Cerrar esta tienda y abrir otra, dos calles mas abajo. Pero empezar el negocio sin engañar a nadie, sin joder a otro porque piense distinto a ti, sin que te busquen pretextos para callarte la boca y sin decirte, además, que cuando te cogen el culo lo hacen por tu bien y por el bien de la humanidad, y que ni siquiera tienes derecho a protestar o a decir que te duele, pues no se le deben dar argumentos al enemigo y todas esas justificaciones. Sin chantajes… El problema es que quienes deciden por nosotros decidieron que estaba bien un poco de democracia, pero no tanta … y al final se olvidaron hasta del poco que nos tocaba, y toda aquella cosa tan bonita se convirtió en una comisaría de policías dedicados a proteger el poder. (Paduro)
“The invocation of science, of its ground rules, of the exclusive validity of the methods that science has now completely become, now constitutes a surveillance authority punishing free, uncoddled, undisciplined thought and tolerating nothing of mental activity other than what has been methodologically sanctioned. Science and scholarship, the medium of autonomy, has degenerated into an instrument of heteronomy.” (Adorno)
Heteronyms: words with the same spelling that are not the same word, that have two unrelated meanings.
Read. John Patrick Leary has done, too.
It appears that only I think everyone should be on a tenure line. I understand the need for “flexible” faculty given shifting enrollments but I say that if you need someone clearly enough that you rehire them for longer than three years, you need them and should offer them a tenure track position. Pieces and comment threads like this, that talk about the need to treat contingent faculty well, do not go nearly far enough and it is as false that more tenure lines are unrealistic as it is that “we cannot afford” single-payer or national health insurance. Of course we can. Also, it is not more “conservative” but more “progressive” to say that if you are qualified to work, then you are qualified to be on the tenure track. That is not “meritocratic,” it is the opposite.
A colleague said:
It is not a university, it is A PLANTATION.
It is not a department, it is SOMEONE’S PSYCHIC SCENARIO.
Therefore, DO NOT HOPE FOR RATIONALITY.
Person: I do not want children. I feel guilty about this as it is my responsibility to have them.
Z: Studies show that every U.S. child born is highly detrimental to the environment no matter how green their lifestyle. There is no reason to feel guilty about not having them.
Bystander (to Person): How can you look happy when you were just told something so mean?
I am now able to do some work I had thought impossible because I got lots of sleep and I am working slowly–or, at the speed I need to work.
The reason I have always wanted to leave academia is that we are supposed to work very quickly, do a poor job (anything else is “perfectionism”), get up before we are rested, schedule everything in a rigid way, never meditate and not “waste” a minute.
If I had never been lectured at about the need to use timers and alarm clocks, I would never have hated academia. If I had received that lecture while still a student, I would have quit.
The reason I hate the lecture so much is that it is so belittling. People imagine one has never had to be efficient before.
This is important for my languishing article. It is hard to manage because it is about language, but wants to be about neoliberalism and educational policy. If I keep remembering it is about language, I may be able to finish it.
“The common use of the argumentative essay in US schooling dates back to unprecedented growth in higher education and a literate middle class in the early 20th Century. College was no longer the purview of an elite group from similar backgrounds, and more students meant two things: an insufficient number of teachers trained in writing instruction and a more diverse student body, less likely to share knowledge of the same philosophical or literary texts to write about.”
Read the whole thing.