This video made the rounds last week on Facebook. I’m sharing it here for those of you who may have missed it (or who want to watch it again). It offers a tragicomic glimpse into the cynicism that pervades the academic humanities these days — a result of poor job prospects for many, limited funding, and diminishing respect within and beyond higher education. It’s biting, but for exactly the reasons I wish it were not.
Great news for all of my readers who despise profligate government spending! My buddy Kembrew McLeod published a thought-provoking article in Tuesday’s edition of the Huffington Post called, “A Modest Free Market Proposal for Higher Education Reform.” In it, Kembrew outlines a compelling vision for ending the financial bloat that’s endemic to today’s public universities.
Among his proposals, he calls for corporate sponsorship of classes. Personally I’m looking forward to the day when the syllabus for my Introduction to Media class, which enrolls 250-plus students every fall, can finally say, “brought to you by the Walt Disney Company.” Kembrew also suggests that undergraduates be given the green light to utilize paid-for research assistance companies, which makes a good deal of sense, really, for how else are we to grow the economy in tough financial times? My favorite idea of his, though, is to incentivize cheap graduate student teaching. Soon-to-be PhDs, Kembrew writes, ought to be able to outsource their doctoral dissertations:
By no longer having to conduct original research themselves, graduate students will have more hours to spend in the classroom as adjunct instructors. Let’s do the math. PhD-Dissertations.com charges $17.00 per page, which adds up to $3,400 for a 200-page dissertation (plus, their website states that, “A discount of 10% applies to orders of 75+ pages!”). Although this might seem like a lot of money, consider the fact that most colleges pay adjuncts roughly the same, between $3,000 and $4,000, for each course taught per semester. Therefore, by just adding one extra course to his or her roster, a graduate student can pay for an entire dissertation in less than one academic year–while at the same time serving the university’s undergraduate teaching needs. Once this new generation of scholar/project managers enters the profession, there will be no more need for traditional professors.
Since I’m an overpaid university professor who’s contributing to all the bloat, I’ll happily step aside to let someone with a bachelors or masters degree do my job for, say, seven or eight bucks an hour. But don’t worry about me. I’ll be lapping it up over at PhD-Dissertations.com, where at long last I can put my skills and experience to some real use.
My latest essay, “Acknowledged Goods: Cultural Studies and the Politics of Academic Journal Publishing,” is now out in Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 7(1) (March 2010), pp. 3-25. In my opinion, it’s probably the single most important journal essay I’ve published to date. Here’s the abstract:
This essay explores the changing context of academic journal publishing and cultural studies’ envelopment within it. It does so by exploring five major trends affecting scholarly communication today: alienation, proliferation, consolidation, pricing, and digitization. More specifically, it investigates how recent changes in the political economy of academic journal publishing have impinged on cultural studies’ capacity to transmit the knowledge it produces, thereby dampening the field’s political potential. It also reflects on how cultural studies’ alienation from the conditions of its production has resulted in the field’s growing involvement with interests that are at odds with its political proclivities.
Keywords: Cultural Studies; Journal Publishing; Copyright; Open Access; Scholarly Communication
I’m fortunate to have already had the published essay reviewed by Ben Myers and Desiree Rowe, who podcast over at The Critical Lede. You can listen to their thoughtful commentary on “Acknowledged Goods” by clicking here — and be sure to check out their other podcasts while you’re at it!
Since I’m on the topic of the politics of academic knowledge, I’d be remiss not to mention Siva Vaidhyanathan’s amazing piece from the 2009 NEA Almanac of Higher Education, which recently came to my attention courtesy of Michael Zimmer. It’s called “The Googlization of Universities.” I found Siva’s s discussion of bibliometrics — the measurement of bibliographic citations and journal impact — to be particularly intriguing. I wasn’t aware that Google’s PageRank system essentially took its cue from that particular corner of the mathematical universe. The piece also got me thinking more about the idea of “algorithmic culture,” which I’ve blogged about here from time to time and that I hope to expand upon in an essay.
Please shoot me an email if you’d like a copy of “Acknowledged Goods.” Of course, I’d be welcome any feedback you may have about the piece, either here or elsewhere.
Looks A-M-A-Z-I-N-G…
// Antioch 05.08 // Rome 10.08 // Athens 12.08 // New York City 12.08 //
Helsinki 03.09 // Zagreb 05.09 // Heidelberg 06.09 // London 06.09 //Santa
Cruz 09.09//…
Seemingly discrete struggles over the conditions of university life have erupted around the world within the past year. These struggles share certain commonalities: outrage over precarious and exploitative conditions, the occupation of university spaces, and goals of reclaiming education from state and corporate interests. It is becoming increasingly apparent that recent struggles over the university are not merely discrete events. They express a wider collective desire for direct control over the means of production and forms of life; a desire to create relationships of learning, collaboration, and innovation beyond the university’s attempts to quantify
and discipline them.
Although the modern university has served the interests of the state and capital since its inception, the past thirty years have witnessed tightened ties with corporate, financial, and geopolitical interests. The subsumption of higher education under capital-driven business models has intensified the expropriation of the products of cooperative labor. With the proliferation of student-consumer and scholar-manager subjectivities, we increasingly find ourselves uncomfortably and often unwittingly occupying the role of active participants in these trends. As the global struggles over the past year have illustrated, however, opposition to these mechanisms of capture is mounting, as are creative strategies for alternatives and exodus. Struggles against the corporate university are linking up across borders; the slogan of the International Student Movement, “One World – One Struggle : Education is Not for Sale,” and the slogan of the Anomalous Wave, “We Won’t Pay for Your Crisis,” appear in actions across Europe, the Americas, and South Asia.
“Beneath the University, the Commons” builds on the work accomplished by activists, organizers, artists, and academics at the “Re-thinking” and “Re-working” the University Conferences of 2008 and 2009 (www.reworkingtheu.org), while expanding the scope of our discussions and bringing together more international scholars in order to address an increasingly volatile global situation. Our goal is to aggregate and accelerate our knowledge of university conditions and our collective acts of resistance to them, including alternative forms of engaging with each other and with the world. To this end, the 2010 conference will draw together a diverse set of people committed to exploring how we can understand, create, and experiment with the commons beneath the university. Our questions include but are not limited to:
//How do we enact and sustain occupations of the university in the exceptional times and spaces of the everyday?
//How do we generate an international “undercommons,” maintaining subversive positions as actors within, rather than of, the spaces of the university?
//How can unionization projects and occupation struggles learn from and collaborate with one another?
//How do we negotiate the line between stability and revolutionary effectiveness?
//How do we open up sustainable and livable spaces for radical research, education, and scholarship without being subsumed by the publish-or-perish disciplinary apparatus?
//How can we collaboratively map and share research, information, tactics, and cultures?
//In recognition that our conditions are a part of a larger set of global occupations and injustices, how do we link with social movements outside of and across the university?
This four-day event will consist of two days of conference sessions bracketed by two days of workshops, writing collaborations, skill shares, and plenty of time for sustained conversations among participants. We are accepting proposals both for formal papers and for non-conventional forms of participation.
– If you would like to present a paper, please submit an abstract and a CV or brief biographical statement.
– If you would like to participate in another way (by leading a workshop, facilitating a roundtable, presenting media, etc), please submit a brief (1-2 pages) description of the proposed activity and include what kind of resources we would need to provide, along with a CV or brief biographical statement.
All proposals should be addressed to conference@beneaththeu.org, and must be received by January 1, 2010.
DELEUZE AND ACTIVISM CONFERENCE
The Centre for Critical and Cultural Theory, School of English, Communication & Philosophy in cooperation with Culture, Imagination and Practice Research Group, School of Social Sciences
CARDIFF UNIVERSITY, WALES
12-13 NOVEMBER, 2009
Post-identity – The political Deleuze – The Commons – Activism-s – Geo-activism – Micro-interventions
For more information, please contact Marcelo Svirsky: DELEUZE@CF.AC.UK
Speakers:
Keynote: Ian Buchanan (Cardiff ); Jeremy Gilbert (East London); Paul Patton (UNSW); Nathan Widder (Royal Holloway)
Ronnen Ben-Arie (AVIG, Israel/Palestine); Simone Bignall (UNSW); Hywel Bishop (Cardiff); Steven Brown (Leicester); Christoph Brunner (Montreal); John Cromby (Loughborough); Andrew Dornon (Southwestern); Brad Evans (Leeds); Jan L. Harris; Gašper Kralj (Radical Education Collective, Slovenia); Bryce Lease (Kent); Ioulia Mermigka (Athens); Keir Milburn (Leeds); Rodrigo Nunes (Turbulence); Karl Palmås (Chalmers, Sweden); Dimitris Papadopoulos (Cardiff); Ofer Parchev (Haifa); Bojana Piškur (Radical Education Collective, Slovenia); Maria Puig de la Bellacasa (Cardiff); Remy Robertson (Southwestern); Stevphen Shukaitis (Autonomedia, Essex); Sian Sullivan (Birkbeck); Laurent de Sutter (LSTS, Belgium); Marcelo Svirsky (Cardiff); Vidar Thorsteinsson (Reykjavik Academy)
For registration and programme, visit: WWW.CARDIFF.AC.UK/ENCAP/NEWSANDEVENTS
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF MEDIA STUDIES
CALL FOR PAPERS
2009 marks the 30th anniversary of the publication of Jean-François Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. “[I}t is common knowledge,” he wrote, “that the miniaturization and commercialization of machines is already changing the way learning is acquired, classified, made available, and exploited” (1984, org. 1979: 4). In 2010, “Connected Understanding” will be the theme of the Congress of Social Sciences and Humanities in Montreal (http://www.fedcan.virtuo.ca/congress2010/
The massification and informationalization of the university has transformed not only the content of teaching and research but also disciplinary processes of knowledge production and the technological form of academic life and culture. The integration and normalization of ICT’s raises many questions about the university, academic labour, scholarly communication and collaboration, and academic technoculture. In 1957, Marshall McLuhan invited us to reconsider the education process by announcing that, with the advent of television, the “classroom without walls” had arrived. A half a century later, we are working in the university without walls and the ICT “revolution” is over. In “Universities, wet, hard, and harder,” German media theorist Friedrich Kittler reviewed 800 years of university-based media history to observe that “universities have finally succeeded in forming once again a complete media system.” Yet media scholars have rarely chosen to study their own universities as media systems. This special issue of the CJMS is an invitation to reflexive, critical media studies. Established and emerging scholars are invited to address continuities and transformations in new media and the network university and to set the agenda for future study and debate.
Possible questions and areas of research and critical inquiry include:
We also invite investigations of:
Submission Guidelines
Authors should submit papers of about 25 pages (or 8000 words) in MLA style with abstract and keywords electronically to David Spencer, Editor, dspencer@uwo.ca. With the exception of the title page, please remove all indications of authorship.
The deadline for papers is February 28, 2010. Peer review and notification of acceptance will be completed by March 31, 2010. Final manuscripts accepted for publication will be due April 30, 2010.
Comments and queries can be sent to Bob Hanke, Guest Co-Editor, bhanke@yorku.ca.
For more information about the Canadian Journal of Media Studies, visit http://cjms.fims.uwo.ca/default.htm.
Courtesy of Gil Rodman, here’s a link to the landmark United States Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). It demonstrates quite clearly that the University of Illinois’ decision to bar faculty and staff from engaging in campaign speech on campus–including displaying buttons on their shirts and bumper stickers on their cars–is a violation of Constitutional principles. I’ve excerpted one of the more relevant passages below for those of you who’d prefer the Cliff’s Notes version.
…As we have discussed, the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred. These petitioners merely went about their ordained rounds in school. Their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth, not more than two inches wide. They wore it to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them. They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression.
It’s always a pleasure to begin the week on a positive note. Case in point: I learned today that the National Communication Association (NCA), the United States’ largest professional organization representing communication researchers and teachers, issued the following statement condemning the University of Illinois’ policy against campaign speech.
I’m very proud of and impressed by NCA for taking this stand. As a professional organization, it’s rarely a trend-setter in the vein of, say, the Modern Language Association.
Here is a link to the statement on the NCA website, which contains additional links to the organization’s stance on free expression, as well as to information about the U of I controversy. I’ve also appended the statement below for those of you who are more scroll-inclined.
For now, well done, NCA. Well done.
As such, NCA opposes the University of Illinois’s decision to ban staff members from vocalizing their political affiliation or support for particular political candidates. By not allowing faculty and staff to display buttons, pins, or bumper stickers or attend political rallies of any kind, the University of Illinois is sending the message that faculty should not engage in discussions of a political and/or controversial nature. Not only does this suggestion limit their right to free expression, it seeks to suppress their ability to think and act critically in response to significant contemporary concerns. College campuses are places for faculty and staff to actively express their views and opinions on a variety of topics, including politics.
There is a risk to a free society when responsible advocacy is treated as a danger to be suppressed. Much good and little harm can ensue if we err on the side of freedom, whereas much harm and little good may follow if we err on the side of suppression.
By restricting individual forms of political expression, the University of Illinois system is depriving its faculty of an open and honest academic environment, one wherein learning occurs both inside and outside of the classroom.
From yesterday’s Inside Higher Ed:
Sporting an Obama or McCain button? Driving a car with one of the campaigns’ bumper stickers? You might need to be careful on University of Illinois campuses.The university system’s ethics office sent a notice to all employees, including faculty members, telling them that they could not wear political buttons on campus or feature bumper stickers on cars parked in campus lots unless the messages on those buttons and stickers were strictly nonpartisan. In addition, professors were told that they could not attend political rallies on campuses if those rallies express support for a candidate or political party.
Whoa. Talk about chilling–and, as far as I can tell, a pretty poorly conceived policy. Evidently it’s not a problem if a U of I employee wears apparel to work emblazoned with a “Nike” logo, despite the company’s well-documented exploitation of laborers in developing countries. How is that not a political endorsement, albeit of a somewhat indirect kind? And were I a professor not at Indiana but at Illinois, what if I wanted to teach students about rhetorics of political expression and propaganda using campaign stickers and bumper stickers? Would that be an acceptable use of these materials? And would I need to bring them onto campus appropriately shrouded so as not to suggest any partisanship?
Sigh. You get the point. The complete story is available here.
I’m not sure what to make of this:
Every other year, data released by the Education Department’s National Center for Education Statistics provide a snapshot of the growth of part-time positions in the professoriate. This year — an off-year for that data — the federal statistics provide evidence for another shift, in which the majority of full-time professional employees in higher education are in administrative rather than faculty job.
So I guess we tenure track faculty are now a minority in the academy. Could it be that we’re also an endangered species? It’s certainly odd to think about universities as places not abounding in professors (at least, as the term has tended to be understood).
I wonder: is this the university’s version of the widening gap between the rich and the poor, or between the administrative class and an increasingly “casualized” workforce (for whom there is nothing casual about their labors)? Are tenure tack faculty getting “compressed” out of existence, given how cuts in state education budgets, combined with increasingly high administrative salaries, would seem to demand a more “flexible” workforce at the bottom? For any economists out there who may be reading, please chime in anytime….
For more on the global distribution of wealth, see my previous entry, below. And for the complete story about the changing shape of university employment, check out today’s Inside Higher Ed.
