The role of academics

[Philip Ferguson <plf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There is some stuff going on here (at Canterbury University in
Christchurch, New Zealand) which throws an interesting light on the role of
academics both within the academy and in relation to society more broadly.

I'm a PhD student in the History Department.  For three years I tutored in
a stage one global history course.  Tutorials are an integral part of many
of the department's courses, and in global history they were compulsory.
There were about five postgrad students employed to take tutorial groups -
we each had two classes with about a dozen students in each.  This would be
the standard number for tutes.

Tutors are paid 3.5 hours for each face-to-face hour in tutes.  So if you
take 2 tute groups, you would be paid for 7 hours.  My time divided up
roughly as 2 hours taking actual tutorials, 2 hours ateending the lectures
in the course each week, one-1.5 hours marking each week's student
assignment, 30 minutes-an hour tutors' meeting with the course co-ordinator
each week and at least 2 hours preparation each week.  So basically, myself
and other tutors would have been putting in at least 8 hours a week.  On
top of this, we had students coming to see us during the week, including
bringing us essay drafts to read and comment on.  Tutors were paid $16-19
per hour (in US dollars that's about $7.50-8.50 an hour; or in sterling,
£5-6 ph), depending on whether it was your first, second, third year
tutoring.

In addition, we wre paid $15 per essay marked.  You could usually mark 2,
sometimes 3, essays in an hour.  This seems quite an impressive payment -
ie you could earn $45 in an hour, about $20 in US dollars, or about £12.
But considering the time you spent with students coming to see you about
their essays, for which there is no actual payment, the *real* pay for
essays was considerably less.

At present universities throughout NZ - all universities here are public
institutions, we don't have private universities - are under severe
financial pressure and cuts.  Student fees have risen massively, doubling
in the past five years or so, while in the late 1980s they increased
six-fold.

There has been little resistance from within universities to the way in
which market imperatives are, on the one hand, raising the cost of tertiary
education for students and, on the other, leading to more and more
dumbed-down courses.  Tertiary education is being slowly transformed into
another commodity.

The people in the best position to take up the cudgels over this are
tenured academics.  National action by academics would be acutely
embarassing for the government and have widespread support from students
and the public at large.  Instead, however, academics have largely opted to
become the instruments through which government cuts and the
commodification process is implemented.

It is interesting to see how this is being played oput in the History Dept
here.

Most of the academics in the Dept are liberals and left-liberals.  They
adhere to the standard liberal palaver about the university being a site of
intellectual freedom, vaklue-free research and the social conscience of
society blah blah blah.  Universities also come under an Act of parliament,
in which they are, by statute, supposed to defend freedom of conscience and
act as a social conscience etc etc.

Last year, the university administration todl the dept it had to cut its
budget by $55,000.  Of curse, the main thing that got cut was tutoring.
Among the jobs that disappeared was mine.  This year - it is early in the
university year here - a new round of cuts is currently in the pipeline.
The head of the dept, who, like all his colleagues here, got free tertiary
education in the 60s and 70s, has put forward the idea that pay for essay
marking should be cut to $9 per essay (that's less than 3 quid, slightly
less than $ US dollars).  This is a 60 percent cut.  Moreover, the payment
for essay marking has been the same for quite likely ten years, maybe even
longer, during whcih the cost of living has risen, and student fees have
probably trebled.  I suggested to some of the tutors, who were having a
meeting today, that they should counter this proposal with a proposal that
payments be increased in line with the increase in tutors' cost of living
over the decade since the $15 per essay was decided on.

 One of the things I find quite interesting about these cuts, and the way
the History dept staff are proposing them is that these liberals typically
attack Marxism for being economic determinist.  Yet these same liberals are
now arguing that they have *no alternative* but to implement cuts because
of, you guessed it, *economic reality*.  So these opponents of Marxist
so-called eocnomic determinism turn out to be extreme economic
determinists.  In fact, even the most reductionist Marxist would usually
argue some role for human agency, but these anti-Marxist liberals
apparently see no role whatever for human agency - humans can only
robotically implement cuts because, economically, there is no alternative.
Now, we shouldn't be surprised at this kind of hypocrisy from liberals -
after all, it is what liberalism is all about really - but I nevertheless
find it interesting how opponents of 'economic determinism' can turn into
the most extreme economic determinists when it suits them.

It is also interesting to see the kind of spinlessness and petty bullying
at work.  Rather than stand up to the government and demand more money for
universities, our spinless academics prefer to put the squeeze on those
below them in the academic food-chain.  Tutors are in an extremely
vulnberable position - not only do they have little income and therefore
fear losing it by taking on the cuts, especially when the cuts are imposed
by the academic staff acting as agents of capital, but tutors also depend
on the full-time academic staff as their thesis supervisors, and as
referees for subsequent employment.  That the academics know this and take
advantage of it is doubly reprehensible.  Although hardly surprising - it
is the middle class all over.  When in a crisis don't unite with those
below you against the masters of society - instead put the squeeze on those
below you.

It is further interesting to see how the much-vaunted academic concept of
'collegiality' works in this situation.  Collegiaty is, of course, another
con.  it's one of those concepts by which middle class professionals cover
each other's asses and protect themselves against any real social
responsibility, including to their students.  Collegiality doesn't extend
to tutors.  Instead, situations ave arisien in which turos have been asked
to take on a load of additional work, marking essays, without contracts.
The contracts wuld be 'fixed up' later, these particular students were
told.  Now, however, that the cuts are being proposed, it has been
suggested by academic staff that since these tutors don't have contracts
they might have to accept the new, proposed lower rate of pay for the
essays *they have already marked this year* but are yet to be paid for.
Two turos I know of have, between them marked 140 essays without contract -
they did it because they were asked to and, by doing it, let that
particular course co-ordinator get out off having to mark them himself.  (I
should add that quite a few of the history dept staff don't really like
taking tutorials and/or marking essays.)

Indeed, it is quite strange to see the degree of spinelessness involved
when considering the last point.  About the last thing that our academics
want to be landed with is a load of extra turoial work and essay-marking
themselves.  Yet rather than stand up to the government, they will cut off
their own arms and the arms and legs of the student tutors.

Unfortunately, I missed a public talk last week by one of the new members
of staff - it was sponsored by the Canterbury Historical Society and was on
the subject of The Engaged Intellectual.  It would have been mightily
amusing.  At present the only thing our academics - they are not
intellectuals - are engaged in/with is acting as agents of capital against
their own students.

Philip Ferguson