next »

[bibliothecula]

I realize we all have gotten rather fed up with First Person columns at one time or another. The ambivalence and aura of unpreparedness in today's column rubbed me the wrong way.

I too left academia and became an independent scholar, but I did it with my eyes wide open and little of the sentimentality Werrlein displays. Indeed, leaving is a serious decision, but she seems to have romanticized it in a number of ways. Her leaving boldly and not slinking away is hardly novel; today, many academics who leave the ivory tower remain active in their fields and as scholars, reviewers, and teachers, albeit in other domains.

She writes that she has decided to "retire" to protest the use of adjuncts in place of full-time instructors. She seems not to realize that she has more power to influence her institution's hiring policies from the inside--even as an adjunct--than making a gesture few will truly understand. In serving on committees or a faculty-adjunct joint coalition, Werrlein could work from within to change the culture of her university. It can be glacial, frustrating, and not always a full success, but why wouldn't she want to try, rather that quit, leaving yet another line potentially at risk for elimination?

Werrlein writes that she is thrilled to contemplate "no more degrading solicitations for letters of recommendation; no more pressures of impending relocation; no more conference expenses and association dues." She glamorizes the "luxuriously unregulated" life of an independent scholar without knowing anything about what it entails. Does she not think that ISs need grants, recommendations for those grants, or conferences at which to present their findings? ISs, in fact, have to work closely with academia as a whole--it is crucial to their recognition and ability to conduct research on a level with affiliated scholars. Does she not think that there are tempting and enlightening fellowships out there for educators and scholars or all kinds that require short-term relocation?  "Now that I'm off the market, I won't trade my valuable skills for a pittance," she writes. I agree that qualified instructors should be paid well; I hope her freelancing and tutoring is steady and heavy, as its peripatetic nature can often be a blow to those striking out in the area.

It's insulting, as well, to think that the contributions a scholar who is leaving the academy has made are a "wasted resources." Werrlein seems to think that by leaving her university, her research, articles, and presentations are all undermined or lessened in value by the fact that she is doing so. Is the only valuable work that which has been done by a scholar still in academia?

Finally, her article sums up with conflicting resolutions: she hates teaching at a university, so without (seemingly) much research or thought, she dives into the teaching and tutoring of the learning disabled, quite a different scenario from what she is used to. She believes that she is entering a new era of intellectual freedom, but is happy not to have to delve into serious research or reading.

While I hope Werrlein's choice works out well for her, she seems to neither have slunk away nor "go out loudly." Instead, unless she does maintain a presence as a scholar and intellectual, she's just another casualty of the business.