Don’t Get Fooled Again

I think this may well be the most amazing sentence I have read all year: “At most private colleges, as well as at public colleges where faculty members have chosen not to form unions or have been precluded from doing so by state law, many faculty members work without union contracts without feeling particularly exploited.” It”s by Peter Schmidt, in a piece appropriately titled, “What Good do Faculty Unions Do“?

Schmidt’ focus on pay risks reinforcing the myth that public employees unions are greedy and over-privileged. Most universities– like most corporations– don’t have unions, and if they do, they fight them at every turn. Exploitation has become routine in too many schools. I have a better question: what would universities be like without union influence? Would tenure even exist anymore?

The current picture isn’t pretty. Many if not most faculty are either non-tenure track or part-time adjuncts. (Here’s a piece on the subject from a few years ago.) Administrations line their pockets and have no interest in economic justice within their own walls. We could all be better organized, but it’s hardly the unions’ fault that the overall trend in the economy is towards lower pay and less power.

This Week in Decadence

I’ve been thinking about the meaning of decadence (after reading about Harold Bloom) a lot this week, and I know my own internal filters are probably to blame, but another piece, “Questions Abound as the College-Rankings Race Goes Global,” has gotten me thinking about a kind of institutionalized cynicism that seems to be typical of contemporary academia…. On the one hand, you have the atomized, self-serving careerism of so many “star” professors like Bloom, and on the other you have the institutional hucksterism represented as much by the profound corruptions of college athletics as by, in this case, so-called college rankings.

Hazelkorn juxtaposes the intellectual poverty of these rankings (“Rankings are essentially one-dimensional…) with their pervasive influence: “… college presidents believe rankings play a significant role in establishing and securing institutional position and reputation… colleges use rankings to help identify potential partners, assess membership of international networks and organizations, and for measuring themselves.” If we put this into historical context– increasing tuition, labor exploitation, and narcissistic professorial stars– we can begin to see why so many suspect some sort of precipitous decline in U.S. higher education.

Public Education as a Social Wage

I realize that’s it’s a sort of “back to the future” idea, but I was reading an article about Diane Ravitch’s speech to The American Association of School Administrators, and I starting thinking about the idea of the social wage, or, rather, the destruction of the social wage. The social wage, according to the dictionary of Marxist terms, is “That part of workers’ means of subsistence which is provided as a free public service rather than purchased.” (You have to scroll down the page to get to the definition.) Republican budget cuts will make us all poorer most dramatically by continuing ongoing cuts in the social wage.

That sounds more narrow than it is. In fact, it’s one of the great human achievements of the last century. The social wage can also be thought of as a kind of standard, or base-line, for material affluence. It’s what everyone deserves (our historical entitlement, what we have earned together) simply for being alive, ideally, or, more practically, because we are citizens of democracies. The social wage includes legal protections, such as work safety and child labor laws, and food safety and minimum wage and work week laws. You could also include transportation infrastructure, as well as public education and pensions.

This is a collective measure of affluence, one that should exist alongside and support individual and family wealth. The ongoing assault on public education is, of course, an assault on the democratic distribution of resources and an acceleration of the concentration of individual wealth. It’s not simply quantitative, though. Here’s Ravitch’s description of those aspects of the social wage that have to improved if we are to improve education: “access to decent medical care; exposure to the arts and physical education programs… science and… nurturing programs for children up to age 5.” It takes a village, as the clichĂ© goes.

Where You Sit

I have a friend who used to say that class was simple to understand; it’s where you sit on the plane. In the front are the big, comfortable seats in first class where they serve wine; the rest of the plain is crowded and the service isn’t so good. You get a soda if you’re lucky. The Chronicle of Higher Education summary of faculty and administrative salaries (Faculty Salaries Vary by Institution Type, Discipline) show that, in academia, class is all about where you sit on the committee.

Charts are never that exciting, of course, but these are worth browsing if only to dispel the myth that high education is a meritocracy, or rather, to dispel the myth that a meritocracy is egalitarian. It’s clearly a self-serving and self-perpetuating system. The gap between the highest paid professors is startling by itself: nearly $200,000 a year at Harvard versus $40,00 for the lowly no-rank instructor at the two year institution. The have protect themselves; the have-not slide farther down.

Even more amazing is that while the rest of the system seemed to be collapsing for lack of finances, and tuition rising, presidential salaries rose about 5 times faster than the rate of inflation. The usual justification for these inflated administrative salaries is that without them schools could not compete for what they call the best talent. I am pretty sure I have said this before: if the best talent is driving our schools into the ground, shouldn’t we redefine “best”?