Carl Remick Wrote >I would agree that the academics hereabouts have plenty of explaining to do. >At some point, all this lofty theorizing has to be reduced to humble, >down-and-dirty polemics or it's a waste of time in terms of political >impact. And that's all that matters so far as this list is concerned. No >one is going to get course credit or tenure from posting to the LBO list. ... >The ultimate point of the chitchat here is to frame ideas in such a way that >they stand a chance of transforming and improving society, no? Or is all of >this just ten-finger exercises for the tenure-track folks? In case you hadn't noticed Mr. Davies, Mr. Remick is specifically whigning about graduate students and academics on tenure-track. Remick can't, for a minute, imagine that graduate students and tenure-track academic employees are possibly preoccupied with their scholarship and are, therefore, inclined to discuss theory. Remick can't for a minute imagine that, in their positions, they might simply be too vulnerable to engage in organizing or radical political activities. He can't for even a second, it seems, imagine that that graduate school and tenure-track employment are extraordinarily demanding and leave little time for social lives, families, loved ones, friends let alone political involvement. He seems unaware that professors often look askance at such involvements as distracting for the serious student and that, therefore, those who are involved must be less than serious. Given that, those professors pass them over for others who demonstrate their seriousness in more appropriate ways. If they do research that has something to do with their politics, they must often devote extra time to convicing others that they are still objective in their research. I am sure you are familiar with how, when you first started your career, you were expected to spend extraordinary amounts of time demonstrating your committment to Flemings. Likewise in academia. Tenure track professors also must demonstrate their competence to two audiences: their particular university and their particular discipline, through committee work and publications, research, securing of research funding. I think Mr. Remick should explain why he does nothing, why he has, thus far, contributed no valuable ideas other than to wag his fingers at graduate students and tenure-track professors. He seems to think it's okay to admonish them for their lack of political involvement and yet also wants to avoid anyone interrogating him as to why he does not appear to have done anything, does not appear to have gotten or be currently involved in any practical political struggles, nor does he seem to show how he has managed to take a position in his fieldin order to promote left politics. Mr. Remick is obviously intelligent and articulate. It seems to me that he could write persuasively and develop the same ideas he asks graduate students and tenure academics to write in their limited spare time. He prefers to whigne and complain that no one is doing the work he wants done. DANIEL.DAVIES@flemings.com wrote: >Whereas PR professionals, stockbrokers, lawyers, journalists, etc etc get brownie points? The issue at hand was Remick's contention that no one got credit for posting at LBO in their roles as graduate students and tenure track academics. He was suggesting that they did get credit for political involvement. And, he was suggesting that what they should be writing was not academic theory but how to bring about social change in clear, intelligible prose. I have not noticed here that anyone writes in less than clear, intelligible prose. If Mr Remick does understand the theories under discussion that is because he doesn't understand the theories under discussion, not because people don't write intelligibly about them here for the most part. >Dang, nobody gets "credit" for political activity. Academics almost certainly get more than most. I know of no one who gets credit for published political tracts. They get credit for publications in refereed journals. Once they are well-established with such publications, then they can parlay that reputation into writing as public intellectuals. But, they must first have a reputation as someone publishers will think will sell. > At least academics work in an environment where people are not typically sacked for having the wrong political views. They are regularly sacked for this. A male student's complaint against Pauline Bart at UCLA, a complaint having to do with her feminist politics in the classroom resulted in her having been, in her words, "I was "fired"...wihtout using that term, but not from the university...since I was tenured...I could no longer teach sociology or women's studies or have independent studies students." What do you suppose her life is like, given that something that gave her a great deal of satisfaction and meaning has now been taken away from her? Do you think she will get publishing contracts? She still receives a paycheck and that's an advantage the untenured don't have. True. The point remains: she was, effectively, fired. She lost her reputation and status in the wider academic community because of her feminist politics. Even if they have tenure and aren't "fired" political views can mean that they will never receive promotions. They may be shunned and find it difficult to obtain administrative support for their research. They may be turned down for research funding. They may be denied pay raises because they haven't published enough because too involved in politics or their teaching evaluations are poor because they don't devote enough attention to teaching. >Whoa, hang on here. Careers != livelihoods, for a start -- the very >concept of tenure ensures that. Yes, but it doesn't ensure happy working conditions. There is also political suicide in as much as such conditions become so intolerable that professors take early retirement because colleagues, chairs, department staff, graduate students, and administrations can make their lives miserably unbearable. Carl's post, if I interpret it correctly, >contained a mild slight at careerist types who value getting on in the >world more than political activity while portraying their priorities the >other way. No, Carl's post was specifically addressed to graduate students and tenure-track academics. For him, it is all just ten finger exercises unless the writing of these two groups of academics accomplish what he thinks they should be doing with their lives. >Carl, OTOH and IIRC, has mentioned such >things repeatedly. Yes. What does IIRC mean? Billy