The Point of a Pseudonym, However Many Years Later

(But before I begin, you'll all be happy to note that I'm actually feeling quite chipper this morning and not rant-y and complain-y. Only two weeks left of the semester! Hooray! And then finals week! Yippee! This semester will come to an end! This is not to say that I won't whine or complain as these three weeks transpire - I likely will. And I do recognize how lucky I am - blah blah blah - it's just to say that even the lucky ones get into a funk every now and again. This semester, I've been in a bit of a funk. My job's been stressing me out, and I'm cranky. Some of my reasons for that are good, some less so. Whatever. It's my blog and I'll whine if I want to. Suffice it to say that this morning I don't feel like whining.)

So yesterday, riffing on this post by Tenured Radical, Historiann posted about blogging before tenure, and the conversation turned to pseudonyms and the idea that nothing on the internet is private and such in the comments. I thought all day yesterday trying to formulate a response, but everything I started typing seemed like me rehashing crap I'd already written about blogging and pseudonymity in the past. (And I'm too lazy to link to myself, so whatever. I've said a lot of stuff. You can search the blog if you'd like to read all that.)

But this morning, I feel like I've figured out what it is I actually have to write about these issues that isn't just recycled stuff. And it begins with this issue of the pseudonym.

Now, I've overtly outed myself (like accidentally wrote my real name instead of "Dr. Crazy" a couple of times), I've slightly outed myself (made myself easily find-outable), and I've had super-sleuth readers figure out who I am (which isn't all that hard). I've told people who I am. A lot of people. Professional type colleagues from other institutions, blog readers, other bloggers, friends, some former students, some colleagues. No, not everybody I work with knows about the blog. Mainly because it's a hobby. It's not some deep, dark secret, but just as I don't tell acquaintance-type colleagues about the ins and outs of my other hobbies and personal life activities, I don't announce to them that I blog. But so if all these people know the non-super-hero identity of Dr. Crazy, then why bother with the pseudonym at all?

1. When I started blogging, I chose the pseudonym on a whim. Everybody was doing it. I didn't know of anybody who wrote the kind of blog I wanted to write under her professional name. I had no interest in breaking new ground by being the first (esp. as I didn't have tenure). And I had no interest in writing a "professional" academic blog. I figure if I'm going to write stuff that edges toward the scholarly, I'm going to just write conference papers and journal articles and books. I also liked the idea that this was something that would not count toward tenure, promotion, or annual review. That this would not be another line on the cv. I still like that.

2. But I think it's important to note that just because I write under a different name I'm under no illusions that this is not "public" writing or that my real life self isn't accountable for what gets written under the Dr. Crazy moniker. What the pseudonym does, though, is that it creates a definite separation between "professional identity" and "personal identity." Think of it like this. If I go out for drinks with my friends, and I'm in a bar, I'm in "public." I'm accountable for my actions and for what I say. But at the same time, I'm not in a professional context. I'm in a social context. While it's true that something that happened in a social context could have bearing on my professional life, most of the time, that's not going to be the case. The problem with online identity is that there isn't the clear physical distance between professional and personal, if one uses the same name for both. Google doesn't distinguish between "here this person is writing socially" and "here this person is writing professionally." And let's face it: this profession invades lots of parts of our personal lives. In order to write about stuff that isn't necessarily cv-worthy, I need to create some sort of physical distinction between my cv-worthy identity and my social identity, in a medium that has no physical boundaries. The pseudonym is the way that I found to do that. When people talk about the use of pseudonyms in blogging, though, they often talk about those who write under pseudonyms as wanting to be unaccountable or as being stupidly naive about the potential to keep their real life identities "secret." Look, if I wanted to be private, I wouldn't be blogging. Just as I wouldn't go out with friends to get a drink if I didn't want to be out in public. But just because I'm out in public doesn't equal that I want all of my public activities to be part of my annual review.

3. So when it comes to the question of whether blogs should be considered in people's professional evaluation, in my case, the answer is I don't see why anybody would be assisted by evaluating this blog in that way. Sure, people would find out things about how I feel about my job on a given day from it, or they would find out my attitudes about the broader profession. But you know, people find that stuff out from what I communicate directly to them. I've written nothing here - even in my more whiny posts - that I've not said directly to my colleagues (though more often with less cursing). And I don't need the blog to beef up my cv. But do I care if people know about the blog? Eh, not really. It's just not really relevant in most contexts that I write it.

4. But so you may be wondering why I don't link the blog to my professional identity, esp. now that I've achieved tenure, when so many people know the real-life lady behind the pseudonym anyway. If I've got nothing to hide, you might say, I should do that. Well. I've thought long and hard about that. Pre-tenure I had fantasies that I would do so. But I haven't. Why? Well, partly it's because I've grown attached to the identity of Dr. Crazy. (And, as Historiann wrote, that name is a sort of "brand" in the academic blogosphere, and it would be weird if I monkeyed with that.) In this space, I've developed a particular voice, a particular persona, that feels comfortable, and I'm afraid that I'd lose that if I slapped my name all over the thing. Also, I still like the fact that the pseudonym preserves a distinction between work-writing and social-writing, which I think is good for me. But there's another reason, too. It's also that I've found that many readers like to think of Dr. Crazy as Dr. Crazy. Even when they learn my "real name," they often think of me as "Dr. Crazy" or feel uncomfortable addressing me by my actual name. This is true in both directions, meaning that I've revealed the fact that I'm "Dr. Crazy" to some real-life friends who had been reading the blog not knowing it was me, and that I've revealed my real-life name to some readers who didn't know me outside of the blog. I think that people for the most part like to think of Dr. Crazy as Dr. Crazy. And I'm ok with that. Since I don't have any desire to claim the blog professionally, I don't really see the point in sticking my professional name on it.

Here's the thing: blogging before tenure is not really this controversial thing. Lots of people do it. And even blogging with a pseudonym isn't exactly some controversial move, or doesn't have to be. Both are writing choices, like any other writing choices. I think at the end of the day you've just got to be clear that when you make choices in writing that goes out to an audience that you're responsible for them and that you may be expected to account for them in a variety of contexts, and maybe even contexts that you didn't originally anticipate.

Follow-Up: Some Things about Academic Employment

FrauTech left a lengthy comment to my ranting post about tenure and adjunctification, and I wanted to respond, if not to each and every point, point by point, then at least in a general fashion to the comment.

Before I begin, let me put the caveat in place that I'm definitely talking from my experience at a regional, non-selective, primarily undergrad-focused university. All of this stuff is not one-size-fits-all, and it's important to acknowledge that. Also, I think it's important to acknowledge that things vary by discipline, and they vary by status within the academy (adjunct vs. full-time contract lecturer vs. t-t vs. tenured). So I'm very much talking as a person in a humanities discipline, at a non-selective state school, who now has tenure but who recently was yet to be tenured. And yes, I think all of that matters.

So, FrauTech writes,

"Implying that faculty would not devote anything on contract would be implying that ALL the employees of for profit and non-profit companies in at will states are not contributing anything or innovating anything. Which is patently untrue. The pay gap is not so large as to explain this discrepancy (unless you mean a paygap between humanities in industry, b/c i'm not sure where outside of academia that is a viable career)."

Ok, so here's the thing. I was totally ranting in my post, and when I get on a rant, I oversimplify. I become sometimes stupidly polemical. So let me be clear: I do not think that people on a contract would not devote anything to their jobs. Rather, I think that tenure allows us to, and encourages us to, particularly in those fields that are not so much about professions for students but those that are about a broad, liberal arts education, devote ourselves differently. It's not that contribution or innovation are impossible when one does not have the security of tenure. If that were true, then I'd not have contributed or innovated anything in the past 6 years. But I do think that this is where discipline matters. FrauTech is in engineering. This puts one in a very different position from a person who is, say, an English professor. First, in a discipline like engineering, there is an outside market value to ones labors. This matters. This is not to say that there is not value to the skill-set that I possess, but rather that the particular skill-set that I practice day-to-day within my job as a professor does not really translate in an obvious way to employment outside the academy. Now let me be clear: this is not because I'm not qualified to do other jobs. But, whatever those jobs might be aren't in one-to-one relation to the degrees that I hold. An English degree, in itself, qualifies a person for no particular profession. A journalism degree does. An engineering degree does. A degree in, say, marketing, does. And the longer that I stay in academic employment, the less employable I become outside of the academy. Because what I do in my academic job is so different from what I might do in another job, this makes me less amenable to the idea of academic employment without tenure. (And I'm not just saying this because I've now got tenure - I felt the same way before I had a tenure-track job, which is why I was resistant to adjuncting. This is not to cast aspersions on those who do adjunct or who have adjuncted, but rather to say that for me, it always felt like a path that wouldn't be good.)

But so if I don't mean that employees without tenure (whether they are in a "permanent" position or whether they are on semester-long contracts) contribute nothing (to their institutions, to broader knowledge, whatever) then what do I mean? I mean, and this is coming from a very field-specific place here, that what one contributes depends on the conditions of one's employment. (We were reviewed each and every year toward tenure, which may make a difference here. In other words, the way tenure works at my institution, I could have been fired at any time pre-tenure - it wasn't like I had three years to prove myself before I came up for a contract renewal.) Example: pre-tenure, I did not serve on potentially contentious or political committees, regardless of their import. This is not to say that I did not do service - I did service in spades. But, and I'd say rightly, I did not put myself in a position to make enemies when it came time for review. So I "served" my institution, and I contributed to things, but I did not risk my neck. I did not risk my livelihood or my professional future. (I've only started taking risks since the tenure binder was in.)

Similarly, my research agenda was shaped by the fact that I didn't have a stable position until this year. Don't let the fact that I published a book obscure that fact - that happened only because I wrote a very-close-to-book-manuscript dissertation (with the aid of my diss adviser and readers). I did not need a book for tenure. What I needed was a couple of journal articles and a number of conference presentations. And so, that was where all of my "new" research energy was focused. Now, did those articles contribute to my field? I hope so. But I'm in a "book" field. The fact of the matter is, one cannot embark on a completely new book project pre-tenure, devote oneself to that, and hope to get tenure. Because the reality is that teaching a 4/4 load, with no pre-tenure sabbatical, means that it is very unlikely that one would finish the book before one went up for tenure. And so one can't, in my field, reasonably expect to make the kind of scholarly contribution that is most valued while being secure in one's job. (This is not to say that people without tenure don't write books: they do. But it is to say that spending one's time on a book that doesn't find its way to a contract can get people fired. It's also to say that the only people I know who have managed to produce books not related to the dissertation without stable employment (i.e., tenure) have done so because they were not the sole breadwinner in their household.) This is not to say that those writing articles aren't contributing to broader knowledge, to their institutions, to the profession. They surely are. But it is to say that the contribution is different, and differently weighted, than if those same people were writing books.

Finally, I do think that one's teaching, in those disciplines that serve general education requirements, is intimately tied to one's employment status. If one is adjuncting 4 courses - let's say two sections of comp and two sections of intro to lit- at 2 or three different institutions, each about 30 mins. away from one another, that is going to affect the way that one chooses to teach those four courses. In contrast, if one is on the tenure-track, or tenured, and teaching those same four courses, but at only one institution, and if one knows that he or she will also teach upper-level courses in his or her specialization in a subsequent semester, he or she might choose to teach the course differently. This is not to say that adjuncts are sub-par teachers. They're not. It is just to say that one's choices as a teacher are affected by the conditions of one's labor. If I didn't have my own office, I would be much less likely to hold mandatory individual conferences with my students. If I were teaching across two or three institutions, I would be less likely to develop content suited to the student body at one of those institutions in particular. Now, you might say, but what about those full-time "permanent" faculty without tenure? I will say that the teaching of those faculty members tends to be much more parallel to the ladder faculty, in that they do have more commitment to the institution, to its students, and more commitment from the institution. But, if you're never teaching a course outside of gen-ed requirements that relates to your own specialization, then your teaching is going to be much less linked to your own intellectual life and to your own area of expertise. When I was a student, I know that I responded much more to those faculty who were passionate about the content that they taught. And passion isn't something that happens by accident, or something that is just magical. It's something that is totally affected by the conditions of one's working life. Again, this isn't to say that there aren't great part-time and full-time adjunct instructors. There are. And it's not to say that none of those people have passion when they teach. They do. It's just the conditions of their labor do not inspire that. And thus, we can't expect inspired teaching from those people. If they offer up inspired teaching, that's a bonus. It's not part of the job that they've been hired to do.

Finally, a last thing about "permanent" contract people. The reality in academic hiring currently is that when budget cuts happen, "permanent" people without tenure are let go. This has happened to a number of my "permanent" colleagues in the past two years. Not because they did something wrong, or because they didn't fulfill the duties of their jobs. Just because there were cuts, and somebody had to go. Sure, in theory, the decision was made on performance. But in reality, none of those people were let go because of performance: they were let go because we were told from on high that we had to eliminate x number of instructors. This had nothing to do with the teaching needs of the department (our enrollments have increased, not decreased), nor with the performance of individual people. That's the reality of that kind of contract. Those people's courses are now being taught by part-timers, because part-timers cost less.

FrauTech also writes:

"Faculty DO benefit from a flexible schedule, whether they are tenured or adjunct. This is not disimilar to exempt employees hired, again, At Will by private industry. Yes you end up working a lot more than 40 hours a week. Give it up, everybody in this country except the unemployed are working those hours. And b/c they are exempt, they also are only paid for the 40 hours a week."

You know, I've got to say, this whole "academics benefit from a flexible schedule" argument is something that always irritates me. On the one hand, it's true: we're only in the classroom for x amount of hours, which is much fewer than a person would be in a cubicle in a 9-5 job. But let me talk about my own experience a little.

I am in the F2F classroom this semester for 9 hours per week. In theory, this would mean that I am flexible for 159 hours per week. Sounds grand, right? Who wouldn't want that schedule? But let's consider further. I've also got 3 office hours per week, plus 3 hours of committee work per week. This puts me at 153. Take into account 3 miscellaneous hours in any given week (meeting with my chair, other committee meetings that don't happen weekly), and we're at 150. Ridiculously flexible, right? I've also got to spend at least 6 hours a week dealing with email. That puts us at 144. And then let's consider my online class. I'll generously estimate that this takes but 4 hours a week. So we're at 140. Oh, but prep and grading. Let's minus approximately 15 hours per week, although that assumes I'm not reading anything new, which puts us at 125. That's 37 hours per week. Oh, but I've not counted any sort of research in there. And research is required by my job. Let's lump any reading for class in with research-related stuff, and let's put that at about 15 hours per week, which leaves us at 110, and then let's add in writing letters of recommendation, being a good department citizen by attending events, etc., and let's say that's an extra 3 hours per week in a given semester. This puts us at 107. This means that on average, I'm working 61 hours a week. And let's note that I was being generous in my calculations.

First, let me say this: I'm not saying that people in other professions don't work a similar amount. But many people, even in this current economy, don't. My friend who's a director of annual giving at a non-profit? Doesn't. My friend who's a high school English teacher (who actually makes a comparable salary to me?) doesn't. My friend who's a photographer for a university? Not so much. My friend who works in the insurance industry (and who makes a gajillion dollars more than me)? No dice. My parents don't. My cousins don't. My aunt, who works for a medical school as a high-level administrator, doesn't. Nor does her husband who is a union negotiator. I know lots of people who make good money - and some who don't make great money but who are doing just fine, thanks - who totally don't work more than 40 hours a week, as a rule. Now, is this to say that I shouldn't work more than 40 hours a week. NO. This is just to say that an incentive for me to do so is tenure.

Further, the "flexibility" of academia is relative. Yes, it's true that I went and got my hair cut on Tuesday morning. I didn't have to be anyplace before noon. Yes, this is a benefit. If I need to take care of banking, or of other errands, I can do so on a weekday afternoon. But this "flexibility" is not all that it seems. The "flexibility" of my schedule this semester means that I'm putting in 12 hour days (on campus) 2 days a week, not by my choice. "Flexibility" means that I'm expected to be at a 9 AM meeting and then at a 2 PM meeting because I'm "free" (I don't teach that day) even if I was there 12 hours the day before. This semester, I've mostly been in the office 5 days a week. Yes, some days I'm there only for a few hours. Yes, I'm not committed to being there from 9-5. But the way that it's working out is that I'm there at least 30 hours a week, for shit that's not my choice, plus working at home when I'm not in the office. For part-time adjuncts, "flexibility" means teaching when you're needed, regardless of preference or of your other needs. (This is one of the most hideous things for part-timers - trying to negotiate schedules across institutions, or with child-care or other commitments. Being an adjunct isn't like this awesome flexible job. Oh, and let's note, adjuncts at my institution in my discipline make around 2K a course. Is this really comparable to salaried employees outside of academe? Really?)

And lastly, regarding flexibility, while there is flexibility in a given work-week, academia is incredibly inflexible when it comes to needing time that is more than a few hours. When my father died, I cancelled but one day of classes. This is not because I was ready to be back in the classroom, but rather because there was nobody qualified to teach the material I was teaching, and had I missed more, I'd have had to cut content from the course. Which would have hurt students. There are no subs in college teaching. There is no "vacation" time and there are no "personal days." I've got a HUGE amount of sick time accrued. You know why? Because I can't get sick. There's nobody to do my job if I do. So yeah, I've got the flexibility to get my hair cut on a Tuesday morning. And this being me, with tenure. But if I really needed time, if it weren't over the 4 weeks over Christmas or over the summer break? If I had a real reason to take some time off? Nah, that shit better happen on the academic calendar.

Here's the thing: I'm not at all saying tenure is perfect, or that this system serves all people equally. It's not, and it doesn't. But I value it (precisely because I have it, I should note. I know that I'm in a privileged position here). Sure, without tenure, people would still strive to do good work. I'm not even saying that good work can't happen without tenure. What I am saying, and what I truly believe, is that work would be shaped by different things if tenure were not in place. What would matter would be keeping one's contract, and that would shape one's productivity - not the higher ideals about what students should learn. People would still make important contributions to their institutions, to their fields, to the profession as a whole. But those contributions would be influenced by the prospect of contract renewal (or non-renewal) at the end of the day. Is that really what we want shaping higher education - as opposed to what we believe is best for students, even if that "best" is not the most economically or politically advantageous?

What I want is what is best for my students, best for my field, and best for my institution. I don't know that I could want those things without tenure. I think that without tenure I'd only think about what was best for me.

(Though maybe that makes me an asshole? I don't think it does, though. I think it makes me reasonable.)

Time to Stop Relaxing and to Head into the Home Stretch

So, I've been basically powered down since Wednesday. The Thanksgiving meal was unbelievable, though there was some drama with my parents which I could have done without. (Long story short: I think that G.'s health ain't great and that he's not taking care of himself properly, but since he likes to be secretive about such things, well, drama.) In other news, I've basically spent the past 3 days resting, watching TV, and napping. I've been disconnected from blogs, from facebook, from the news, and even from the phone, for the most part. I think that this was a much-needed break that will energize me for the coming end of the semester.

So today, I awakened after 10 hours of sleep (that's right - 10) and I've got things to do.

1. Grading.
2. Make list of things to accomplish this week.
3. Finalize a couple of syllabi and send them off to my dept. curriculum committee for review.
4. Scheduled chat with online class.
5. Laundry (though this may wait until tomorrow).
6. Pay bills (probably tomorrow morning).
7. Prep for classes this week.
8. Make arrangements for summer conference (tomorrow morning, most likely).
9. Put up Christmas tree and nativity.
10. Maybe make list for Christmas cards. Maybe.

Oh, and my favorite crap Lifetime movie is airing at noon - A. called this morning to alert me to this. I shall watch it while catching up with grading. Huzzah!

I really can't wait for this semester to be done. I've been in a funk for this whole semester, I feel like, and I'm sick of it. Actually, I'm sick of this whole stinking year. Time for this year to be done and to move on to bigger and better things.

The Menu

So I've been busily cooking for the past couple of hours, and I should be done with the do-aheadable stuff (other than the pumpkin pie, which I'll make when my mom arrives later) by 1 this afternoon. I thought you all might like to take a gander at my menu for this Thanksgiving.

• Golden Delicious Apple and Cheddar Turnovers with Dried Cranberries. Good for breakfast (I should know - I had to "test" one since it was a new recipe this morning), good for dessert. Just plain good. And easy. And even if your turnovers look like crap when you put them in the oven, by magic they look like they come from a magazine when you remove them from the oven.
  
• Green Beans and Walnuts with Lemon Vinaigrette.
• Turkey, obviously.
• My little grandma's giblet gravy. (Comes out perfect every time! And you don't have to make a roux!)
  
• Mashed potatoes. This year I decided to do baby yukon gold and leave the skins on because I didn't feel like peeling.
  
• Mashed rutabaga, what my little grandma would have called "turnip" although it's a rutabaga and not turnips.
• Stuffing. (I don't do anything fancy with stuffing. No chestnuts, no sausage, no oysters, no corn-bread. Just plain old white bread stuffing with some celery, carrot, and onion. Salt and pepper. Chicken stock. Oh, and then there's the ton of butter that is what makes it delicious. And eggs for binding. But I'm a stuffing purist. I don't need no stinkin' pancetta or mushrooms or nuts or what have you in my stuffing.)
• Roasted Brussels Sprouts with Walnuts and Pecorino.
• Sweet Potato Gratin.
  
• Pumpkin Pie. (I use the How to Cook Everything recipe for both crust and filling.)

So what will you be having?

Tenure and the Adjunctification of Higher Ed

Ok, I had vowed to myself that I wasn't going to enter the fray (or not really enter the fray, even though did, sort of, already). But I can't just let it go (even though I've tried all day, sort of, to let it go, since my initial comment). So, I'm going to write this and get it out of my system.

First, let me state for the record that I'm not saying the hiring structure of higher ed isn't fucked up. It is totally fucked up. The tenure system isn't fair, nor is it about merit, nor does it serve all students or all institutions in the way that it is "supposed" to (however that is). Higher education generally exploits a vast number of people (especially in my own field, English) in order to achieve its ends (giving the largest number of students possible a college degree). This is not because higher education is a meritocracy, in which people who are "worthy" get ladder jobs. This is because higher education is not willing or able, for the number of students it enrolls today, to pay all of its workers a living wage. And it's not willing to do so because it doesn't have to and because it's not feasible within the current structure of higher education to do so.

Here is, to quote a recent post of mine, why I think tenure matters:

"You know why tenure matters? Above and beyond academic freedom in scholarship and in the classroom? It matters because when we don't have strong administrative leadership, and I suspect this happens at all institutions in a variety of contexts at one time or another, somebody needs to be able to speak up, loudly and clearly, on behalf of students, on behalf of faculty, and on behalf of the future of the institution. Tenure has made little difference to me in terms of my scholarship or my teaching. I have never felt in jeopardy in those areas, and I think my institution values my autonomy in those areas. Where tenure has meant the most to me is that I don't have to hold back at all when it comes to fighting bullshit that will hurt my university, my colleagues, or my students. Now, my loud and contentious voice may not make any difference. But at the very least I do have the power to say my piece without fear of losing my job. And since I'm being put in a position where I'm being expected to "participate in" (read: authorize) things that entirely contravene our mission and our values, then I need that power and I need to use it."

But, there are those out there who believe that "THE SYSTEM IS DYING." And their alternative is eliminating tenure in favor of multiyear contracts. And these people believe, when somebody objects to their claims, that those people are clearly "elitists" who don't actually engage with the arguments that they make. So let me try to address some things, which I think are really important in this conversation.

1) I don't think that tenure makes a person "elite" or "elitist." I think that there are lots of different versions of tenure, at lots of different kinds of institutions. At my institution, tenure means no TAs, teaching four courses a semester, teaching composition, teaching general studies lit classes, and maybe teaching one course in one's actual field of specialty per semester, if one is lucky enough for that course to make enrollment. Tenure (or even just being on the tenure track) means immense service obligations. Tenure means doing research above and beyond all of that. Tenure does mean job security, and benefits (and I don't dismiss these as solid, important benefits), but it also means making a salary of, after tenure, someplace around 60K a year, if one is lucky. I've got friends who are ladder faculty who were hired in originally (recently) in the 30s who will be lucky to see 50K at tenure, and this is in higher cost-of-living places than the one in which I'm located. And this is with the sometimes massive student loan debt that going on for a PhD can entail. Yes, named professors do better. But most tenured faculty don't have named professorships. Let's be real about what the realities of what most of the tenured professoriate's job situations look like. Oh, and for most tenured professors, at least in my field - there is no prospect of switching jobs.

2) While it is true that "it's easier to get out of a bad marriage than to get out of a bad tenure decision" I would also argue that since you have six years before you give a person tenure, during which that person is on probation, then if a bad decision is made, given that time-frame, it's probably the fault of the tenure process at the institution. (And I'd argue that more bad tenure decisions are made in the negative - in terms of not granting people tenure who deserve it - than the reverse.) The whole point of the tenure process is that it's a vetting process. In theory, the tenure process should ensure that you don't hire anybody on long-term who would be a shit employee. If you do, that's not the fault of tenure - that's a fault of the process at a particular institution. I mean, seriously - if you can't figure it out in six years, then how would you be able to figure it out to fire people on a 5-year contract cycle? Unless, of course, the idea is to fire people who are old. 'Cause you know those old people are obviously deadwood. (Though let me note that one of the most productive and active in all areas people in my department has been around since the early 1970s, but obviously, the point here isn't productivity or activity - it's the corporate bottom-line.)

3) If one thinks that somebody on a 5-year teaching contract is going to give a shit about the institution and its future, then they are either woefully naive or actively stupid. If I were on a 5-year contract, I can tell you with utmost certainty that I would not have invested what I have done in curricular development, in service to my university's campus community or community generally, in directing undergraduate research. I'd do what I needed to get the best teaching evals. possible and I would be busting my ass on research, for I'd need to be ready if my institution screwed me to go elsewhere, and research is what allows a person (at least today) to go elsewhere. The fact of the matter is, the work of ladder faculty that is most important, given the adjunctification of higher ed in the past 20 years, is not teaching, nor is it research. It's service. The only incentive for that service, as far as I can tell, is tenure. Tenure binds a person to an institution and to that institution's community. You want to pay me by the hour for the non-teaching and non-research work that I do? Rock on with that. I'd be making more than I currently make. But until and unless that part of my job is acknowledged, I'll take tenure, thanks. Tenure makes it reasonable for me to give a shit about the institution. Without tenure? I'd be stupid if I did.

4) If you want to reduce the number of adjuncts, the first step is in looking at curriculum. If you insist on a curriculum that you can't staff, you're going to have a large percentage of adjunct (or grad student) faculty. If you make a curriculum that you can support with ladder faculty, then that problem becomes smaller (if not disappears). This might mean that not every breathing American can attend college.

5) Graduate schools need to admit fewer people, if what we want is a fairly compensated professoriate. When I enrolled in my well-respected Ph.D. program in the 90s, my entering cohort had a number of 7. They'd already made the choice only to admit those they could fund, and those whom they could ostensibly ensure would get jobs. That's where we start to deal with the problem of hiring in higher ed in my opinion - not with doing away with tenure.

***

Here's the thing, if getting rid of tenure could (a) definitely ensure more people a living wage and benefits, (b) ensure faculty governance within universities, (c) ensure the birth of new ideas, original research, and a safe space for politically volatile areas of inquiry, and (d) ensure investment on the part of faculty members in the mission of their respective universities, there wouldn't be a problem. The issue is, for me, is that those I've heard argue on behalf of getting rid of tenure have not addressed a, b, c, or d. Address, those, and I could well be your champion. For now? I think you're construing the work of professors as being only the work that they do in the classroom. If that were the only work I did, fine. But it's not. Let me state this clearly and for the record: I'm in the F2F classroom a mere 9 hours a week, in the online classroom a mere 3 hours. On top of that is grading and prep - let's say that accounts for another 12 hours, which adds up to 24 hours a week,. If we count my other work though - writing rec. letters, serving on committees, doing research, keeping myself abreast of what's happening at my institution and within my field of specialization - I'm working probably 60-80 hours per week during the academic year (which, let's note, is all that I'm paid for).

I love my job. I love my university. I love my students. But the reality is, if I didn't have tenure I'd not invest anywhere near as much. Who would? For this salary? And you'd have to hire somebody to do all of the shit that I do that isn't related to teaching and research. Because, seriously? You really think I'm going to give all of that away for free? Even though I'm an English professor and the market is glutted and whatever? I'd temp first. I'm not saying that for rhetorical effect: that's exactly what I did rather than adjuncting full-time when I ran out of funding in my PhD program. It paid better.

Thinking Positive Thoughts on a Monday

This week is all about detachment, for me. After a few days of decompressing, it occurs to me that it's time for me to take a step back, to stop being stressed out about things related to work, and to revel in the short week that lies ahead. Indeed, perhaps it is a time for giving thanks, what with it being nearly Thanksgiving and all. Indeed, I'm going to get all Gratitude-Journal-y and shit. So what is Crazy thankful for?

1. That I am not in the middle of some stupid internet brouhaha. It's that time of the semester, kids, but all of my focus on real-life brouhahas has kept me out of the fray on teh internets. Ah, it is a pleasure to be basically irrelevant. (And I'm not linking because I am really staying out of it. I'm a casual and disinterested bystander. It is glorious.)
   
2. I'm glad that I have played and continue to play a positive role in curricular development both within my department and across my institution. Yes, it's been painful, but it's also been very rewarding. And now the bulk of my work is done with that stuff (though there are some loose ends to tie up).
   
3. I'll see my parents this week! Yay Parents of Crazy!
4. I had a great happy hour phone date with my dad's sister last night. I'm so glad that she and I are back in close touch again.
   
5. The semester is almost over! Only a few more weeks and it will be winter break!
6. I heard from a former student who had been considering grad school in English, and he's decided not to go in that direction! Hooray!
7. I've completed nearly all of the Thanksgiving shopping, and I'm looking ahead to a day of working on recommendations and taking care of some things around the house.

All in all, lots to be thankful for. (Don't worry, I'll get back to my regularly scheduled whining as soon as something irritating happens. I'm not like a whole different person or something.)

In Which Facebooking Elevates the Content of the Blog (Only to Make the Facebook Content Lame)

Alright. So in two particular ways, I do think that my participation in Fb has been good for the content of this here blog.

#1 Facebook takes care of my need to take quizzes, as well as of my meming needs. No longer do I litter up this space with quiz results or with memes.
#2 A lot of my general complaints now get sent the way of facebook status updates, as opposed to making it onto this here blog (I'm not Fb friends with immediate work colleagues, which contributes to this).

Except, apparently over the past few weeks, I've become a Facebook Vortex of Negativity. On the one hand, I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. It's a way for me to get the negativity out without devoting much time or space or thought to it. On the other hand, it really sucks, as it means that all many people (aunts, cousins, friends from elementary school, high school friends, etc.) hear from me is bitching. That's not really on, I'm not thinking. On the other hand, perhaps it's better than uber-positive updates about knitting projects and other erstwhile accomplishments, which annoy the fuck out of me when I read them in my own newsfeed, if they're not also tempered with things that aren't like "hey, look how great my life is! I'm so great! Can't you tell how great I am from my status updates!" which I read as disingenuous.

What's sort of interesting is that while there is some overlap between my blog audience and my Fb audience, there's also a lot of disparity. This disparity makes for some of the reason why I post some things here and some things there. Weirdly, I'm more public on the blog than I am on Fb, even though my name is not technically linked to the blog. I think that more people know who Dr. Crazy is in real life than are my friends on Fb. In fact, I know that's likely true. So the persona on the blog has in fact, since Fb, become more of a persona, whereas the real shit is obliquely and yet more accurately recorded through my Fb status updates. The result, however, is that real life people are worried that I'm super-duper stressed all the time, perhaps in part because they don't have access to the blog. Fb has become my dumping ground, whereas I think about a wider range of things on the blog, or at least a less immediate range of negative things.

So. I think I'm going to try for the next while not to be a vortex of negativity on Fb, while at the same time I don't let my negative feelings bleed over in stupid ways onto the blog. This is not to say that I won't feel the negative things, for clearly, that would be fucked up, to shut off the negative things that I genuinely feel. But rather that I won't poison other people so much with my negative things, whether on Fb or here.

Look, it's the end of the semester. I'm tired. I've applied for a ton of things for the coming semester and year (sabbatical, summer fellowship, course release, other monies) and I know about none of those yet. The only one I feel fairly secure in is sabbatical, and even that I wonder whether I'll get it, because I feel so downtrodden and abused lately. And I've been working like a dog. I'm pissed off, pretty much all the time. Not because of students or because of my job itself or even most of the time because of colleagues. It's just that I've been working so hard and I need tangible, concrete acknowledgment and reward for the work that I do. I know raises aren't happening anytime soon, and I know that times are tough. I know that nothing right now is a done deal, regardless of merit. But I've worked so hard and I've sacrificed so much and if none of my ships come in? Seriously? Who knows how I'll handle that. Because I need at least one of these to happen, I need at least some acknowledgment that somebody at this institution gets how much my work means. Especially since I recognize that I'm basically stuck here for the duration, given the economy and higher ed funding and the fact that I'm a tenured lady and given my field.

Here's the thing: I've got a lot of colleagues, senior to me, junior to me, across the university and within my department, who know that the work that I do matters. I got a lovely email from my chair today, even, complimenting me on my hard work. All of these people give me tons and tons of praise. And that means so much, in its way. But none of that is acknowledgment from the institution. Sure, I got tenure, and maybe I should be happy with that, but I'm not. Tenure here doesn't necessarily mean that upper administration gets it. Let's face it: tenure here is sort of a de facto position. It only means that you didn't suck enough to be denied. I want acknowledgment beyond my award of tenure. And maybe that makes me greedy, but that's how I feel. How I feel is like I need more than tenure. I need funding, I need time. I need the support to do the things that I can potentially do. And if that support doesn't come? I feel like I'm very close to giving up. I feel like I'm very close to checking out. I feel like I'm very close to becoming the kind of professor that I despise.

Lately, all of these feelings are very evident in my Fb updates, though I've been trying (though not always successfully) to keep this crap away from the blog. It's not good reading. I think that perhaps some positive thinking is in order. I think that perhaps giving in to the negativity will produce negative results.

MLA? I Know It's Early But....

We need to organize a meet-up, people! If you're interested, email me at reassignedtime at gmail. I feel as if it will happen on the evening of the 27th, if only because that will conflict with no one's real life plans. Whatever the case, drop me a note, and then I will organize shenanigans :)