Category Archives: ALFS presentation

Writing about the university as a site of class struggle

The new (and last) piece will follow on this one and will start out talking about the question of trust and solidarity: do we really have these, are we really one faculty? Part of why we are not is hierarchical management and part of it is that in situations where basic survival is at stake, the lofty goals of a campaign like One Faculty are not anyone’s first priority (really).

The university is the new factory floor, someone said. “The struggle is not just over campus labor, but over the social reproduction of the labor force, knowledge of ‘the economy,’ and more.”

Not about this precise point, but on another part of my piece: The university and the public good.

Whose university is it, anyway? The brilliant LARB piece.

Legitimation crisis — on hierarchical micromanagement:

On labor, focusing on the contingency wars: Contingency, Exploitation and Solidarity (Seth Kahn et al.) — despair is not a strategy

Reichman quoting Jacobin quoting WV teacher on uniting with other public employees, parents of low income students (Bolivia: obreros, campesinos, jubilados, amas de casa, empleados públicos, estudiantes)

Demands against the long crisis of the university (on faculty complacency).

Global autonomous university

Between the ivory tower and the assembly line

Malcolm Harris’s new book Kids These Days and the chapter on schools. Also, the 1970s pamphlet by Zerowork, “Wages for Students”.

Bowles and Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America.

Aronowitz and Giroux, others, but I want to start with these things. My intuition is that the older forms of shared governance are insufficient, complacency is bad, and just unionizing is similarly inadequate.




Filed under ALFS presentation, Working

An answer to my other post

My third post to this blog of a professional organization could start out talking about the argument I had with New Faculty Majority people, about adjunctification and related matters. They kept saying they did not want tenure, only long contracts and good pay, and that people like me were utterly antiquated, unfair, and “tone deaf” to still be thinking about things like tenure and academic freedom, much less shared governance. They wanted to teach and go, with research optional and they kept saying tenure is dead, we are just employees now. They took pleasure in this and I thought I was on the moon.

But are they right? Has everyone become an atomized, neoliberal subject? Is my idea of what a professor is gone? Is the effort I put into Senate and AAUP misplaced (I think of it as central, key service activity like serving on editorial boards, writing letters of recommendation, but am I wrong)?

A friend said,

You are looking at what may well be the semi-wreckage of our profession.

First, yes, the AAUP is at least a potentially dying organization. It is in a spiral brought on, economically, by too much dependence on a union population that is dwindling owing to court decisions and likewise brought on, economically, by the inflexibility of a mostly male and admittedly occasionally well-meaning geriatric oligarchy (perhaps a “geriocracy”?).  However, I don’t think that it is quite done for if we can manage to get in new leadership and start on a new direction in the next few elections. I disagree: I think the problem is its traditional focus on tenure and academic freedom, which the contingent not only do not have, but to which they do not necessarily even aspire (job security being different from tenure). Now that everyone is contingent, and those who are tenure-track or have tenure don’t realize that is because of the AAUP.

With regard to your first point:  Well taken.  Actually, I think about half of the remaining outspoken people believe primarily in “free speech” rather than the more disciplined academic freedom while the remainder believe primarily in the sanctity of their careers, i.e., they want to preserve their careers because they see something worthwhile in them and they have a suspicion that academic freedom might be part of that mix, but, first and foremost, they are careerists.  That is one reason that the CBC mentality is so dangerous:  it licenses thinking of rights and prerogatives in terms of jobs and careers, which are rather less principled things. [Emphasis added]

Point two:  I do believe that Faculty Senates matter but that they need some updating. Nobody gives a hoot about the outcome of a debate on the official “order of business” for the Senate (this bit of wrangling happened at LSU last week), but plenty of people do give the aforementioned hoot when they think something will impact them, i.e., when the press is around giving administrators good or bad press.  We need a whole lot more people who will go public and who will use tactics from politics and advertising along with their usual academic armaments.
[Emphasis added] I guess that might help make administrators care. I don’t know.

Point three:  I agree with Newfield that we need to keep in mind the public good.  The underlying problem, however, is that we no longer have the kind of educated public that we did back during the Enlightenment.  Until we put some juice in the liberal arts and educate people about basic philosophical principles and about the nature of governments—even at the expense, say, of taking a course in more politically correct topics—we aren’t going to get anywhere with the public good theme.  Put another way, there must be a public before there is a public good, and it must be a good, i.e., educated, public. [Emphasis added]

Point four:  Sad to say, many of our colleagues are like our students, wanting enough money to buy toys and pay for kids’ dance lessons and not much more.  Few are able to take on the mammoth challenges arising from our new age of very large populations (i.e., it’s a whole lot easier to be a man or woman of letters in colonial America with a few million people than in a world with seven billion who are all inundated with messages from commercial social media sources).  We may see a further fracturing in the faculty between those who are activists and fed up and those who are homebodies and want to do nothing other than cash checks.  Perhaps such a civil war within the faculty would not be such a bad idea, for it would separate the doers from the non-doers.



Filed under ALFS presentation, Working

That chicken-and-egg question

For my article. Reichman points to Newfield, whose work is central to my discussion. University administrators “[i]n lockstep with politicians and profit-seeking corporate managers … oversold the private benefits of education and downplayed higher education’s role in serving the public good.”


Leave a comment

Filed under ALFS presentation

More things I will do

I will find out whether I am still in LASA and ILLI.
I will find out whether I can receive paper copies of my father’s insurance bill.
I will do other things on my lists.

I am changing my life. I do wish the university were not such a space of torture, and that I were not so afraid of it. I want to get over this as I have things to do.

I am afraid of it because it is irrational and it has power, and because I have a tendency to internalize its venom.

Here is a good article on the rhetoric of excellence.


Leave a comment

Filed under ALFS presentation, What Is A Scholar?, Working

The market university

In the Verhaeghe book, in the chapter on identity, is a great deal of material on the market university including a list of euphemisms like those I discuss in my article — although his choice of examples is, conveniently enough, a completely different set than mine is. (The list is on page 161.) There is a discussion on how the conversion of the student into customer fits the neoliberal paradigm and signals a completely different vision of education than what some of us may still have. Part of what I am saying in this article is that many of us do not even realize what the world we are working in now is. The market university repurposes our vocabulary and adds new terms which we laugh at and shrug off when we should examine them. There are additional examples of neoliberalism’s use of language (cf. the word “invest”) in this interesting newspaper article. There is also this popular piece on the falsely rational language of (neoliberal) technocrats, and there is a film we should see on the privatization of public education or “corporate school reform.”

I am going to put half an hour into that article early tomorrow morning.

Some more notes for this I have are:

– financialization
– monetization
– corporate
– entrepreneurial
– business model

A decent education is now an elite dream, and if we do not mouth the neoliberal line we are just dinosaurs. Uber is “sharing.” Religious freedom is the freedom to oppress other religions. Fox News was founded to offer “fair” reporting.


Leave a comment

Filed under ALFS presentation, What Is A Scholar?

The Enigma of Capital

What, if anything specific, in this book helps broaden the scope and deepen the analysis of my current article? (Capital, and liquid capital, move around and seep everywhere, we know this; how do those or other ideas illuminate the part of the puzzle I am trying to analyze?)


Leave a comment

Filed under ALFS presentation, Working

Another epigraph

“The strong connection between diagnosis and political action cannot be ignored,” says Harvey, and I claim this is the key point for the current age. We are in the grip of capital, more than we know, and it is very difficult to see a way out.


1 Comment

Filed under ALFS presentation