next »

[spectacle]

Some of you are like chickens pecking another chicken to death because of a spot of blood: it's quite possible the noise Sweeney was unavoidably overhearing was so very garbled (or he was so very distracted and stressed with trying to get something done himself) that he couldn't concentrate on actually listening to the noise.

In that case, he should have mentioned it.  Part of the consistent complaint of those of us who have taken to picking on Sweeney is that he often fails to contextualize or clarify the things he says on his blog.

Have some kindness for adjuncts;

Don't you dare assume that those of us picking on Sweeney have no kindness for adjuncts.  Many of those picking on him ARE adjuncts, others of us were adjuncts in the past, have spouses who are adjuncts, have fought bitterly for adjuncts rights, attempted to organize adjuncts on our campus or otherwise do REAL and TANGIBLE things on a daily basis to attempt to make their jobs better, easier and more fair.  

We don't pick on Sweeney because he's an adjunct, we pick on him because he seems to think that sloppily written, brief blog posts will somehow "improve" things for adjuncts.

Or are you just jealous because Sweeney publishes more than you do?

I can only speak for myself when I say, I assure you, that is not the case.  

[larryc]

I'm curious why anyone educated who lives in the USA wouldn't know what Spanish sounds like when they hear it.

That was my second question. My first was how someone grew up in the USA without knowing about headphones.

AandSDean, I appreciate what you are saying in Sweeney's defense. It isn't that I am in any way a defender of the abusive system that is adjuncting. But at some point Sweeney's perfect cluelessness becomes the subject, rather than the point he is trying to make. He doesn't know what Spanish sounds like, he doesn't know to plug in a pair of headphones, he doesn't know that publishing things that reflect poorly on yourself under your real name is going to hurt your job search, he doesn't know that with a terminal MA in English this is as good as the academic life is ever going to get. And when you try to point out any of this, he responds "You can't handle my truth!"

[torshi]

Adjunct and other contingent faculty voices should be heard on the site.  And I had hoped after the recent exchanges that Sweeney would open his perspective to notice, talk to, and talk about other people in a similar situation.  No such luck.  He has set his course and will not alter it.  You have to hand it to the guy.  He has a real sense of the most pressing issues facing contract faculty:

              And wouldn’t it be nice to be able to put a poster on the wall, something that is all about me,
              about my personality? It seems that if I were more comfortable in this office, that would
              translate into the classroom.

If the Chronicle wants to publish this sort of thing, I can understand that.  The more intensely people feel the need to engage with something they don't like, the more time they spend on it and on the site, thus helping the Chronicle sell site-users to advertisers.  The Chronicle likes the first-person model; it's cheap.  They don't appear to have an interest in, or budget for, doing actual reporting about what's happening with contingent faculty. 

But these columns are currently located here:
Advice=>Manage Your Career=>On Hiring=>The 2-Year Track

Sweeney is not giving advice about getting hired at community colleges and is not giving advice about anything at all, except maybe the limits of solipsism as a way of understanding.

This column, the series by Henry Adams, and a few Brainstorm writers should be moved to a new "All About Me" section in Opinion. 

I don't object to him; I object to his one and only topic:  all about him. 

[aandsdean]

Torshi, I don't really disagree with a lot of what you're saying.  I am not sure Isaac Sweeney is the very best voice for adjunct concerns on the CHE website.  He is clearly not awesomely savvy, for instance, and I too am troubled (as is my pal LarryC, just above) by his unwillingness to cede ground to people who pretty clearly know more about how things work than he does.

However--and this is a big however--I am of the mind that being an adjunct faculty member conduces to exactly the kind of solipsism and lack of savvy a lot of people here are criticizing.  Put in different terms, you can't really understand how a team works if you've never been on a team, and this is the problem that a lot of adjunct faculty seem to have.  How can you possibly see the big picture if the door to that picture is shut to you?  How can you be expected to look outside yourself if your actual personhood is never or only very rarely acknowledged by the people who are your nominal, but certainly not your real, colleagues?

Somewhere recently (One-offs, maybe?) either MsParticularity or Fiona mentions how an institution can't "be nice" to people because there are no resources available to "be nice" with.  Coming at this issue from a little bit different angle, think about the recent comments on Gary Olson's column about shared governance, and the gleeful responses to his resignation/dismissal/whatever it was at Idaho State.  I am not taking a position on Dr. Olson, who I don't know and with whom I've never interacted.  However, I do know that like him, I know approximately 96% of the dirty secrets at my current institution, including the bad conduct of many if not all of the bad actors on campus, the places where the bodies are buried, the financial concerns of many members of the faculty and staff, and so on. 

In other words, I am in close to full possession of the big picture.  It's not at all surprising that I can see things that the faculty can't.  If I have a failure of perspective, given these circumstances, it's pretty likely to be because I'm stupid, incompetent, or hopelessly narcissistic.  On the other hand, if an adjunct faculty member has a failure of perspective, it's a lot more likely that it's because s/he's in possession of only a very very small sliver of the information necessary to know what s/he's talking about.  So, when such a person ventures out in public to talk about his or her situation, the standards for self-knowledge and, much more importantly, professional savvy are far different from those rightly applied to someone in a senior leadership position.

All of which said, none of this excuses being stupid.  None of it excuses what LarryC notes as the "you can't handle the truth" rhetoric that Isaac Sweeney may have been guilty of perpetuating.  I actually do know the truth--a great deal more of it than he does--and can handle it just fine, though I don't like the abuse of adjunct faculty very much and have tried to ameliorate it.

However, when everything about a writer's subject position funnels him towards naive solipsism, it takes an unusual degree of wisdom, even genius, to get outside of that self-involvement.  When everything about a writer's subject position turns him towards a larger and broader perspective, that's when one really needs to crack down on a solipsistic approach to professional issues. 

[polly_mer]

I don't object to him; I object to his one and only topic:  all about him. 

This.

As much as I respect AandSDean and all good writers who shed light on important problems at personal cost (i.e., that signing the name thing), I will also say Isaac Sweeney often trivializes the problem, regardless of whether he could be expected to have the big picture.  Contrast

In our office are two, three-drawer filing cabinets. All of the drawers have names on them. That’s why I keep my things in a stack on my desk, which is more table than desk. I keep my really important items in my bag and in my car; usually I can find them when I need them. Usually. I get to use the computer for a few hours, and I get to use other resources, like the telephone, so it’s not all bad. I even have my own semi-secure file on the computer where I can keep saved documents.

with

Adjuncts are not assigned decent working space and/or decent space to meet with students, and thus they meet with students in the cafeteria or library, or they understandably blow off their required "office (sic) hours"  and are basically not very available to students. Why should they bend over backwards when they are being paid peanuts?

The first one is a disorganized guy who can't figure out how to get a drawer or two assigned to him as well as not thinking to sign up for more time in the shared office and hasn't set up a home office or suitcase on wheels as many non-permanently housed people do.  The second illustrates a common problem that affects students in many places because office hours are not being held in the proper setting or are not being held at all for a lack of setting.

One doesn't need to have the big picture or be able to handle the truth to see the difference in making a case for change between "I'm getting shafted" (poor me) and "people at this institution and others like it are hurting students by not providing adequate working conditions for their contingent staff" (dang it people, how are we going to fix an unsatisfactory situation?)

[helpful]

Sweeney claims to be a teacher of English, yet he makes a basic error in the use of commas. Perhaps he needs to read over his columns before submitting them?

[sad_goat]

This is intended as an objective observation: Historically, Sweeny's arguably scattered rhetoric would have been embraced by most academics if the issue concerned civil rights, coal miners, gay issues, slavery, Walmart, sweatshops, unions, and any of a host of other issues. If you take the time to exchange any of the above for "adjunct" or "adjunct rights", many of the comments on this thread are very unflattering to those who posted them.

[cranefly]

This is intended as an objective observation: Historically, Sweeny's arguably scattered rhetoric would have been embraced by most academics if the issue concerned civil rights, coal miners, gay issues, slavery, Walmart, sweatshops, unions, and any of a host of other issues. If you take the time to exchange any of the above for "adjunct" or "adjunct rights", many of the comments on this thread are very unflattering to those who posted them.

I disagree. I'm a long-term lefty, I come from a working class background, spent a decade of my life in retail jobs to put myself through school, was an adjunct slave for 5 years and I know all the words to the Internationale.
This is not about class, or about rights.
It's about someone who is a professor who is doing a disservice to other adjuncts by not being careful about what he writes. It's about someone who is a professor who thinks anything that is not English is just some "foreign" language. etc. etc.
We are professors. We nitpick. It's what we do best. You'll find plenty of support for adjunct rights here. Many of us are active on campus and beyond, but putting name to something in print for all time is dangerous in this job market for us untenured, and doing it in such a cavalier manner is what makes it so shocking. If this person had written a well thought-out, reasoned argument and had something new to add, we'd all be singing his praises, I'm sure. But he didn't.

[sad_goat]

I disagree. I'm a long-term lefty, I come from a working class background, spent a decade of my life in retail jobs to put myself through school, was an adjunct slave for 5 years and I know all the words to the Internationale.
This is not about class, or about rights.
It's about someone who is a professor who is doing a disservice to other adjuncts by not being careful about what he writes. It's about someone who is a professor who thinks anything that is not English is just some "foreign" language. etc. etc.
We are professors. We nitpick. It's what we do best. You'll find plenty of support for adjunct rights here. Many of us are active on campus and beyond, but putting name to something in print for all time is dangerous in this job market for us untenured, and doing it in such a cavalier manner is what makes it so shocking. If this person had written a well thought-out, reasoned argument and had something new to add, we'd all be singing his praises, I'm sure. But he didn't.

You first...

[voxprincipalis]

I am not sure Isaac Sweeney is the very best voice for adjunct concerns on the CHE website anywhere.

Fixed that for you, and I agree.

He is clearly not awesomely savvy, for instance, and I too am troubled (as is my pal LarryC, just above) by his unwillingness to cede ground to people who pretty clearly know more about how things work than he does.

... both of which make him a terrible person to represent the very real concerns of adjuncts, as he is likely doing the cause more harm than good.

So, when such a person ventures out in public to talk about his or her situation, the standards for self-knowledge and, much more importantly, professional savvy are far different from those rightly applied to someone in a senior leadership position.

Here I disagree. If you want to lobby for change in any situation, it is incumbent on you to learn to understand the system and the big picture rather than expecting people who do know the larger story to cut you slack because your corner of the picture has a convenient soapbox, regardless of whether speeches made from atop that soapbox display your utter lack of understanding of said big picture.

All of which said, none of this excuses being stupid.

Nope.

However, when everything about a writer's subject position funnels him towards naive solipsism, it takes an unusual degree of wisdom, even genius, to get outside of that self-involvement.

Which is not, I think, a satisfactory reason to justify the promotion of further solipsistic episodes that hurt the cause rather than helping it. OTOH, the CHE is not responsible for how Sweeney's columns are received, and they should not really be taking a position on the adjunct debate either way. And since (presumably) he is under contract for a set number of columns within an academic year, he will finish those out as he likes. I will be interested to see if the CHE retains him for another year, though, based on these and other discussions.

VP

[sad_goat]

Here I disagree. If you want to lobby for change in any situation, it is incumbent on you to learn to understand the system and the big picture rather than expecting people who do know the larger story to cut you slack because your corner of the picture has a convenient soapbox, regardless of whether speeches made from atop that soapbox display your utter lack of understanding of said big picture.

Oh, I will bite on this one. What IS the big picture? I get really pissed off when folks say things like "What you just don't understand is...", because it is usually a bulls*** way of protecting their own nest.

So, what is the hidden matrix that some of us can't decipher? Please expand.

[voxprincipalis]

Here I disagree. If you want to lobby for change in any situation, it is incumbent on you to learn to understand the system and the big picture rather than expecting people who do know the larger story to cut you slack because your corner of the picture has a convenient soapbox, regardless of whether speeches made from atop that soapbox display your utter lack of understanding of said big picture.

Oh, I will bite on this one. What IS the big picture? I get really pissed off when folks say things like "What you just don't understand is...", because it is usually a bulls*** way of protecting their own nest.

So, what is the hidden matrix that some of us can't decipher? Please expand.

No. It has been explained about five billion times already and I'm not doing it again for you -- and besides, the exact variables in play at any given time are different at every university, college, or community college. See the part above where I said, "it's incumbent on you to figure it out." Hint: it requires understanding that there are issues outside your bubble, and other cogs in the machine.

Excellent way of proving the solipsism point, though.

Has it ever occurred to you that sniping at people who are on your side might make them less on your side? No? Hmm.

VP

[educator1]

I am of the mind that being an adjunct faculty member conduces to exactly the kind of solipsism and lack of savvy a lot of people here are criticizing. 

Aandsdean,

I have respected and agreed with most of your posts and admired your ability to express yourself.  However, this is, in my mind, one of the most condescending and insulting statements regarding adjuncts that I have seen on this board. How dare you imply that the state of "being an adjunct" is conducive to solipsism and lack of savvy!

[sad_goat]

Here I disagree. If you want to lobby for change in any situation, it is incumbent on you to learn to understand the system and the big picture rather than expecting people who do know the larger story to cut you slack because your corner of the picture has a convenient soapbox, regardless of whether speeches made from atop that soapbox display your utter lack of understanding of said big picture.

Oh, I will bite on this one. What IS the big picture? I get really pissed off when folks say things like "What you just don't understand is...", because it is usually a bulls*** way of protecting their own nest.

So, what is the hidden matrix that some of us can't decipher? Please expand.

No. It has been explained about five billion times already and I'm not doing it again for you -- and besides, the exact variables in play at any given time are different at every university, college, or community college. See the part above where I said, "it's incumbent on you to figure it out." Hint: it requires understanding that there are issues outside your bubble, and other cogs in the machine.

Excellent way of proving the solipsism point, though.

Has it ever occurred to you that sniping at people who are on your side might make them less on your side? No? Hmm.

VP

Did it ever occur to you that Sweeny does understand the system, too well? And from my own perspective, I'm not much of a complainer, I simply do my job (and more, when it moves me) because I really don't need another wall to bang my head against.

Also, if someone were on my side, whatever that is, shouldn't the principles outweigh the individual?

[aandsdean]

I am of the mind that being an adjunct faculty member conduces to exactly the kind of solipsism and lack of savvy a lot of people here are criticizing. 

Aandsdean,

I have respected and agreed with most of your posts and admired your ability to express yourself.  However, this is, in my mind, one of the most condescending and insulting statements regarding adjuncts that I have seen on this board. How dare you imply that the state of "being an adjunct" is conducive to solipsism and lack of savvy!

Damn, I had this big long reply written, got kicked off the net, and lost the whole thing, so let me try again....

Educator, what I'm getting at is that "being an adjunct" is something like being stranded on a desert island.  You're not being mentored, there's no one to talk to, and, in effect, you're all by yourself.  It's not terribly surprising in that context that one would turn inward (solipsism), because one's not, in any functional way, a member of the community.  It's not the fault of an isolated person if s/he turns inward, since "outward" isn't effectively available.

As for lack of savvy, one becomes savvy through having, and learning from, relevant experiences.  If you are structurally impeded from having such experiences, once again, it's not your fault if you're not savvy.  This has nothing whatever to do with one's professional skills in the areas of teaching or scholarship, only about understanding how things work and how to navigate the profession in a way that leads to at least the likelihood of success.

Vox, I have excellent reason to believe that Sweeney's deal with the Chronicle is based on a monthly contribution of entries, and he is virtually certainly at-will on a monthly basis.  I think, as well, that the Chronicle probably rather likes how much controversy he generates.

Finally, on the "more harm than good" matter, I'm not so sure.  Polly's excellent exegesis a bit upthread may well demonstrate the superiority of Plunkett's commentary to Sweeney's, but only for someone who reads like an academic, and probably an academic who's not in a literary field.  (By the way, Polly knows that my admiration of her is pretty much unlimited and that I think the world of her good sense and wisdom, so this is not a criticism of her).  Plunkett's passage is pointed and clear, but it's also based on generalization and abstractions.  On the other hand, Sweeney's description of his office situation is vivid, and demonstrates in a very particularlized way the more general statement, "adjunct faculty members are treated like crap." 

A non-academic reader isn't going to think, "wow, that Isaac Sweeney's a dumbass who needs to get himself a rolling suitcase and ask the department secretary for a slot in the communal file cabinet instead of whining about it."  What that reader is going to think is, "Holy cow, I can't believe that a COLLEGE TEACHER works this way!  Where's the wood-paneled office and the leather-bound books?  Where's the MacBook Pro?" 

It may be true--in fact, it probably is--that we are the wrong audience for Sweeney, because he's writing for people who already understand the situation and are likelier to criticize his approach to his situation than to lament the situation per se at his prompting.  But I would also point out that there are plenty of posters here (who I shall decline to name for politeness' sake) who are both vastly more bitter about the plight of adjunct faculty and noticeably--and more durably--less rational about the realities of the profession than he is.  And they don't have the nerve to put their real name to their writing, though I can certainly understand why that is.