'Klanderud's List'

[Sibelan Forrester]

Just to throw a few more kopecks at this interesting discussion:

As "Klanderud's List" itself makes clear, the issue of the perception of
academics by the general public is not limited to Slavics and Slavists --
in fact, the image of literature teachers depends largely on the "amusing"
media coverage of the MLA, where Slavists are barely present.  And the
perceived loss of importance in Slavic Studies (if I remember from the
articles to that effect from the past few years) seems to come both from
the demise of the Evil Empire, and from the experts' failure to predict
that demise -- a failure that can't be laid at the door of people teaching
language & literature & linguistics, though of course we benefited kosvenno
from the funding the government poured into creating experts in political
science etc., since those students had to take our language courses.

The fact that academics are under attack in general -- including, by the
way, the economists and biologists whose work is more easily tied in to
something "useful" to society -- might make us suspect both the documented
anti-intellectual tendencies of American society (where a Vice President
you all probably recall made an election virtue of the fact that he was,
well, a dummy) AND a concerted effort to present academics as (name all the
negative stereotypes here).  Who benefits from the presentation of
academics as overpaid, irrelevent ivory-tower dwellers?  The media who sell
those funny stories about MLA panel titles?  The politicians whose lack of
meaningful support for education and financial aid might otherwise fuel
public discontent and (heaven forbid) non-reelection?  The administrations
whose swelling staffs consume a larger and larger part of the budget pie?
The MBA-style university management who can't see something like a tenure
system because it's not amenable to downsizing?  Plenty of possible
culprits if you want a conspiracy theory.  Maybe the Powers that Be don't
want anyone being taught to think anymore -- even if it's thinking about
who's a bigger negodjaj, Salieri or Silvio.

Robert Beard is right that many of the media or public stereotypes are
right on the mark -- if they weren't, they wouldn't fly as stereotypes.
And the suggestions for evolutionary adaptations are excellent, even if
they seem to tend in a particular direction at the expense of other
possibilities.

I wonder though, given the small access We have to public opinion compared
to Them, when self-criticism passes over into self-hatred, and how useful
the latter can possibly be.

And I wonder largely because I work with someone (my senior colleague in
our very small Russian program) who spends a good part of his time doing
labor organizing, working with veterans' groups, and teaching literature
courses (including but not limited to Great Russian Novels) at a high
school in a nearby disadvantaged neighborhood.  Those of you who don't know
him from college or grad school probably haven't heard of him, because he
hasn't been publishing a whole lot on (...and here I could list the
stereotypical trivial topics, but isn't the handling here just as important
as the perceived importance of the topic?).  Why hasn't that sort of model
for academic behavior gotten much press in the USA?  I can't believe that
the example I know of is the only one out there.

I can't help thinking, if there's anything to be done about the situation
aside from individual camouflage or adaptations, that it will have to be
addressed by an organization with a lot more media clout than the Slavists.
Does anybody know of one?  Does the AAUP have anything going on?

Sibelan Forrester
Modern L & L
Swarthmore College