Link-a-doodle-doos 2: Link-lectric Boogaloo

More link-a-roos from people I like today. I’ve also got a new potential shit-storm going up on Slate today, so I’m enjoying the calm before the possible conflagration. At this point I have no idea what’s going to be largely smiled at and what’s going to cause a massive torrent of self-righteous vitriol. Obvious shit like the fact that departments shouldn’t rely on adjuncts causes such a stir that I’m scared off the Internet for the foreseeable future. Salacious stuff like MLA sex-ads and prostitution skits barely cause a ripple. People are weird, man. Stay tuned.

Anyway, now read this:

Pannapacker is back in the Chronicle! Read this important article on the arduous, monumental task of tracking PhD placement data, and unseat that pseudonymous little Hunger Games twit!

Sarah Kendzior’s latest for Al Jazeera is a motherfucking virtuoso that ties together the most infuriating news stories of the past month in a common theme: the mainstream media as a sanctioning force of bigotry and marginalization.

Kelly J. Baker’s in Vitae, explaining why it really is just so goddamned hard to “get another job” once you decide to leave academia (or it decides to leave you).

2 thoughts on “Link-a-doodle-doos 2: Link-lectric Boogaloo

  1. Rebecca —
    I really can’t believe that what you’ve taken away from my last post is that you’re “basically trash.” I’ll simplify my points for you here, and then I’m going to stop trying to get you to see any point of view other than your own:

    1. Administration, not faculty, is responsible for the adjunct situation. Attacking tenured faculty only makes things worse for all faculty everywhere.

    2. You have a valuable resource — a public forum. Use it to express informed opinions.

    I never took issue with the idea that “departments should hire less adjunct faculty.” Most people don’t. The problem is with attacking tenured faculty as a group for the situation.

    3. If you attack people, don’t be surprised if they attack back. How people respond to you is partly a function of how you write.

    In short, you’re not just a passive victim.


    • You said that the only reason anyone reads anything I write is because I “get hits” (because, apparently, this entire shit-show of an interaction is taking place in 1997). You said that nobody–nobody–cares about my mind or my writing, and that if I don’t realize this, I am stupid.

      You implied quite strongly that the sole reason I did not succeed in academia is that I am not good enough.

      You said my writing doesn’t matter at all, and that the only thing I do to “get hits” is to “tell professors to fuck off,” which I have never really done. I have *suggested* that individuals who are unwilling to make any sacrifices on behalf of those below them can fuck off, but with the sole exception of UC-Riverside English, which deserved it, I have never, ever, ever attacked a single person unprovoked.

      I make a systemic critique. Responding with a personal attack is cheap, hurtful, and unfair–and it also proves I’m right, because you have no recourse to respond to what I say other than to take me down personally.


Hello. I "value" your comment. (No, really, I do!) Please don't be a dick, though.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s