents or a spouse or don't even think about starting. As this poor woman points out most grad students only get funded for a couple of years of what for most is at least, at least, a 5-6 year endeavor. And for that matter "funding" usually means enough money to share an apartment. In my experience at a fairly prestigious humanities department, the most successful students were not necessarily the brightest but the ones who had spouses to support them. As competitive as the academic market is, one pretty much has to have not only a dissertation, but a publication record when you apply for jobs. Many, like me, had to work full-time just to support ourselves, which leaves little time for what is in essence another full-time job.

Unfortunately I have no solution to offer for this young woman's dilemmma. But God love 'er for finding a way out of the grad student vicious circle, at least for a while.

-- Cossackathon

Academic freedom, tenure and Ward Churchill

I have been interested in the ongoing saga of Ward “little Eichmanns” Churchill for quite some time. And I am not alone, do a quick search of the InsideHigherEd site and you will find a lode of articles and commentary.

Here are some of the links that caught my eye:

• A recent posting that explores the possible results of firing Churchill for plagiarism (the internal BU faculty review recommendation) and a possible chilling effect on freedom of speech. I would especially note the comments…they get pretty funny at times
• An older article on the Truth and Consequences – a pun that actually works here.
• The CU special reports page where the actual source documents can be found

After reading the committee’s reports, I found a lot of the commentary to be verbal dysentery. The committee, while elitist and snooty to the Ethnic Studies department, did a good job of teasing out freedom of speech from poor academic work (he plagiarized). What was missing, though, were the TurnItIn.com Originality Reports, which I would like to see.

A few culled excerpts (source):

· “As one example, Professor Churchill stated in his response to the Investigative Committee that ‘I doubt that any even marginally prolific scholar’s publications could withstand the type of scrutiny to which mine has been subjected.’” -- Sure, poison the well for other lazy academics.

· An overarching question that emerged in our discussions is whether different scholarly "standards" apply in ethnic studies than in other more
traditional fields, such as history.

· Professor Churchill's academic background and choice of publication venues are untraditional. Although many of his writings, including nearly all those discussed in this report, address historical and/or legal issues, he does not have formal training at the graduate level in those fields. Professors writing on the topics he addresses would typically have a Ph.D. in history or a law degree; Professor Churchill's graduate degree is an M.A. in Communications Theory.

· Many of Professor Churchill's publications predate his employment as a tenured Associate Professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder in fall 1991 and his promotion to (full) Professor in fall 1997. Our Committee therefore believes that at the time he was hired, the University was aware of the type of writing and speaking he does.

It seems that Churchill was the victim of not submitting a paper according to the (often unwritten) rules of “scholarship.” That is, he is not the typical child of the academy and will be punished for that.

One should know his place.

Access and Exposure

College degrees (or should I just say college classes?) are a handy indicator that the person has been exposed and should be granted access. That is, a college education provides exposure and access. Skills are secondary; thinking is optional.

I am taking my inspiration for this post from the Marilee Jones firing from MIT. Apparently the dean of Admissions lied about her education way back, and it was ferreted out. She was fired—as she should be.

The discussion about her, though, quickly moves to the value and role of education. Ms. Jones was an excellent dean by all accounts, so why fire her now? Does the degree mean that much?

First, it wasn’t the lack of degree that was cited as the reason for her getting fired, but that she lied. So, take the lack of degree off of the table. Could she do the job without a degree? Well, she had been doing so for quite a while, so yes.

Then what is a degree for? Access and exposure. Let me explain. First, a few caveats: not all degrees are created equal. A liberal arts degree is all about exposure (although access is to be debated), while a science, engineering, business, etc. degree is, arguably, more about access. It is a sliding scale, with factors of specific degree plans, job positions, etc. But, for discussion purposes, it falls like this:

Access Exposure

Sciences/business Liberal arts

Of course, as with any spectrum, there are some middling ground (archeology would be an exposed/access; fine arts an access/exposure).

Pretty much any job is a club of some sort. Entry is only permitted if a person has X, Y and sometimes Z. For a range of jobs, X is a degree in the field (AA, BA, MA, etc.). One needs a law degree and bar exam to practice, doctors need med school and internships, etc. So, access is limited for these fields. I suppose is should be.

Exposure, though, is what people trot out when they speak of higher ed. “The best that is thought or spoken” sort of thing. A college grad will be exposed to various paradigms, cultures, practices, etc. that will expand her mind. At least, that is the argument. In fact, the exposure side exists almost exclusively when higher ed discussions arise. People will get apoplectic about the importance of exposing, or not, young minds to the world of ideas.

That is a load of crap.

Sure, I think that the exposure side should be included. It should be expanded. To assume that a college grad will be exposed (who is the judge for this anyway—is there a standard or measure here) to “enough” by a survey of British literature puts a lot on Donne and the like. And really, I could care less if my surgeon felt the pathos of ball turret gunner. I do care that she was paying attention to her gross anatomy labs. For the skilled professions, exposure helps more at dinner parties than in obtaining a job (see super-important caveat to this below).

What about business? Entry-level is entry-level. The college brand will do more to give a guy access than will the specific courses. Got an MBA from Harvard, then come this way to higher-exec-ville. All others, get at the end of that long line and await your cube assignment.

So, here are the terms of the discussion: access and exposure. My personal interaction with this tomorrow (or so).

----------------
Super-important caveat: I don’t think there is enough exposure of the skilled professions to other paradigms. I wish the doctors would open up to non-medical interventionist approaches—that holistic or homeopathic approaches were more explored. But, why I wish to be and what is are world’s apart. So, in a sense the pathos of the ball-turret gunner might show the way to realizing an open-minded approach to medicine. Yet, even typing this I feel as if it is too much to expect, given the noise of job obtainment and advancement (“witch” doctors don’t work at Mayo).

Adjunct Academic freedom

I must confess, this is probably not the way that I would introduce the topic, but I have to wonder if he would have been fired if he had tenure.

An adjunct (AP story via Salon), two days after Virginia Tech, introduced a discussion on gun control by "shooting" members of his class with a magic marker. He also included a response by a student shooting him back.

Apparently there is a you-tube defense the adjunct has posted.

Is this a story of no academic freedom as an adjunct?

Personally, I have not felt that I had any academic freedom. My paycheck came semester-by-semester. There is absolutely no freedom in that model.