Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

it's true, though, that people have been decrying the collapse of academia for some decades now...

the idea that a college education guaranteed you a spot in the workforce seemed to be on the rise when I was in school -- the offices for career placement and churn of job fairs seemed to get more larger and numerous every year, with this expectation that even in fields without traditional internships that you needed one in order to succeed

it's a bit chicken little of me, but i think the next big economic crisis will do a number on the humanities (as the last one did). part of my decision to try to get out of academia is to get a head start on that.

I think that when combined with the greater debt load, it's resulted in more people feeling cheated. Graduating with an expensive degree followed by an uncertainty about the ability to find a job, let alone have a career path, is nerve-wracking

im not economist but the current student-debt bubble and deracination of the humanities suggests that the current status quo is teetering. many people i've talked to in academia seem convinced that the future will essentially involve technical and trade schools with a handful of elite schools still providing a "liberal" education.

i think this is probably otm and honestly the role of humanities or a "liberal" education at this pt should probably take place in the context of autodidacticism or maybe some pre-modern monastery format bc it's irresponsible imo to charge students a hundred thousand dollars for a degree that qualifies them for nothing (and again, this is speaking entirely from personal experience - should i have been bright enough to know that my humanities degrees would be worthless? yes. did any responsible adults tell me that at the time, though? no.)

oh, i know all about the adjuncting problem.

it's a combination of:

- declining state support for public higher education
- swelling of administrative class
- overproduction of PhDs in most fields

the interesting thing is the article sort of does highlight how the strange-looking demands of the students are an aspect of them actually taking the promises of the campuses seriously. on their own they're strange demands. as responses to precisely the claims of campuses they make sense, and point to this gap between the rhetoric of the campuses and what they actually do, and it would be great if more coverage picked up on that.

― are you ellie (s.clover), Wednesday, May 25, 2016 10:08 AM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I should have just said "s. clover otm"

and i'm one of the lucky ppl who had a family business to fall back into that pays me enough that i can actually afford to pay my $1,000 a month college debt obligations. i do not imagine that the vast majority of graduates are as lucky.

Mordy some of those things are connected (adjuncts + funding); the others may be connected to each other but they're part of an academic world I don't experience or recognize. & certainly just an american academic world, because those issues, to the extent that there's anything there save hype, don't register outside the usa (maybe canada).

by contrast my department this semester worked out a scheme by which we could accommodate students who've been participating in social movements against the new work law; students who didn't turn in enough work to get a passing grade got the opportunity to turn in a supplementary assignment (obv we didn't ask if they'd "really" been at Nuit Debout etc). & the university has been giving students space to organize. some of them have taken over lecture halls over night & so we've had buildings closed for a couple of days here & there. the activist energy is pretty strong but it's focused on pretty practical issues, like changing the government / government's mind. of course we don't really do identity politics here, except for gender, for better or for worse.

biiiiig xp

of course the whole thing is a question of finance, since programs produce PhDs essentially because

1) w/o enough graduate students they can't fund programs
2) w/o graduate students they lose an entire stratum of undergraduate teaching

schools need to deincentivize (sp?) programs from producing PhDs. what we need is a larger stratum of good full-time jobs teaching low-level undergraduate courses, jobs that currently go to grad students (at r1s, etc.) or adjuncts. maybe those jobs aren't the traditional tenure-track professor jobs.

Adjuncting is the worst. I've been lucky enough to do it steadily so I always have a berth but if I didn't have another full time job w/benefits it'd be hellish.

that gawker piece, i had second thoughts about emailing it to a friend who is finishing a ph.d in creative writing and was just cut out of her assistantship (:X). academia is a plague.

that was what was clear when I was leaving school, and even more so after speaking to people who have worked as adjuncts -- undergraduate classes are just too large to expect the majority of them to be taught by professors also doing research and publication, but there's no allowance for hiring people outside of contract positions. having a large percentage of your staff be contractors who have no incentive to stay in the community and little say in departmental affairs is not sustainable

it is true that academia functions on a neoliberal model insofar as it assumes perpetual growth

programs produce phds that become professors who train phds who become professors...

you've got geometric growth built into the system

and while the increasing emphasis on "non-academic employment" for phds comes from, i guess, a sincere place, it's a big joke since you're not spending 5–10 years being trained for "non-academic employment". the entire model of graduate education would have to shift radically if they really think they are training you for something other than becoming a version of your advisor.

sorry for furious xposts

i should have added, to clarify, that while geometric growth is built into the system, obv the real world can't accommodate that growth

i can actually afford to pay my $1,000 a month college debt obligations. i do not imagine that the vast majority of graduates are as lucky.

Unless I'm completely confused, vast majority of graduates are much luckier than you, in that they have nowhere near $1000/month in college debt obligations. I mean, it sucks really hard to be in that position and I'm sorry that you are, just saying it is not the norm? This paper says median monthly payment for households that owe higher ed debt is $160/month

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/06/19-typical-student-loan-debt-akers

and that fits with what I've generally been hearing

academia is basically the most sociopathic and checked-out industry in america outside health care.

"the entire model of graduate education would have to shift radically"

in the usa. there are other models. for instance, in order to teach high school in France (or even middle school) you need to pass a national exam (the "aggregation") in the subject you want to teach. normally you train for this during your masters or doctorate. the pass rates are around 20-30% in general, it's a tough system, but the idea is that secondary school teachers should be experts in what they teach. our doctoral students seek higher academic positions but many of them will take middle or high school positions for 5-10 years while they stay semi-active in research. we have something like adjunct positions but they're contractual, either 50% or 100%, and you can't pick up extra classes here or there like american adjuncts unless you have some kind of contractual position already. we also have lots of post-docs and you can add courses on top of those for a little extra dough.

we still have plenty of students who don't find jobs like the ones they'd envisioned, but it's not like the usa. obv our welfare state helps.

xp wau 4 million new posts, this was to mordy re 'keep wanting' above

i think a materialist-historical look at the curriculum since the GI bill/boomer influx and takeover might cover a lot of that, since it's the site of pressure from above and below and characterizes what the official core structure of the university is supposed to be over time.

for instance at my alma mater there was a cultural studies department, obviously the 'theory' department, but only a remnant of a shell of a traditional humanities department at the time i was around. apparently that was the legacy of political shifts within the university around curriculum more broadly:

http://rbtapp.com/files/HumanismToday_files/htvol11tapp9.html

a lot of the major changes in curriculum, faculty composition, etc. since the 60s have been effected in similarly political terms, capture of resources or shifts in institutional clout rather than (as the ideal would have it to still be possible) just through shifts in the conversations internal to disciplines or across humanities disciplines. when you combine that with specific formations or moments within/across disciplines which can present themselves as politically active/effective, you can easily generate all kinds of incentives (for researchers to posture as 'intervening' with their articles, for students for demanding course content which pretends to political relevance to be actually relevant, etc.) with volatile consequences.

i recall reading an account of the origins of 'moral problems of society' courses, of the style that are often taught by philosophical ethicists but could in theory be open to other faculty/disciplines, in the influx of students demanding 'relevant' curriculum in the 60s. the account commented on the bias toward the contemporary public moment and its debate frames, on the political salience of the most popular choices of issues, but also on how the whole thing lent itself to 'theory/applications' construals, which is why such courses (e.g. as shows up in their textbooks) so often take the form of a vestigial summary of kant-mill-aristotle-(plus feminist critique as an afterthought) plus a series of topical pro-con articles. in philosophy a lot of the latter might come from or be heavily influenced by the rise of the journal 'philosophy and public affairs'.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-gilroy-rosemary-bechler/paul-gilroy-in-search-of-not-very-safe-starting-point

ta-da

Rolling higher education into the shitbin thread

I enjoyed that Gilroy interview.

http://bostonreview.net/editors-picks-us-books-ideas/ronald-aronson-privatization-hope#.V0zPH8BOXFY.twitter

^ a good read. none of it particularly novel, but the familiar bits are reasonably well assembled.

i'll let ron know

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

heh

does ron post here or something what is this "heh" about

we must have transparency or else the illiberal protesters have won or something

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/07/08/legislator-threatens-u-wisconsin-budget-over-reading-gay-sex

the article the legislator is fussing about was assigned *this week*

hell of a short circuit between 'academic freedom' and the state

i wonder which student forwarded the reading list to his right-wing legislator (or dad or whatever)

seems to be this article http://web.archive.org/web/20111109150003/http:/www.fabmagazine.com/story/not-just-a-preference

"We Are The Left" statement about identity politics

https://medium.com/@We_Are_The_Left/an-open-letter-on-identity-politics-to-and-from-the-left-b927fe66d3a4#.nzjd7tpz3

idk, agree in some parts, disagree with some characterizations of certain events

man "we've" been arguing whether marxoid class analysis or some other kind of socially-determined formation is really the thing for a while now. can't believe someone hasn't square that circle yet!!

one response from carl beijer: sady doyle is full of shit

http://www.carlbeijer.com/2016/07/twist-her-tits-off-origin-of-smear.html?m=1

manuel delanda has got you taken care of

https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-assemblage-theory.html

Clarifies and systematises the concepts and presuppositions behind the influential new field of assemblage theory

Manuel DeLanda provides the first detailed overview of the assemblage theory found in germ in Deleuze and Guattari’s writings. Through a series of case studies DeLanda shows how the concept can be applied to economic, linguistic and military history as well as to metaphysics, science and mathematics.

DeLanda then presents the real power of assemblage theory by advancing it beyond its original formulation – allowing for the integration of communities, institutional organisations, cities and urban regions. And he challenges Marxist orthodoxy with a Leftist politics of assemblages.

Key Features

Critically connects DeLanda with more recent theoretical turns in speculative realism
Makes sense of the fragmentary discussions of assemblage theory in the work of Deleuze and Guattari
Opens up assemblage theory to sociology, linguistics, military organisations and science so that future researchers can rigorously deploy the concept in their own fields

didn't read the beijer yet but damn is he an unlikable left-wing bro

Pretty much everyone involved in politics is unlikable.

xp. both the centrist identity politics people and the lefty dudes criticizing them are awful

so what was up with that selection of incidents in the opener? shulamith firestone in 1968, sylvia rivera in 1973, marissa johnson and mara willaford taking the stage at a sanders event last year. it seems calculated to associate legendary berniebroism with the worst possible constructions of situations from the standpoint of today's core left dogmas. but it's not written in the form of a mea culpa or a wea cupla, which for a some portion of the signatories i'm guessing it could have been, relative to their politics over time - it's not as if the left in general was warmly receiving and assimilating critiques from firestone's or rivera's positions at the time. they could have, for example, used a conflict like the one between audre lorde and mary daly as an example, which would have borne stronger implications for anyone currently identifying as a leftist. (how hard would it be to find a clinton supporter now who's said some questionable shit about BLM?) instead it's a youa culpa which seems to be directed mainly outward (by virtue of who is defined as being on the outside). white women come in for some flack in their mention of hugo schwyzer, but mostly the statement gives little impression of centering race, so that it's essentially a diatribe against bad men who claim leftist associations which seeks to link abusiveness with denials of identity politics. something about the framing seems phony in that respect. ostensibly it's claiming a much more inclusive 'we' under the guise of being anti-oppression, but its moves to establish bona fides for that inclusiveness seem opportunistic somehow.

the disingenous thing is firestone had actually very out there politics and the signers of the letter are basically centrist democrats. if someone tried to actually lobby to into the democrat's platform

just as to assure elimination of economic classes requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction: not only the full restoration to women of ownership of their own bodies, but also their (temporary) seizure of control of human fertility

and the breaking of the tyranny of the biological family through pervasive test tube babies.

i suspect that the letter signers would be less than enthused.

like maaaaybe if the letter said "first: we are the left because we want to expropriate the banks and burn the police stations to the ground and _also_ etc" then it wouldn't be a complete con job

i wish i never heard of politics

https://twitter.com/crushingbort/status/753448855153303553

lmao

the letter: i think it is an understandable response to a situation where dickheads who claim the mantle of the "left" use doxxing tactics and shit because they feel threatened by women and minorities in positions of leadership. it seems to mostly be white men who use those kinds of tactics. i could be wrong, but that's what it seems like. anyway, what women and minorities describe experiencing on the internet from these corners is hate speech. not copasetic at all.

however, there is something "off" about the idea that "identity politics" has been marginalized by "class politics" nationally. the feminist movement, the lgbt movement, and the civil rights movement have transformed society over the past several decades. the journey is not even close to being finished, and their victories have come with reactionary backlashes so it's not like it's been a straight road, but like, it is much better to be gay in america now than it was in 1960. obama recently signed an executive order protecting trans rights, when forty years ago, as the article describes, trans activists were treated abominably even by the mainstream gay rights movement. this is progress. in many ways our country is a far more civilized place than it was just several decades ago and it is due to the persistent work of leftists on the "identity politics" side of the left. people fought hard, they met resistance, they kept fighting, and they won.

meanwhile, on the "class" side, wages have fallen precipitously during this same period. democrats and republicans alike have torn holes into the safety net. non-rich students can only go to college by taking on enormous financial burdens. many of the people who fought the "identity" battles were also fighting these developments -- they disproportionately affect minorities and women -- but they lost here. they were up against capitalism itself.

if you look at the past forty years of "the left" in terms of issues rather than groups, it seems the "identity" issues have fared better than the "class" issues -- at least they have garnered some institutional support.

tl;dr - the issue of racism and sexism being used as tools of intimidation and abuse by people who see identity politics as a threat to class politics is real and serious. however, i question the degree of power these people have, really. i also wonder how reflective racist and sexist "bernie bros" are of the general attitude of socialists. i say this as someone who didn't vote for bernie in part bc he didn't strongly condemn the sexism of the nevada protesters. (the other reason was bc i found his harping the "rigged system" of superdelegates to be dumb and counterproductive. didn't vote for hillary either fwiw -- stayed out of it.)

also, judging by the centrist commitments of the signers of this thing, i wonder to what degree they are just trying to smear socialists

idk, the examples they give of sexism and racism on the left are so horrifying it feels gross questioning anything in the article. also i don't know if i care anymore. i want economic security to become a human right but if the organizations that advocate for that have allowed themselves to become as rife with monsters as this article implies then oh well.

you have to look at what's at stake and who's being targeted in that article to make some sense of it, and to sort of question the various "examples" it tries to throw together. that's why the beijer piece is useful -- you have to dug on the different strands.

i mean, i guess the hellish reality we are moving toward is neoliberal "identity politics" vs. reactionary/populist "class politics", which is also a kind of identity politics insofar as it is based on white resentment

my class politics is based on poor resentment

Wow, that Beijer piece is a vile pile of crap. So now the harassed has an obligation to ask every harasser why they harass them? What an asshole.