From time to time, I grab my roommates’ copy of Social Text ,
a largely garbled and incomprehensible journal for the learn-ed to
read while soaking in the bath. I rarely understand more then 50% of
what I read, but somehow I sometimes like the unsubstantiated fluffy
though grandiose narratives of articles, sometimes because they are truly thought provocative, sometimes to remind me that I *never* want to write in that style.

But today, I read a piece that was clear, provocative, depressing, and inspirational. The article, “Tenure Denied: Anti-unionism and Anti-intellectualism in the Academy” by Joel Westheimer recounts how he was basically denied tenure for actively supporting the unionization of graduate students at NYU. After he testified on their behalf, his treatment especially by administration dramatically shifted and soon after he was denied tenure although he was like the cookie cutter candidate for tenure. He had published profusely, was awarded yearly prestigious fellowships, received yearly excellent reviews for tenure, and had the unanimous support from the tenure academic advisory committee. Anyway, he was denied tenure, but thankfully later on after the federal government sued NYU over the fishy tenure proceedings well, NYU lost. It was one of those embarrassingly crystal clear cases of discrimination that was made apparent after certain emails were released after the trial that suggested a strategy for dispelling him after his testimony, a strategy that would indeed be tough given his high qualifications. As he notes in his article:

“Another internal memo between department administrators describes ‘all the high merits that Joel got’ aling with various external awards as a ‘real problem’ and notes the
difficulty of construction a negative evaluation given that
‘Joel is known beyond NYU[and] has the outside ltters.” p. 64

The dumb-ass administrative serving Dean of the Education School of course had to resign. It is great that this professor won and is now a
teacher with tenure in Canada. It also exposes such press releases as shams.

He won but the University is losing as he really shows in this article. I don’t think that the University has been the totally sacred space of independence that people think it is or at least was, but it
is what we should strive for even if an imperfect ideal. This ethos of
independence is being threatened not just by corporate-industry
affiliations which are most relevant to the science but as this
articles shows but the adoption of the corporate mentality of the
administration one that curtails workers rights and intellectual
freedom. As he notes, many departments are making professors reliant
on the administration for money, recognition, and advancement.

I have my problems with tenure (I can’t tell you how many tenured
professors are terrible academics because they, well can’t lost their
job), but it is not such a bad idea. For every 3 lousy professors, if
there is one who is producing high quality work who will not be
punished for his or her work, then the system is worth it. Sure
you can criticize loud and clear without the PhD and the fancy
institution behind your name but it gives power and force to the
critique. And yes, the system can be improved. Like I would prefer
long contracts (ike 25 years) over absolute tenure but the freedom
that tenure gives is one worth holding onto.

Being punished for the expression of one’s political beliefs in
the University is like well, Buddhist monk elders telling their little monk neophytes that they are not shaving their heads to contemplate compassion but to go to war. All right, maybe I am exaggerating but I am pissed and sickened by this case mostly because I know that it is not an isolated expression but an expression of a much deeper problem going on in the field of academics. I don’t want the university to corporatized as is the current trend and I think it is important for academics at all levels to care about it and do something about it. It is our institution not “theirs” and if we don’t do anything about it, it will change right before our eyes. And everyone will lose.

I am about to start an article with my friend Mako about the differences between free and open source and the academy, in part to clarify the unique ethos that the Debian project has. Free software is often conceptualized as an extension of the academic model of openness and freedom and I have always had a problem with this rendition especially since there are significant differences between these domains institutionally and culturally. And after reading this article, something that really struck me is that free software projects don’t have an administration in the same way that the University does and this has implications for the ethics of these projects. Administrations whose interest are often not in line with the interest of the wider community. Granted, universities are complex institutions with a long histories and I am not saying that they should get rid of administration but it is one significant point of difference with the world of free software that has implications for how the ethics of sharing and knowledge creating is carried out.

But given there are administrations, students and faculties should have a watchful eye for the place they call their community. The first week that I went to Columbia University, the administration was planning on taking away need blind admissions which is a damn important little part of the admissions process in imho. As I was walking around the quad my first day there, it was so great to see a bunch of students climbing all over the administrative building, Low Library, breaking in so they could attend the “closed-meeting” on need blind admission. The break-in to the administration building was a powerful statement that ultimately the administration should not be making decisions without the voice of the entire community and that students and professors should make their voice heard. They succeeded, need blind admissions remained, and the University figured out how to route around the financial problem that it caused.

Without meddling at some level, the path towards corporatization will
continue on ward. It is only those in the inside than can and really
can do something about it. I hope that in the few years that I have
left in academics I see this meddling increase.