A reader emailed me this weekend:
What do you make of this:http://theprofessorisin.com/2014/07/25/adjuncts-assistant-professors-and-a-broken-faculty-life-cycle/ - one idea I thought was interesting: Kelsky says the current market is damaging to new faculty members (and I would further and say it's damaging to others too), even the lucky ones who make it: "My point was, tenure track hires today are often harmed by the destructive conditions of the job market, even when they have been successful in it. They are harmed by the years of anxiety, the pervasive sense of panic and uncertainty, the indignities of years of adjuncting at poverty wages, by 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars of debt, and by a kind of ‘survivor’s guilt’ vis-a-vis all their friends and comrades still laboring in the adjunct trenches."This strikes me as true - I remember though you saying that you felt that the years in NTT positions do make you (and others) better people: more dedicated etc. So I'm wondering if both could be true - if junior academics could both be a better person *and* incur significant harm by the current model.
I've been to linguistics, theology, narratology, and theatre conferences and the norms of basic politeness in those fields are radically different from philosophy. If your question isn't charitable and helpful, the whole room will frown at you and the moderator will just call on someone else. You can't just do the philosopher thing of just trying to score dialectical points against the speaker.