on the future of higher-ed-subsidized literary magazines
Ronald Liebowitz, the president of Middlebury College, offers some thoughts about the possible future of the New England Review "[g]iven current financial circumstances." I have published fiction and nonfiction in New England Review, so do have a biased opinion on this matter, but one wonders how President Liebowitz will comment when many other university presses and journals—Louisiana State University Press, and the Southern Review, as Liebowitz notes, are also endangered—having lost their subsidies from their host institutions, fold. (Since Liebowitz's argument appears to be based on the idea of, in his own words, "direct benefits" to students, as well as the fact that "other people are doing it," I'll continue in that vein.)
In this era of the corporatized university—and the era of the death of the newspaper—one can easily imagine the absence of literary and scholarly journals, and unversity presses—which Leibowitz correctly indentifies as niche markets—and yet, without them, academic publishing (and one assumes that institutional subventions will be yet another item on the chopping block at many endowment-anxious schools*), such as it is, will vanish, and many of the professors at Middlebury (and elsewhere) will be unable to publish their scholarship. One wonders whether the scholarship and publication by Middlebury's professors offers Middlebury's students a "direct benefit"—since, indeed, such scholarship presumably "serves a very small slice of the general population and is known only to a handful of Middlebury students" despite any acclaim it might earn elsewhere. Will President Leibowitz suggest that Middlebury's criteria for tenure and promotion thus be relaxed, "[g]iven current financial circumstances"?
Indeed, it seems very strange that the president of a college which, in the first sentence of its promotional description on its website, is advertised as one of the country's top liberal arts colleges, speaks in terms of "direct benefits" to students at all—since that term suggests a tangible, specific outcome that seems in direct conflict with the mission of the liberal arts.
* See here for an article about Middlebury's endowment, "which weighed in at $885 million last June, [but] shed $200 million in the last six months of [2008]."
In this era of the corporatized university—and the era of the death of the newspaper—one can easily imagine the absence of literary and scholarly journals, and unversity presses—which Leibowitz correctly indentifies as niche markets—and yet, without them, academic publishing (and one assumes that institutional subventions will be yet another item on the chopping block at many endowment-anxious schools*), such as it is, will vanish, and many of the professors at Middlebury (and elsewhere) will be unable to publish their scholarship. One wonders whether the scholarship and publication by Middlebury's professors offers Middlebury's students a "direct benefit"—since, indeed, such scholarship presumably "serves a very small slice of the general population and is known only to a handful of Middlebury students" despite any acclaim it might earn elsewhere. Will President Leibowitz suggest that Middlebury's criteria for tenure and promotion thus be relaxed, "[g]iven current financial circumstances"?
Indeed, it seems very strange that the president of a college which, in the first sentence of its promotional description on its website, is advertised as one of the country's top liberal arts colleges, speaks in terms of "direct benefits" to students at all—since that term suggests a tangible, specific outcome that seems in direct conflict with the mission of the liberal arts.
* See here for an article about Middlebury's endowment, "which weighed in at $885 million last June, [but] shed $200 million in the last six months of [2008]."
Labels: academia, literary magazines, New England Review, publishing, writing
posted by Josh at 6:24 PM
<< Home