[PEN-L:2161] Re: Academic managers of the marxist variety

[Ellen Dannin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

In following what Bill Mitchell said anecdotally about his experiences as 
a manager, I see him as asking a few important core questions.  One is 
how to create, within a capitalist context, to the greatest extent he can 
the sort of system that would exist in a truly socialist state.  The 
second is how best to respond to attacks on the department he has the job 
of managing.  I think these are key questions, because I doubt any of us 
will live to work in a truly socialist state.  If we hold any of these 
values, we will always be in conflict with our environment to a greater 
or lesser degree.  Second, if we want to make intelligent choices, we 
need to develop the means of making them.

As to the first issue, I don't see Bill as saying that he accepts the 
state's definition of him as a public servant.  Rather, he has decided 
that he will act as if socialism has arrived to the extent possible and 
not suicidal. He defines that as meaning that individuals will treat 
themselves and their workmates and those who depend on their services 
with respect.  For him this means a web of responsibilty among him, his 
department, and the students and larger public.  He also made the 
observation that in imposing these expectations on himself, he demands no 
more than what he demands or expects of other workers in blue collar jobs 
or other, less privileged jobs than fulltime ones in academia.  
Furthermore, he sees his connection to them as direct, unmediated by the 
state, and thus demanding that he treat his fellow workers with respect. 
One aspect of that respect is using his skills to their benefit.

Second, Bill asks how to respond to critiques from the state, here in the 
form of cutbacks.  Assuming that the capitalist state is the enemy, 
should he oppose it at all points as to every demand it makes. Or should 
he examine these criticisms, testing any for usefulness in terms of what 
his goals are.  He opts for the latter and gives a number of instances.  
Where the state would say he must cutback or achieve certain goals, he 
identifies certain ones that are consistent with furthering his current 
goal of providing better service to his fellow workers and to the 
students who are directly served.

It is a bit of a strawman to argue that academic publications are 
useless.  I suppose that some are.  On the other hand, I notice that 
those of my colleagues who publish are the most exciting teachers and do 
a better job. I doubt that Bill is arguing only for quantity.

Bill asks us to look at a number of the hard issues in academia.  For 
example, he says:

> ----------------------
> > that is my bottom line - in a socialist state - organisation of work 
> > and collective  responsibility still has to occur. if someone bludges 
> > then the collective suffers.  somehow the collective has to keep itself 
> > functioning.
> -----------------------
It may be that there are times when all of us are less than productive 
for legitimate reasons.  However, there are academics who 
do not publish because they are using their "spare" time to do legal work 
on the side, which nets them a few hundred dollars an hour.  Some of 
these get the extra time by slighting their teaching, never changing 
texts, never keeping up.  This is a real loss to the students.  These 
academics certainly have a life, but shoudl this behavior be supported.  
If the state says it is to be criticized, do we circle the wagons just 
because the state issued the critique.  Bill sees the harm going to the 
other faculty who must pick up the slack -- no doubt the failure to teach 
has this impact at institutions other than Bill's.

In short, I think Bill is asking very tough questions. I see them as tied 
in with critiques of the labor movement. There too, we are asked to 
reject all critiques of labor as coming from the enemy.  However, 
examining these critiques may provide useful information by which to 
strengthen what is we do.  Ignoring them, as the labor movement now is 
acknowledging, has been a death warrant.

When I taught evidence, I urged my students to know the other side's 
case and examine its positions with sympathy -- not just assume they had 
nothing to say -- until they did so, they were not ready to step into the 
courtroom.

ellen dannin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]