Right now, I’m editing the Cary Nelson interview and breathlessly awaiting East Coast poll closings, at which point I will open a bottle of local wine (Santa Cruz Mountains) and sink into the spectacle.
Before getting my politico-oenological fix on, I thought I’d share a provocative post from one of my colleagues at Brainstorm, Dan Greenberg. Author of the highly recommended Science for Sale, Greenberg observes that “The university presidency is obsolete, a holdover from long-gone times, like the British monarchy,” and that at a half-million a year, the academic chief executive can be dispensed with.
Even more interesting than the post is the commentary, which attracted some fairly prickly responses, presumably from the administrators among the Chronicle’s readership: “I’d rather Mr. Greenberg write on science and the role of higher education in economic development (his field of scholarship and an issue of substance regarding the purpose of higher education) than this whimsical pointless memo.” (This correspondent then goes on to complain that the only interesting Brainstorm member is [university president] Trachtenberg.)
And then there’s this free-market ideologue:
No one is paid more than they’re worth in a free-market economy. They’re paid exactly what they’re worth. And while faculties make great sport of poking and prodding at the administrative beast, the real narcissism is in assuming that any institution of higher learning of any size or complexity could exist with just a faculty and students. The corporate model may not be perfect, but our emulation of that governance structure has resulted in the most admired and respected system of higher education in the world.
I think HTUW readers don’t need me to dissect that empty ballon.
I’m wholeheartedly with Greenberg’s correspondent #7: “Finally someone pointing out the truth about our academic emperors. Most presidents slithered their way to the top by sucking up and stepping on; therefore they are singularly unqualified to provide what universities need most these days: leadership.”
Where to find leadership, if not in a professional administrative cadre? In the faculty, of course.
But with the key proviso that by faculty, I mean the majority–contingent–faculty.
I’ve long argued that the only way we’ll solve our employment issues is for the disenfranchised majority faculty to seize the reins from management. A “dictatorship of the flexible” would certainly make a few errors. But they wouldn’t be the same colossal dishonesty and greed–the self-interested power & money grab disguised as a free-market fatwah on the faculty, the totalitarianism of the “quality movement” where the word “quality” has the Orwellian meaning of “as cheaply as we can, and 10% cheaper every year”–that we’ve achieved under the gross executive license of the past thirty years.
What do the contingent faculty want? Taken as a group, they generally want security, fair wages, a future–the chance to teach and develop–the chance to spend time with students–the chance to serve and participate in faculty democracy. Solving the problems of the contingent faculty solves a lot of problems for other constituencies–reduces the crazy service load on the tenured minority–provides the prospect of dignified employment for the graduate student–creates a learning and supportive environment for undergraduates, especially in the courses they take in the first two years.
Let’s just put the names of the faculty in a hat and pull out ten at random every year. It worked in Greece, and it can’t be worse than the train wreck we have at present.
Recently:
- Happy Fourth?
- Poverty In Higher Ed
- What I’m Reading Now
- Meet the Trustees, Part 1: Trustees Behind Bars
- They’ll Be Watching You
- Maybe He Can’t
- Academic Labor Bookshelf
- Job Listing #666
- Psst! Forward this Link to Grad Students
- Don’t Miss COCAL VIII
