Enough Already With That Ivory Tower Thing

Sometimes it doesn't take long to start an academic stampede.  Nicholas Kristof kicked one off two days ago in his Sunday New York Times column.  He complained that academics devote too much effort to writing for their own colleagues rather than reaching out to the wider world.  The culture of universities, he suggested,"glorifies arcane unintelligibility while disdaining impact and audience".

The reaction was swift and fierce, unfolding within 24 hours of Kristof's column.  Numerous academics responded via detailed blog posts or online comments (see here and Raul Pacheco-Vega's blog for samples of many interesting responses).  Several key messages emerged:

�      Many university scholars write for non-academic audiences, in print and online, providing detailed research-based policy analysis or thoughtful, passionate commentary.   This post by Corey Robin, a political scientist in New York, lists a wide and inspiring array of scholars, including students, contributing ideas to the wider world.

�      For many faculty it's not a practical option to write for the world.  Given the state of the university job market many highly qualified scholars work 60+ hours/week as adjunct or term lecturers, teaching five or more courses, with no job security.  Ultimately, it's not choice, but neoliberal imperatives, that force many faculty to focus only on their immediate job.

�      Most faculty do in fact communicate to a wide and diverse audience.  They are called, um, students.

I would imagine similar comments could be made about any Canadian university.  Here at Trent (to take my local example) environmental science faculty advise regional stewardship organizations, some humanities and social science people have outside lives as activists, quite a few teach or do community-based research, and there are some special niches as well, such as Chris Furgal's research group, which works in Arctic communities, building knowledge that can help them cope with rapid environmental and social change.

One thing I found so interesting about this column and the reaction is how quickly it all happened.  The column appeared Sunday.  Within 24 hours the following had happened.  Numerous academics posted detailed rebuttals.  Kristof responded to the rebuttals.  The news media covered the debate.  Discussion spread to another Times column (Paul Krugman's).  A new hashtag, #engagedacademics, assembled tweeted commentary.

Imagine how this debate might have unfolded 15 years ago: campus discussions on Monday, followed at a decent interval by two or three restrained letters to the editor of the Times.  Not only has today's reaction been far livelier, I would imagine it has given comfort to the many scholars who devote time (even at the expense of purely academic pursuits) to getting out there and encouraging thoughtful change.  And that must be a good thing.