Published in The New York Times 02/07/2010

So, my letter to the editor made it in The New York Times. AFTER, several rounds of editing: I’ve posted the back and forth of the revision and re-revision in the previous posts to the blog. The whole experience has been rather strange. Do they edit every “letter to the editor” like they did mine? I find that hard to believe.

I’m surprised by how much they stylistically edited, but also, by how much they tried to substantively interfere. Here’s an example of the kind of “editing” I find bizarre, and remember, this is A LETTER TO THE EDITOR, not journalistic piece. During the final editorial wrangle, the editor wanted to take my reference to the administration out because, as he explained it, that would need evidence to support it. WTF? Here was my response:

***

I’d be a bit upset if that part of the letter is removed–without it one might suppose it’s all just “market forces” when it fact there is something else going on.

There is indeed lots of evidence to support this. Any look at the profession’s main journal, The Chronicle of Higher Education, indicates this, and it has been the subject of many books including: How the University Works by Marc Bousquet (2008) and The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities by Frank Donoghue (2008).

For a specific reference (and one close to home, written by a professor in my department), check out Professor Tim Brennan’s editorial to the Minneapolis Star Tribune on this subject http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/42555122.html

***

As you can see, they kept the line in there, but I have no idea why I had to argue about keeping MY argument in MY letter to the editor. Have any of you had a similar experience or know of someone else who had a letter to the editor published in NYT?

Well, anyway, this was all a tempest in a tea pot I am sure, and given it’s back-page, tucked away in a “url”-on-the-backside-of-cyberspace location, it won’t really meaningfully contribute to the conversation we all need to be having about what is happening to our universities. Those of us IN it, already know the ugly truth too well. So far, we aren’t having a whole lot of luck getting other people to hear us. It’s a sad position to be in. A student of mine contacted me this week, ironically, about going to grad school. As someone who values the life of the mind I want to be encouraging, but I also feel as though responsibility dictates I warn her against doing it.

How did I get here?

And now I’m off to work on the dissertation, an endeavor that continually has the wind sucked out of its sails by the harsh reality my career faces.

NYT Saga Continues 02/04/2010

Here’s the body of my response to the “edited” version of my letter and below that, my re-edit.

*****

Reviewing the edits for space, I felt the essence of my comments had been lost. Therefore, I rewrote my letter to better reflect the character and word limits. The body of the version you sent me clocked in at 972 characters (w/spaces) and 154 words. The one I offer in return has 987 characters (w/spaces) and 156 words. I think the way I frame it at the end may also underscore the importance of the issue for a reader of the Business Section.

*****

I would like to remind your readers that there are those of us for whom teaching college is a profession we have dedicated nearly a decade of training for, only to face permanent economic insecurity and deplorable working conditions. The elimination of tenure-track positions began long before this recent economic downturn. Those of us facing (and trapped within) the downward spiral of adjuncting have watched the consolidation of an administrative class, and a fundamental alteration of the nature of college education.

The American university has long positioned itself as a place where the twin goals of research and teaching are brought together to promote the advancement of thought. This model has largely explained why the best students from all over the world covet degrees, particularly graduate degrees, from American institutions. The question we should be asking is what the casualization of the academic labor market means for our ability to continue as a leader of ideas.

NYT Edits / Re-writes My Letter 02/04/2010

So the NYT might publish the letter I sent them a few days in response to their terrible article about adjuncting as a resume builder (see previous blog entry). I just spoke with the section editor (Sunday Times Business Section), who sent an edited version of the letter that they might print if there is space. Ummmm… this feels like a different letter. Totally bland, totally toothless. Is it just me?

To the Editor:

Had the article examined the controversy surrounding the increase in adjunct positions at many universities, it would have offered a better account of why these positions are available.

These are tough economic times, to be sure, but an elimination of tenure-track positions began long before this downturn. Many of us in the profession [MAYBE EXPLAIN HOW YOU ARE IN THE PROFESSION, AS A DOCTORAL CANDIDATE?] have been discussing this distressing trend as more than a budget-saving maneuver. It’s also altering the fundamental nature of college education in this country.

The American university has long positioned itself as a place where the twin goals of research and teaching are brought together to promote new ideas. This model has largely explained why the best students from all over the world covet degrees, particularly graduate degrees, from American institutions.

Many of us are fiercely attached to these goals, but wonder what the current trend means for them.

Alicia Gibson

Hiroshima, Japan, [CORRECT?]Jan. 31#

The writer, a doctoral candidate in comparative literature at the University of Minnesota, is a research fellow at the Hiroshima Peace Institute. [CORRECT?]