Academia’s “Privileges” Should Be Enjoyed By All Workers
The American Rightwing likes to claim that academics are over-entitled, privileged, and lazy trouble-makers. It repeats the silly myths that university knowledge workers don’t work hard—except at the task of corrupting young people’s minds! If only it were so simple.
Others also express annoyance at university knowledge workers because they do have relatively nice jobs, especially compared to the average, heavily-exploited American worker. Most workers lack basic benefits like parental leave or vacation time, regular schedules, union representation, or even living wages (and thus have to work multiple jobs). In comparison, academics look like royalty, with luxuries and freedoms that most workers could only dream about.
Knowledge workers at universities enjoy working conditions that seem almost fantastical. Beyond basic, core assumptions, no one dictates what instructors do every day in their classes. They are simply trusted to do what they should, as they are the presumed experts. In a syndicalist context, this would be called “self-management”; as long as workers can get their jobs done and achieve certain outcomes, others don’t intrude in the process. They also enjoy “academic freedom”, which implies that people should be able to be honest and critical when warranted (but not vindictive or mean) about the things they study and the work they do. Academics select their own areas of interest and are permitted to investigate at will, so as long as they do so ethically.
Academics are typically organized in particular units called departments, where they have considerable influence over how that department is run. Usually any faculty member (including non-tenured workers) can speak at department meetings and contribute ideas; if those suggestions have good merits, they are usually honestly considered, regardless of the source. These meetings are democratically-run, often based on majority-rule. (It should be said that non-tenure-track knowledge workers don’t always have equal rights in this situation, as they may not be able to vote or may have less weight associated with their votes.) This democratic oversight means that faculty control their own curriculum, can create their own committees for new projects, and can collectively-manage their own affairs—within certain administrative limits, of course.
Lastly, knowledge workers enjoy tenure protections—at least if they are hired on the “tenure track”. This means that after a certain period of review, if the worker is good at their job, it’s assumed they will continue to do good work. As long as they don’t stop doing their work (e.g., stop teaching their classes) or do something flagrantly against the law or university rules (e.g., set fire to a university building or have sexual relations with a student), they’ll be guaranteed indefinite employment. This is a privilege enjoyed by only the smallest class of American workers.
With all these attractive working conditions, it’s easy to understand why other workers may be either jealous or—in the interests of equity—may think academics should be stripped off those privileges so they are more like all other workers. But, this is the wrong analysis of the situation. Instead of lowering knowledge workers to the level of exploited workers, we need to raise the floor for all workers to the level of the university—and then beyond.
Knowledge workers should spend less time justifying why they deserve these privileges and instead advocate for the expansion of all of these benefits to the entirety of the working class. There’s no reason why democratic mechanisms can’t be created (and thrive!) within all kinds of workplaces—from auto mechanic shops, factories, and restaurants, to offices, worksites, and farms. The protections of tenure and the peace-of-mind that comes from guaranteed employment after an evaluation period is also something easily applied to other places of employment. Of course employers of all stripes would absolutely hate this, since it would reduce their power. But there’s no practical reason why it couldn’t work. It would create a more committed, skilled, empowered, and satisfied workforce. It would be more just because the degree of exploitation and alienation would be greatly reduced (although still present under capitalism). Thus, the only real question to consider is: how to force employers to relinquish their power, to create better work and more just conditions?
The seemingly strange and impressive benefits that knowledge workers enjoy, stem from the university’s history as a Medieval-era institution, where craft labor reigned. Master workers trained their apprentices in their craft, and no one else was assumed to be able to do that work; thus the worker controlled not only their own labor, but also the entirety of their craft. Universities have changed greatly over the centuries, though. Much more administrative management exists now, which reflects the hierarchical influences from both state and corporate capitalism. To be clear, the university is no worker utopia, but it possess unique features that are worth defending; these working conditions also empower knowledge workers to resist the creeping colonizing forces of hierarchy that corporate-styled administers wish to spread.
Academics ought to defend their relatively nice working conditions by not only justifying how they are themselves deserving, but by arguing that all workers are deserving of them, too, because just, democratic, and empowering conditions and benefits are core human rights. Thus, the university can serve as a model for other workplaces.