My fellowship at Brandeis runs out at the end of this semester, and right now it’s pretty unclear where I’ll be teaching come fall — or whether I’ll have a job at all. Like many institutions, Brandeis was hit hard by the Wall St credit collapse (suffering an endowment loss in the double digits), and the Madoff scandal — although not a direct hit — had quite an adverse effect on the fortunes of the school’s biggest donor.
In response, the administration here has been implementing some rather severe austerity measures over the last few months. A full hiring freeze was announced almost immediately, followed by word that even adjuncts would not be hired in the next year. (Tenured faculty will have to pick up the slack: in the Music Dept, that means no ethnomusicologists to teach about the world beyond European/American art music. “I once saw a picture of a sitar,” joked a colleague when it was announced at a recent deptmental meeting that someone in-house would have to cover “world music.”) Coffee and snacks are no longer served at faculty meetings, and the annual holiday party was canceled. To save staff jobs, the (tenured) faculty were even considering donating 1% of their pay.
So what once looked like the reliable promise of a tenure-track job offer for me here — with the support of both the Music and African/Afro-American Studies depts — has disappeared down the “financial crisis” rabbit hole. The fact that other universities are experiencing similar scenarios means that the number of jobs available next year are few and far between, especially if — like a fool like me — one is attempting to limit one’s search to a particular geographical area. You’d think Boston would be a better place than most for that — and it is — but this year things are looking dire everywhere. Indeed, I just received word today that one local university to which I applied has, like many others, canceled their search.
Against this bleak backdrop, I was struck by a bracing post by Jodi Dean; allow me to quote at some length —
Tenured faculty are generally in a pretty good position for riding out the recession. Most of us don’t have to worry about unemployment. Many of us are likely to keep fairly decent insurance and retirement plans. And, we are likely to retain this security even as others employed at our colleges and universities risk losing their jobs and even as more students will face more challenges in paying for a college education. We will retain security (although we may not get cost of living raises) at the same time as we watch the detrimental impact of the market and overall global economic crisis on our institutions, particularly on the endowments and the portion of the operating budgets that come from these endowments.
What this will mean is that many administrators will start wielding the explanation ‘the economy’ for all sorts of decisions. Any time they confront disagreement or noncompliance, perhaps even any time they are asked for reasons or to fund conventional elements of academic life, they will bring up ‘the economy.’ We should expect, then, a crackdown on more radical, innovative, creative, non-easily monetarized fields, activities, and speakers. So we need to be vigilant: what is getting cut? what is funded? why? What was reasonable and expected two years ago may now be cut.
But not everything is cut–faculty need to be on top of what is cut and why. Is money available for projects related to homeland security? green technology? what about contemporary radical philosophy and psychoanalytic theory? what about philosophy departments? political theory? LGBT, cultural, SSST, postcolonial studies?
We should also be aware of self-censorship: do we stop proposing projects, speakers, symposia? do we alter the topics in ways that are less radical, creative, or experimental, in ways that conform in advance?
We should not let administrators pull divide and conquer moves.
Correlative to this is recognizing tendencies of some faculty to think and act from the perspective of administrators rather than from the perspective of faculty.
We should learn from the history of the labor movement and be attuned to attempts to add to the length of the working day and intensify the output of faculty labor. This will be done as non TT faculty–whose work is crucial to the operating of many colleges and universities and nearly all large state universities–are let go.
We should not accept the assumption that faculty time is infinitely elastic. Again, this assumption will fill in the gap left by the elimination of “contingent faculty.” It will also be an ever-increasing technique of power, one that deliberately expends faculty time in some areas to prevent its deployment elsewhere, one that increases a sense of vulnerability among faculty, and one that is likely to be instrumental in increasing resentment and thus fragmentation among faculty.
Faced with any set of cost-cutting options, we should ask why these rather than others, whose interests do the cuts serve, how were the options determined. We should not be like so many Congressional zombies mindlessly following Henry Paulson. There is time to reflect, consider, and evaluate.
…
We must not let the problems in the economy achieve what the right has been fighting for for decades. This is culture war by other means (just as culture war is…).
Sound familiar? Here’s Naomi Klein on what she calls the “shock doctrine” —
At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq’s civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country’s vast oil reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the “War on Terror” to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts…. New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters — to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy.
If I’m no longer a gainfully employed ethnomusicologist come next fall, don’t be shocked if the tenor of this blog changes quite radically.
Ugh, Naomi Klein is mind-blowingly inane.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/10/naomi_klein_smackdown_roundup.cfm
To quote Megan McArdle: “But what’s the point of disagreeing with Naomi Klein? It’s like having an argument about economic policy with an eight year old. To have an interesting discussion, you would have to explain too many facts to the eight year old–facts that the child does’t have any interest in learning. And the eight-year-old lacks a coherent intellectual framework into which to fit those facts; his reactions are pure instinctive emotion.”
Whoa. That’s a strong reaction. I didn’t realize people felt like that about Klein. Goes to show one can live in various media bubbles. (And yet I do read the Economist from time to time, mostly in airports.) I guess I’d react similarly if someone were quoting Tom Friedman in seriousness.
And I should admit that I haven’t read any longform Klein, though I’ve found several of her ideas (i.e., books) suggestive and compelling. I don’t find much to disagree with in the idea of the shock doctrine, for instance, as described in the above (which may not have been written by Klein, but is from her site — it’s kinda blurbese). Can’t find much merit in that hyperbolic, condescending McArdle complaint, I confess. Actually, I don’t find any of the commentary in that blogpost to be particularly persuasive. But, hey, I’m not an economist. Or a neo-liberal/conservative.
Incidentally, are you a regular reader of this blog? Or do you have a Google alert out on Ms.Klein?
I can’t see what there is to get worked up about. Ms. Dean doesn’t even have an argument. All she does is create a straw man prediction of what might happen in the worst possible circumstances, assume these events as certain, and use them to make some hysterical proscriptions. Did I mention that she’s not even claiming the above events are taking place?
And what are we to make of:
We should expect, then, a crackdown on more radical, innovative, creative, non-easily monetarized fields, activities, and speakers.
Wouldn’t it be much more reasonable, given that money is tight, that the biggest “crackdowns” will be on the most expensive programs?
I think a more generous interpretation of Ms. Dean’s post is that she is calling for some vigilance among faculty that, for (cultural) political reasons, she suspects might be likely targets of post-crisis administration. You can choose to agree or disagree with the level of paranoia, but it is true that faculty are meeting frequently these days to discuss ways to make cuts in line with projected budget shortfalls.
As far as what’s “reasonable” to cut in a tight situation, there are plenty of soft targets. Ms. Dean would include among them “radical, innovative, creative, non-easily monetized” things. The most expensive programs might also be the best grossing ones (from the point of view of grants, donations, etc.) — it’s the less obviously profitable enterprises that then run the risk of seeming expendable. Makes sense to me. I may not feel it as acutely as Ms. Dean, but I found plenty in her screed that resonates.
That sucks dude. If academia falls through, remember you can always travel the world, interview people, discover and play great music by being a DJ.
If the tenor of your blog changes, I’m hoping for more in terms of both bass and treble – in other words, “loudness”.
As a lover of reggaeton (and world music) and a Brandeis student, I am disappointed that I will not be able to have you as a professor! I do, however, look forward to the book/anthology that you are part of and I wish you good luck come the summer/fall!
Wow! Since when do you get such unsympathetic readers? I personally think we all need to calm down a bit.
Every time there is news of yet another canceled search it feels like a blow to the gut – way worse than finding out that I didn’t make the cut, or that my work just didn’t seem interesting to some search committee. Canceled searches mean that all the effort of applying, of imaging the possibilities of a job at X university, were for nothing. It makes me feel like a dupe. The larger cultural issues are certainly in abundance (this coming from a state where our governor seems to think our public schools no longer have to serve the public).
Reading the news about the latest private university to cancel a search was very depressing indeed. My only hope is that all of us find proper employment in the year to come. Everyone I know who is interviewing is willing to sign on the dotted-line without much negotiation if any. Fun times indeed.
This “shock treatment” is already happening across different job sectors. A family member recently told me that at her company (shipping and development conglomerate) Christmas party one of the owners said that everyone was going to have to cooperate with the changes and shifts in company infrastructure and that times were going to be trying but “hey at least everyone still has a job.” Incidentally she told me that now her direct superior has her running personal errands and doing work that is not in her job description, stuff that her boss would have never asked her to do before. Shes been working at this company for 10 years and can’t speak up because the shape of the economy has everyone treading on thin ice.
Another family member who worked at one of the few remaining major financial firms was recently laid off after 25 years. This news along with the recent unemployment stats and the news of massive lay offs has definitely sent ripples of fear and “shock” throughout my family. As the crisis worsens people will put up with more and more bullshit at work as employers wield the threat of the unemployment line to silence any complaints.
It will be interesting to note as you do above how this economic meltdown will continue to effect the academy which has been turning more and more to “expendable labor” (ie grad student TAs, adjuncts, non-tenure track professors).
As I’ve been doing for years, I feel the need to appologize for my friend / college roomate Publius. Its my fault his rabid keyboard found its way to your blog, blame me, cuz arguing with him is useless. Tho im glad that ‘meeting’ him has made you aware at some level of consciousness that your antipathy for Friedman is also a bit exaggerated. I mean, he’s certainly no sort of penetrating political theorist and i dont personally agree with his sunny optimism wrt the benefits of globalization, but he’s def an engaging writer and certainly not the worst of the lot. And i was gonna ask wtf is sssl, but google already taught me.
But maybe this isnt the time for jokins, since we’re talkin about real life moneyjobbabyfoodmortgagentype things. Im just baffled. I still dont get how the u o chi let you get away, for another skool to do it shows me that grad sxhool is not where i wanna be right now. Cant harvard save us all 10 years and just hire you now?
I actually am a regular reader of the blog, and almost spit my coffee out when I read the Klein quote. And while I simply posted the McArdle snippet to sum up my gut reaction, I think the commentary linked in the other blog post does a good job at addressing some of her writings’ many many flaws.
And no, I am not a neocon, but I do have an economics background, and her confusion/distortion of basic history is truly soul-crushing. It’s unfortunate that most of her audience will not have any economics background and will take her representation to be fact.
Here’s another economist post: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/07/know_thine_enemy.cfm
Klein, you see, conflates a couple different ideological trends free-market libertarianism and neoconservatism. I can only speculate that her grounds (certainly not rooted in fact) are tied to seeing politically-connected people make great deals of money during war (and when’s the last time we saw a socialist, social democrat, communist, or any other flavor politico under the son profit of war, except, you know, the entire history of civilization…)
What’s unfortunate is that crises, especially war, does often induce a systematic change in governance. It generally leads to MORE centralized power. A phenomena that is dangerous and represents a real threat to the culture of freedom that guarantee’s the people’s sovereignty. But Naomi Klein didn’t want to write that book. She wanted to write about anti-war Milton Friedman conspired to give libertarian Dick Cheney’s companies millions of dollars.
I’d never deny that I’m hampered by my own biases and blindspots, so I’m grateful for some critical perspectives on things that I otherwise find compelling (especially if couched in civil, substantive terms).
Frankly, I don’t think that neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism are all that different. The former is a new approach to the latter. So, it may be an ideological conflation on Klein’s part, strictly speaking, but it works for those of us who see such projects as complementary.
You know, Canyon, I’ve actually been surprised by how much sense Friedman has been making lately. Then again, it may simply be that it seems that way b/c I agree with his new stances wrt energy policy and human resources. Even so, I don’t think I can forgive him for his neo-lib/con cheerleading at various points in the past. Or for his astoundingly awful “literary incompetence.”
i was just reading the whole shock doctrine thing a few days ago.
we like to call it
“let that be the reason”
whenever i have a personal crisis, for example, i take that time to break up with friends and boyfriends I dont wanna be bothered with using the catastrophe as my excuse
“i dont have time anymore because X happened”
same at work, use the crisis as a smokescreen to fire people
i didn’t realize u were at brandeis, thats one of the schoosl on my list for my graduate degree
Oh, and thanks for all the nice comments too, ppl — it’s great to get a mix of affirmation and contestation. Gives me stuff to grapple with, and the encouragement to do so.
And, Nina, be in touch (via email) if there’s anything I can tell you about Brandeis. It’s a wonderful school, if a little hamstrung at the moment. I really do wish there were a way I could continue here, but it’s looking all but impossible right now.
Dude, that sucks! If *you* are having trouble, what can that mean for the rest of us. I guess I just have to hope that things have settled down by the time I’m on the market. However, from your story and other anecdotes I’ve heard, there could be quite a backlog of talent that deserves employment before new PhDs get a crack. Here’s to hoping that this gray cloud has a fat platinum lining for you, somehow.
The types of circumstances that Klein describes they called “windows of opportunity” back when I was in policy school, windows that you as a policy-maker need to be alert to and take advantage of while their open. Whether or not Klein is right that that’s what Cheney & Co. were doing I don’t know, but they’d be bad proponents of their own policies if they didn’t — even if it makes them bad people if they did.
Best wishes for the job search. It looks like some school out there suddenly has a great window of opportunity to pick you up.
Thanks, Andrew (and Michael). I hope this turns out to be a window of opportunity for me too. It’s either that, or a perfect storm conspiring to end my academic career before it barely begins. I guess we’ll see.
I take your point about seizing opportunity to advance one’s policies. The thing about Klein’s argument, I s’pose (I haven’t read the book), is that she argues the creation of such “windows” is systemic under “disaster capitalism” and cynically exploited (rightly so, I guess you’d argue) by neo-lib/conservatives. Perhaps we might agree, then, that Cheney et al., are “good” proponents of their policies, while certain of us see such “opportunities” as insidiously produced and embraced.
It’s probably right to resist explanations that too directly finger villains. The world’s a lot more complex than that.
Wayne, good luck with things.
On a side note, you might be interested to note that Friedman’s change of tenor coincides with the collapse of General Growth Properties, the company started by his wife’s father (and from which she inherited billions of dollars of company stock). When the subprime bubble burst, it took his wife’s inheritance of billions of dollars with it. Perhaps why he’s getting all Chicken Little in the past few months.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/11/thomas-friedmans-world-is-flat-broke.html
Prf Wax…
1. can you expand [or link] on the neo-con/lib being-the-samethingness.
2. its good you got that rapping degree to fall back on if the whole PhD thing dont work out. Boston Jerk (Part 2), this time he’s pissed off!
3. i think my friedman softspot is because im a similarly incompetant metafor maker. I quote [myself]: “Old Robert was so damn talented that every reggae artist in his wake has been forced to live in his shadow.” Fortunately I don’t have billions of dollars to lose.
I’m afraid I can’t point to anything that elaborates in much detail on the sameness/dovetailing of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. The best example I can offer right now is this pithy little aside in an op-ed by my main man, the ever controversial Orlando Patterson —
& yes, best believe that if I’m no longer employed as an ethnomusicologist you’ll be hearing a lot more music from me. All this teaching & writing & editing & “service” takes a lot of time from other pursuits. And the idea that prospective employers might be reading this blog leads to a certain degree of self-censorship. So, as “my fan” suggests above, things will get a lot louder here if I’m no longer so constrained.
Canyon Cody,
Neolib and neocon might disagree about certain things (though I’ve heard neocons now eschew the label), but the real point of convergence is a total unwillingness to challenge the market. New Deal Liberalism tried to mediate between capital and labor, and saw government as having the job of setting up a framework within which capitalism would proceed; government speaks for the people in telling capitalism how to proceed, in other words. Neoliberals don’t think like that; they might not quite share the neocon vision of the world (where America=Capitalism=teh awesome) but the idea that government/democracy has an obligation to intervene in the market to curb the excessive power of big business has been completely foreign to them (so you get band aids for the symptoms instead of treatments for the cause).
Or that’s what I would have said before the current crisis. Now I don’t have a clue what makes these people tick, and I don’t think they do either.
thanks much for articulating that, zunguzungu.
also, for the economists out there —
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/can-economists-be-trusted/
also also, we are not alone —
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-13/is-a-ged-more-valuable-than-a-phd/1/
:( that blows wayne!!!
Jodi Dean was my professor, and she IS speaking from the perspective of my school, which does not have a large protective endowment and battles over what programs are worth it are pretty hard fought, so I will vouch for her claims above that might seems less realistic to a larger, better endowed school. and yes, she is ‘radical’, in a way that might seem a bit much to those unaccustomed to her thought/blog/viewpoints
How many students would you need and how much would we have to pay you to make your online course? Cuz I’m in.
Aw, thanks, Adam. I appreciate it. It’s not a bad idea. Indeed, I’ll add it to my plan B options.
Just for skeptics who may doubt that certain programs — esp the arts — might be more (or less) vulnerable than others, see today’s news:
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/01/27/ailing_brandeis_will_shut_museum_sell_treasured_art/
Brandeis has been facilitating faculty discussion about the administration’s response to the financial crisis on a private list. I’d like to share an excerpt from a post to the list this morning; the poster, a prominent prof, shall remain anonymous. Just wanted to note the resonance with my post above: Jodi & I aren’t the only ones with paranoid visions —