Why being denied tenure is a big deal

remind wrote:

Please do name what "tenured professors and professions" are on the side of the "left", besides perhaps sociology?

Sociology is not always alligned with the left. But, if I may try a list:

Anthropology, Women/Gender Studies, (some) History, Labour Studies, (some) Geography and Urban Studies, and a potpourri of individuals in interdisciplinary programs.

Quote:

And I am hardly anti-intellectual, as being against tenured neoptism, where "intellectual" peers tell each other they are wonderful is hardly intellectual pursuits, when was the last time there were earth shattering/changing deliberations and findings that were non-mainstream coming out of the tenured set anyway?

Even those within the left reproduce nepotism, but there are non-MS publications within academia. There are certainly a handful of people willing to challenge the institution, albeit they are few and far between.

Quote:

And get over the shock of finding those on the left being against tenure here, I find lots of other  what I consider to be right wing or neoliberal nonsense being espoused here continually too. Such as rtelling people they are more than other people....that is so egalitarianly progressive! :rolleyes:

besides that, in addressing the thought terminating cliche crowd,  to be anti-intellectual one would be advocating closing down higher education facilities as opposed to advocating for lowered tuitions, or fully fiunded, so more can access  the "hallowed halls".

Not to sound too much like a cliche of the Old Boys' Clubs: "Hear Hear!"

 

 

[/quote]

G. Muffin wrote:

These academics need a dose of reality. Who else gets tenure?

well, civil servants do, basically, once they have permanent/career contracts, and so do lawyers (partners), and other professionals in large organizations

 

in any case, an account I did not see above:

http://chronicle.com/article/Professor-Had-Raised-Concerns/64221/

Let's examine the case of Frank Underhill

During World War II, Underhill moved away from socialism and became a left-wing liberal continentalist.[5] He remained a committed anti-imperialist and was almost dismissed from the University of Toronto in 1941 for suggesting that Canada would drift away from the British Empire and draw closer to the United States. His struggle with the university became a landmark in the history of academic freedom in Canada.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Underhill

Michiel Horn's book on the history of Academic Freedom in Canada

http://books.google.com/books?id=v4Q8dqEyvFcC&printsec=frontcover&dq='Academic+Freedom+in+Canada%22&source=bl&ots=W37A5K5BpA&sig=qOhsWukbjDSElkbH71oLuziQkv8&hl=en&ei=Unl9S8GGPIXblAfqvLCsBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

remind wrote:

Please do name what "tenured professors and professions" are on the side of the "left", besides perhaps sociology?

Quite a few, actually. While they were not always uncontroversial or uncontested, yet nonetheless had a non-trivial impact on progressive movements, some that can be named would be Judith Butler's work on gender, Edward Said's Orientalism (not to mention his strong and consistent advocacy on Palestine), Ilan Pappe's work on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Angela Davis's work on the prison abolition, the whole field of critical pedagogy with the likes of Paolo Friere and Henry Giroux. Critical race theory, or for that matter scientists working on climate change or against the religious right's encroachments into science education. Certainly, academia is not consistently on the left, and in many cases serve as little more than functionaries in support of the status quo, but protections for academic freedom do open a space that can enable the production of knowledge that is both critical and radical in orientation. 

Plus, support for mechanisms of tenure are not in opposition to fighting for lowered tuition and better access to universities. If anything, the increasing casualization of academic labor goes hand in hand with the corporatization and privatization of university education.

j.m. wrote:

I agree, but labour struggles have unfolded very uncritically (from my experience). Many professors are unwilling to address the corporatization and privitization of education beyond the threat to their profession. Others benefit from the opportunities of privatization, and see students as information drones furthering their name and attracting more funding from Bayer or whoever else. I have yet to see the Ivory tower mobilize even if it is, in part, in their best interest.

Completely agree with you there. In recent history, faculty have been if not directly complicit, then more often than not silent on the issue of the casualization of teaching, for instance. It's a struggle within the institution of the university that without a doubt needs to become more active. 

From Babble Policy: babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and essential values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism, and labour rights are to be debated or refought.

Professors are workers. How could that be disputed?

I continued this side-topic over here.

This should have been done long before RP's Post #77.

p-sto wrote:

Really Snert, you can't see how executives are all that different from most other workers?

 

What are you talking about, they're one in the same! Haven't you seen it on the TeeVee?

The current issue of Academic Matters has a number of articles for and against tenure. It might be worth a look (I have only skimmed the articles at this point). Pro-tenure: Michiel Horn, Professor Emeritus of History and University Historian, York University; James Soto Antony, Associate Vice Provost and Associate Dean, University of Washington; Ruby Hayden, graduate student, University of Washington. Anti-tenure: Michael Bliss, University Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto; Mark Kingwell, Professor of Philosophy, University of Toronto. More nuanced position: Patricia Finn, former Executive Director of the Carleton University Academic Staff Association. (She advocates a form of job security very similar to tenure, perhaps tenure by another name.) Sandra Acker, Professor, Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education, University of Toronto. It's interesting to read, no matter what your views are.

Profeesors are workers: They CREATE, preserve and distribute knowledge. Sounds like work to me.

The amount one is remunerated for one's labour does not define whether someone is a worker.

Um, in this country, most professors are employees of the provincial governments, are they not? They certainly are in Ontario, which is why the Harris government started publishing salaries of all those earning over a certain figure at one point.

 

torontoprofessor @ 123: thanks, and interesting list. I've worked with both Michiel Horn, who is a most wise and committed leftie and a good writer, and with Michael Bliss, about whom I shall follow the advice of Thumper's dad.

Caissa wrote:

Profeesors are workers: They CREATE, preserve and distribute knowledge. Sounds like work to me.

The amount one is remunerated for one's labour does not define whether someone is a worker.

I agree that the amount one is renumerated does not define whether one is a worker. However, as has been pointed out in this thread, a tenured professor has significantly greater leverage in affecting their work and work environment in comparison to other workers. I think that distinction and possibly others should be recognised when discussing professors as workers.

Michelle wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if she can intinctively grasp the pain of someone working is a less prestigious field at being summarily terminated. Or does she only have sympathy for someone of her own class?

Why assume she couldn't?

Also, being fired from a "less prestigious" job is not necessarily the same kind of career ender as being denied tenure.  Once you're denied tenure, it sounds like word gets around and you're "marked".  It would be hard to start again in another school - what university wants to take on a professor that some other school has proclaimed is not good enough for them?  It would be like your school is taking their leavings.  And there's no way to gloss it over in your CV, because you need all the academic work you did at that school as experience when looking for other positions.

That doesn't happen when you get fired from a secretary job, or McDonald's.

I never assumed she couldn't, but a quick and nasty google search does not reveal any articles where she has expressed that shared feeling (although I do find her range of published articles quite impressive and interesting). Then again, I didn't really expect it to -- I was simply observing that there was a pretty evident class bias, and nothing that has followed in this thread really does much to dissuade me of that. If anything, the reaction to remind's hyperbole about abolishing tenure simply reinforces my long-standing belief that the focus of academia is pretty much confined to the navel and they are oh so easily distracted from doing the hard work of separating themselves from their class bias.

 

That's a little higher than the starting salary range at my school, although we're paid in American dollars and the cost of living is quite low compared to Toronto. But if you've done a doctorate in the humanities, you're probably around 28 years old or so. $75K per year for someone at that age isn't much, especially since they have missed so much time in the workforce accumulating money, compared to others in their age group. And these are highly-educated people. I mean, yes, as far as exploitation goes, academics hardly have the worst but talking about them as if they're "the economic elite" is just mad hyperbole.

Just for the hell of it: median income in Ontario (by family type) 2006 figures

A) Persons not in census-families (essentially anyone who is single, not raising children, although this is distorted by inclusion of widowed seniors) $23,900

B) Couple families (spouse or spousal equivalent, can be with or without children) $73,900

C) Single parent families $33,400

D) All families (B+C) $66,600

 

So, peanuts = ??????

Damn, no class bias here.

bagkitty wrote:

Just for the hell of it: median income in Ontario (by family type) 2006 figures

A) Persons not in census-families (essentially anyone who is single, not raising children, although this is distorted by inclusion of widowed seniors) $23,900

B) Couple families (spouse or spousal equivalent, can be with or without children) $73,900

C) Single parent families $33,400

D) All families (B+C) $66,600

 

So, peanuts = ??????

Damn, no class bias here.

Well I wouldnt necessarily say "peanuts" but I also certainly wouldn't call someone the "economic elite" when they're making 80 grand a year. Or even a little over 100. It doesn't go all that far in places like Palo Alto or Cambridge, that's for sure. If certain people want to imagine that academics are feasting on champagne and caviar every nightand lighting their Cohibas with c-notes, they can persist in their delusion but it's really not the case.

I've been a full professor for a long time, and make a substantial salary, though not as much as I would if I were at York...but my living expenses are a lot less than if I lived in Toronto .... I don't think university professors are an "economic elite," though they are certainly well paid. 

What we are is a "job elite."  I don't there's another line of work that combines a good salary with an almost total absence of job pressure (once you have tenure, and if you follow some fairly loose requirements, no one can ever tell you what to do, and you are essentially unfireable).

Moreover, if you are good at what you do, and like it, there's no better way to earn an income.  I've always felt lucky to have my job.

 

Quote:

although this is distorted by inclusion of widowed seniors

 

Yes, we tend to cause major distortions everywhere we go.

 

If people really think that class gets sorted out by people who make 30 thou sniping at people who make 80, then we might as well give up left politics altogether. Class, and potential political consciousness, are defined by relation to the means of production and to capital. Yes, it's true that we're all earning different bits and pieces, some of us a lot more than others, and that never seems fair in moral or intellectual terms, but that's how capitalism sticks it to the wage slaves. If you think you're going to change that by destroying unions and academic freedom just because some workers are still benefiting from older forms of organization, then we're finished, just finished. Forget politics and head for the hills.

Closing for length