Why It Stings, or Disability and Oscars 2015

Image via lcbritton.com

Image via lcbritton.com

I didn’t watch the Oscars for a variety of reasons. First, there was the complete White-Out of the awards nominations, which is just gross, especially in a year with SELMA.

But I heard who won Best Actor and Actress in a Leading Role. Eddie Redmayne won best actor for playing a person with a disability, famous physicist Stephen Hawking (who has ALS). Julianne Moore won best actress for playing a person with a disability (early onset Alzheimer’s disease).

Neither of these actors are people with disabilities themselves. Of course they aren’t.

Their wins made me think back to all of the Oscar wins that traded on performances of disability—on freakish circus act performances of disability. Here’s my off-the-top list of Oscar winners that traded on performance of disability:

  • As Good As It Gets
  • My Left Foot
  • Forrest Gump
  • The King’s Speech
  • Ray
  • Scent of a Woman
  • A Beautiful Mind
  • Rain Man
  • One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
  • Silver Linings Playbook
  • Girl, Interrupted

The list goes on and on. And I’m sure there are many more that were nominated that didn’t win.

And none of the actors who portrayed people with disabilities in the films listed above were actually themselves disabled in the way that they were portraying. Jamie Foxx and Al Pacino are not people with severe visual impairments. Eddie Redmayne does not have ALS (that we know of). Colin Firth does not have severe speech disfluency. Russell Crowe does not have schizophrenia (that we know of). Similarly, Angelina Jolie does not have a personality disorder (that we know of), and certainly not one as severe as the one she portrayed in Girl, Interrupted and won an Oscar for.

So what’s my problem? Shouldn’t we, as a society, and we, as people with disabilities, be, you know, psyched to see people with disabilities portrayed on screen?

No. It’s not that simple.

Like most things, there’s more than one way to do a thing. Most films that trade on disability to garner Oscar nods are doing just that: trading on disability. These films trade on the disabilities of real people to make money and gain prestige while actually excluding people who live with disabilities from that world of money and prestige.

Part of the problem is this: How many in Hollywood can talk about their psychiatric disabilities without fear of repercussions? Because Hollywood is a world where it’s A-OK for top Sony brass and producers to write these words to each other about someone as powerful as Angelina Jolie:

A further leaked email thread between Sony Pictures co-chairperson Amy Pascal and movie producer Scott Rudin reveals Rudin once again harshly criticising Angelina Jolie. In the exchange, published by Gawker, Rudin describes the actress as “seriously out of her mind” as tension mounts over Jolie’s planned film Cleopatra, for which Eric Roth produced a script.

Who in Hollywood is actually going to come forward and give these assholes actual ammo to criticize their mental health?

I know I wouldn’t.

So here we are, in a world where studios race to put out the latest freakshow of a film to win Oscars, but call actors “crazy” behind their backs, shaming them—and all of us—into silence. 

Studios do not hire actors with disabilities to play characters with disabilities. It’s like the Globe Theater, dressing men up as women. It stings.

It’s also getting old.

CAVEATS: Bravo to Breaking Bad for recently breaking this trend with RJ Mitte, a brilliant actor playing a brilliant role on a brilliant, if brutal, show. Also bravo to Michael J. Fox who is breaking every trend kind of constantly. I LOVE THE GOOD WIFE basically all the time anyway so go watch it.

The Super Bowl of White Male Privilege

Image via Morguefile: http://mrg.bz/u1ln2h

Image via Morguefile: http://mrg.bz/u1ln2h

This is all I could think about last night while watching the Super Bowl. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

(Heads up: No mention of the half-time show follows because that would take an entire post in and of itself. Plus this is about white male privilege. Katy Perry dominating/riding the King of Beasts wink wink in her fire dress needs way more than a listicle.)

Here we go. In a count of 5, the Super Bowl of White Male Privilege:

1. The announcers pointed out, before kickoff, that Bill Belichick was wearing his “favorite hoodie,” highlighting the privilege of white men in any field to dress down (or in Bill’s case, like a slob), while people of color must adhere to heightened, invisible dress codes to earn respect. And if you’re a person of color and don’t dress up, as we know, you are very well risking your life. But even if you do dress up, like Ersula Ore and others, you are not immune to police abuse.

2. Tom Brady has the privilege to abandon his pregnant fiancee for a supermodel without invoking racial stereotypes—do all white men leave their pregnant girlfriends? Is that a white thing to do? Yet, white people go crazy that Richard Sherman hasn’t married his pregnant girlfriend. Every article on Sherman and his girlfriend’s impending due date is flooded with racist comments by white people talking about how he hasn’t married his “baby mama.” In case you were wondering, yes, “baby mama” is racially loaded language.

3. Gronk gives interview after interview, and each interview has any thinking person dropping her head to her desk in brain pain. But no one says he speaks for all white men, demonstrating the lack of intelligence, education, or articulateness of all white men. While Marshawn Lynch is, well, you know.

4. Meanwhile, Russell Wilson is quietly breaking records as the first Black quarterback to ever play twice in the Super Bowl. But his record doesn’t make the headlines it should. Oh, by the way, it is Black History Month. You notice?

5. And all of this is happening in a context that has a certain (large) group of white Americans pulling for the Patriots—a team they would have never otherwise pulled for (Taxachusetts, amirite?)—simply because the alternative is too distasteful. But don’t you dare call these newbie Patriots fans racist. They just wish Sherman would be quiet and get married. They just prefer watching Brady throw to Gronk, you know, because those two are “All-American.”

Yeah. We know.

Love Poem

Image via Laura Collins Britton, lcbritton.com

Image via Laura Collins Britton, lcbritton.com

I saw a tweet come across my feed today that Tom Sleigh is doing a reading a bookstore near Harvard. (I live nowhere near Harvard.) I took a poetry workshop with Tom Sleigh a million years ago at Johns Hopkins where I got my master’s in creative writing. He was the kindest, most generous professor and writer. Tom, if you’re reading this, thank you again.

I wrote this during that time, not for the workshop, but for someone in the workshop. #younglove


For You

For you I have transcended gender.
It’s like being friends with a priest,
I told you, at the end of a late-night bender
when we were drunk on words. At least

you had the courtesy to tell
me (at the diner, remember?) just how
you belong to another place, you fell
in love there last year. Even now

I hear you say those words, but it doesn’t
matter to me, I do what I do
because I can’t say what was, wasn’t—
though the truth offends, or scares you.

I’m your benefactress in a black dress,
your armed and mounted standard-bearer,
your journeyman minstrel (singing to confess
my malintent), your secret sharer.


Conversation with Elizabeth Keenan

Image by Laura Collins Britton, lcbritton.com

Image by Laura Collins Britton, lcbritton.com

Note: This piece was also published simultaneously on the blogs of Elizabeth Keenan (the piece’s co-author) and Joe Fruscione (the piece’s editor). Do go visit their websites as well.

Freelance Academics (Walking Away from the Con)

Elizabeth Keenan & Katie Rose Guest Pryal

December 2014

Elizabeth and Katie both left teaching positions after the Spring 2014 semester. Katie has taken unpaid leave for a year. Elizabeth began working in real estate in September, while still maintaining her freelance editing business. When Joe first asked us to write this column, we were still teaching as contingent faculty—now, we are post-academics. Thus, we are both to a degree in transition, and our discussion will reflect some of this fluidity.

On Choosing a Topic

KP: Let’s write about leaving academia and trying to rebuild our lives. We could also write about using social media to help us do this rebuilding, via networking, writing, etc., if you think that could work too, since that’s how we met in the first place.

EK: Sounds good.

On Abandoning Academia

EK: I was going to abandon academia in the spring of 2013, more than a full year ago, while I was adjuncting at Fordham and Columbia. I had heard that all of the jobs I’d applied for that cycle had moved on without me—even the ones where I’d made it to the long-short list. And so I wrote a series of thank-you-for-all-your-help-but-I’m-leaving emails to my advisor and other mentors and senior faculty who’ve been helpful to me.

Then, literally two days later, I got a request for a two-day, on-campus interview at an R1 in my dream location. (My husband can transfer his job to only one city other than New York, and this was it.) On the one hand, I felt a little flutter in my heart that maybe, just maybe, the universe was finally throwing me a lifeline. On the other, I knew that I was the sixth of six candidates, brought in after a pause in the search, and that either the job was going to me or to no one.

Once I got to the interview, it was clear that my dream was never going to happen, and that the search would fail. But it was a real heartbreak to be so close to the thing I wanted and realize not only that I’d never get it, but also that jumping into a department that viewed itself as constantly in crisis wasn’t something a sane person should want. At that point, I knew I couldn’t go through another job cycle with likely the same close-but-no-cigar results.

But I didn’t leave. Another challenge complicated my extrication from adjuncting: fertility issues. My husband and I were about to do a round of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) last summer, and the doctors told us we had very good chances of having a baby. Since we believed them, and most of my friends had success with IVF on the first try, I thought I’d adjunct in the fall and then take the spring off to have a baby. Then I could look for a job outside academia at some later date. The first IVF didn’t work, but we were told our chances were still very good if we tried again. So, instead of searching for a non-academic, 9-to-5 job when I knew I’d face tons of early-morning doctor visits, I decided to stay in my adjunct position for another year.

This decision, though practical, led to a lot of frustration. I was no longer treating adjunct position as a step toward a tenure-track job. Instead, I saw adjunct work for exactly what it was: a radically underpaid dead-end job. And then I read a conversation about uppity adjuncts between two tenured folks on Twitter that set me off. So, I started blogging with “How Not to Be a Tenured Ally,” followed by “How to Be a Tenured Ally.” Suddenly, after these two posts, people were coming to my blog and contacting me over Twitter. Blogging (and tweeting, since I’m pretty much on Twitter all the freakin’ time) helped me recognize not just that I wanted to leave my terrible adjuncting job, but that I was really done with the pursuit of the ever-elusive tenure-track job and the “academic” mindset.

So, for me, leaving academia (especially adjuncting, which is a trap no matter how you look at it), wasn’t the result of one crisis, but the culmination of a bunch of them. On your blog, you mention that it took a crisis to make you finally leave. Without getting into that crisis per se, what made you know that this was the time to leave?

KP: My most recent blog post prior to our writing this piece, “What Does It Mean To Be a Freelance Academic?” takes on my identity-shift from someone who was very much immersed in the identity of an academic. In retrospect, my exit began long before I requested my year’s leave of absence back in May, and I should make clear, I’m still planning to return to my contingent academic job.

But I am not planning to return to my identity as an academic. I will no longer be looking at academia as professional fulfillment (even though it has been my career for eleven years). I will no longer be viewing academia as a career. Instead, and this sounds kind of funny when I write it down, the university is merely one of my many freelance clients.

Here is the chain of events that led me to request a year of unpaid leave, and then to take on a new identity as a freelance academic: On the day I was promoted to “associate”—in quotation marks, because in my department, writing faculty cannot be on the tenure track—two other events took place. My sister gave birth to her third child and Nelson Mandela died. I received the call that the vote went my way, and then I went to the bathroom of the coffee shop where I’d been working and bawled. Like, I completely lost control.

When I say that my promotion is meaningless, here’s what I’m referring to: I do not get any presumptive increase in pay. In fact, I do not expect any increase in pay. I do not get more freedom in my teaching—I will continue to teach the same course every semester, year in and year out. Absolutely no benefits accrue to this promotion except one: a contract term that is two years longer than my previous contract term. In a world in which adjuncts are fighting for any sort of job predictability at all, a long-term contract is nothing to sniff at. I know. I’ve been year-to-year.

But birth, death, and the changing the world made my meaningless promotion seem especially meaningless that day. What on Earth have I been working one-hundred-hour weeks for? I asked myself. THIS?

I got my act together, went back to teach this past spring semester, hoped my working conditions would be better, and realized, due to a variety of events that occurred during the spring semester, that my working conditions were never going to be better. I asked the dean—in a fashion that could not be misunderstood—whether I could make a move to the tenure-track. He said, in similar fashion, “No.” That’s when I realized that I’d been working 100-hour-weeks because I’d been hoping that they would let me in the tenure club.

I came home and tried to explain to my husband what I was feeling at work—the snub at the coffeemaker, the “Who are you again?” at the copier. He nodded sagely (he does that) and said, “Well, they’re not letting you be what you know you can be.” And that’s when I realized the most important thing that I wrote about in that Freelance Academic post: when you’re contingent faculty, the university is basically saying that it wants the small bits of you that will do the exhausting, draining, underpaid work while remaining at the fringes of academia. And for so long, I pushed myself so hard to try to break in, to show I was good enough to be let in from the fringes.

But here’s the con, the legerdemain, the grift, the whatever you want to call it. And you yourself know this as well as anyone, Elizabeth: it isn’t a matter of being good enough. They truly just don’t want us in the club—whether their thought process is conscious or not. They’re scared and self-conscious, and exclusivity is all they have. They have to believe in their “process” because without their process, their myth of merit, they have nothing.

As soon as I saw the academic house of cards for what it was, I wanted no part of it. It was easy to walk away from the con. It’s not easy to walk away from teaching and from students, though. I love teaching. I love students. Indeed, this love, the “calling” of teaching, has enabled the conning of adjuncts for years, as Rebecca Schuman has pointed out.

On Social Media and Rebuilding

EK: Adjunct/Post-Ac/Alt-Ac Twitter, more than blogging, made a huge difference in how I started to see my role as an adjunct. I started blogging about adjuncting during Campus Equity Week, which was fortuitous and partially planned. I’ve been on Twitter since 2008, but my followers were a mix of music scholars and people from geek culture acquired whenever my Twitter-famous spouse mentioned me. Discovering Adjunct Twitter was a huge part in how I could start reframing myself. How did you get looped into the contingent/post-ac blogosphere and Twitter? Have you found it helpful in rebuilding your identity?

KP: I never used Twitter at all until I left Facebook nearly one year ago (fed up with their ridiculous privacy rules—oh, and I’ve since returned, but purely for “professional” reasons ROFL). I figured Twitter had to be better, since it only had one simple setting: public. I never realized how dang useful it would be. Once I figured out how to coordinate my blog, Twitter, colleagues, and conferences, it seemed like a whole new world opened up. Adjunct Twitter—I’ve actually never used that term before, but yes—has been very helpful. I’ve needed help negotiating my precarious status in the university, figuring out an identity separate from academia, and networking a professional existence outside the ivory tower. All these challenges would have been much harder without my Adjunct Twitter network.

On Networking as Post/Freelance-Acs

KP: As I’ve shifted my identity from full-time contingent professor to Freelance Academic, I’ve gotten really brazen about networking. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how generous the Adjunct and Post-Ac Twitter communities are. I’ve emailed or messaged folks and asked for referrals or advice about writing for publications; everyone has always not only agreed but also done so whole-heartedly. I’m happy to do the same for others, I just don’t have as much pull in powerful places as others do. Maybe some day.

I do think that academia trains us to not ask for things, to be meek and wait our turns. Or to accept as our due when the spotlight only shines on a special chosen few. We don’t question the spotlight, or the structures in place that create the “chosen few” in the first place. Part of the academic con is the belief in the pure meritocracy. What a load of crap. Outside academia, good hustle is rewarded, which comes as a relief to me. I’m a hard worker (sound familiar, Elizabeth?) and I want to be paid for that work. One way to work hard is to network hard: to reach out to people, with kindness, and ask for their help.

And to always remember to repay the favor.

EK: I’m terrible at networking, in the sense that I am never sure what the boundaries are. Years in academia have led me to expect that everyone is as prickly as a tenured Ivy League professor, but, really, most people aren’t. (I’m not sure if the bias toward white men is still there—or if, in some cases, gender bias is working in my favor in the new careers I’ve been investigating.) The more I reach out to people, the more I see that the extreme kowtowing of academe is a little unusual in most places—sure, people expect (and deserve) respect, but most people are more willing to give up their time more often than I think they will.

In a lot of ways, I should be used to reaching out to people—my dissertation involved extensive fieldwork, and I’ve been a freelancer who regularly checks in with clients—but there’s something different (and scarier) when it’s about a whole, new field. It’s not just about introducing yourself to someone new, but about learning about a new industry while simultaneously pitching yourself as a potentially viable job candidate for some future position. It’s a delicate task made all the more difficult by pre-existing stereotypes of academics (we’re stodgy; we won’t take direction; we don’t pay attention to deadlines; we’re already making a lot of money), as well as real, structural issues within the larger economy.

On Shedding the “Academic” Title, but not the Identity of the Scholar

EK: So, one of the things that really struck me as we were writing this is that we’re both leaving academia in slightly different ways. For me, it’s leaving a job that I find exploitative, while giving up on the dream of a tenure-track job. But I don’t see myself shedding the “scholar” identity any time soon. I’ve got more articles in the pipeline now than at any time in my career, and I still enjoy thinking and writing about music and feminism in a scholarly way. The biggest question for me is: How do I continue to be a scholar without being an academic? Is it even possible to dream of being a public intellectual in this climate? I don’t know, Katie. How are you reframing that scholarly part of yourself as you move forward?

KP: Right now, I have one article that I am finishing up, and two conferences on the horizon. I would imagine that I would stay involved in my scholarly communities (I’m interdisciplinary), but I won’t be immersed. The hustling I will do is for me, not for professional recognition in those fields. I think that’s the main difference between hoping for success in academia and working as a freelance academic: I’ve changed the metric of success. Is my family clothed, fed, housed, happy, safe? Do I have time for them? Am I doing satisfying work to me? Well, then, that’s far more than most people get, and I feel lucky.

News, The

I don’t even know how to write a blog post in our present news cycle.

I have been participating in public discourse on Twitter. (That’s probably an understatement.) And I’ve been working hard on a series of articles on campus rape (assigned to me pre-stupid-Rolling-Stone-let’s-blame-the-victim-gate) with a smart lady co-author whom I’ve reconnected with lately. We’re filing those pieces tomorrow.

Keeping busy is good.

I want to be happy about receiving my first copy of my new book in the mail today:

HWW Selfie

But at the same time, it’s hard to be happy about anything.

If I’m happy about something, I guess it is this: I’m happy that so many spirits have been moved to protest a police and criminal justice system that is, and always has been, racially unjust.

There are certain times, such as now, when the unjust-ness comes into sharper focus for more and more people, and those are the times when more and more people are motivated to act. I just hope we can ride this manifested human energy forward to meaningful reforms.

Check out Dame Magazine’s most recent Throwback Thursday selection. I just watched the music video before I wrote this post. Lauryn Hill’s album came out when I was finishing up college, newly embarking on the world. Listen to her words. Watching the video shook me up a bit, in a good way.  It was timely, for sure.

Stay warm out there.

Here come the #HeadClutchers – images of mental illness in the media


This article came across my Twitter feed—the visual genres of disability images. Hilarious and sad at the same time. #Headclutchers. “The metaphorical equivalent of a brick over the head.”

Originally posted on The Millers Tale:

If you are thinking of writing an article on mental health and illness, why not use our handy guide to some of the most popular and predominate images of this in the media- the ones that are the symbolic and metaphorical equivalent of a brick over the head in their subtlety, bearing little accuracy to the lived experience of people. Clearly media folk are super important and very busy so we’ve decided to save you having to think at all about how you depict mental illness and mental health problems.

Let us help you with those important editorial decisions.

The first one is the most critical. It is vital that all images of people with mental illness convey the levels of despair they are in via the most terribly obvious manner and the easiest way to do this is by use of the #HeadClutch. The only decision you need to…

View original 525 more words

Guess What Went To Press?

HWW Cover

Jordynn and I are pretty psyched that this one is finally at the printer.

Back in 2011, when I was still pregnant with my now-3-year-old and Jordynn’s baby was still a twinkle in her eye (as my father would say), we embarked on this book project.

The full acknowledgments are in the book itself, but some quick thanks are due to Carrie, Meg, Fred, our families, the rest of the team at Oxford University Press, and everyone who helped us along the way. (Of course I’m forgetting someone important here and whoever that is I’m sorry.)

We’re also super happy with the cover, which has an adequate amount of Carolina Blue.

Four Years’ Work

Image by Smadar, http://mrg.bz/QO9wcj

Image by Smadar, http://mrg.bz/QO9wcj

Four years ago, through my sister and brother-in-law, I met a remarkable family here in Chapel Hill. First I met Emmanuel; his wife Veronica was still working on getting her Green Card, and she and their children lived in Canada.

Emmanuel was in his late 20s when we met, a 2009 grad of UNC-Chapel Hill with a biology degree. But what most people didn’t know about him was that when he was in his late teens, he arrived in the U.S. as a refugee from the Sudanese civil war, illiterate, with very little knowledge of English at all.

I still have trouble reconciling that refugee teen whom I can only imagine with the man I know, father of four, scientist, loving husband.

When I met Veronica, she was reserved at first—nervous about telling her story to a stranger (and I was, indeed, a stranger). But after only a short period of time we became great friends. She is an incredible mom and works a full-time job as a home healthcare aide—work that she loves. She’s a woman I deeply admire.

And now, today, four years later, we’ve written a remarkable book together—about their escape from the war as children, about how they fell in love as teens in a refugee camp but were torn apart, about how they miraculously found each other again in Canada years later. I feel so lucky to have been the person they picked to help them tell their story. Visit the website we put together to learn more about their story and about these amazing people.


Negative Capability

Image by Author, Chapel Hill, NC

Image by Author, Chapel Hill, NC

As I walked to my local coffeeshop this morning, I saw a daytime moon and snapped this photo with my phone. The sun was, at the same time, very bright—you can see the blueness of the sky, a crisp blue that we only get in the North Carolina after the summer’s humidity has been whisked away by cold.

I’ve lived in NC off and on for most of my life, and I love it here. I’ve lived in Durham/Chapel Hill off and on since 2000—nearly 15 years now—and I really love it here in particular. I met my husband here, and we’re raising our kids here. If I weren’t completely unsure about Western religion I would completely buy into the “Southern Part of Heaven” thing they say around here when bragging about how beautiful things are.

Back to this morning’s daytime moon.

The sun and the moon being brightly visible in the sky at the same time made me think about the ability to feel two ways about a thing at the same time. It’s a thing that happens, and it’s not crazy. Keats called it negative capability. Cornel West describes it like this:

You could just called this “being open-minded,” but that’s too simple.

Here’s the point, today: I love Chapel Hill. I love The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I’m a light-blue-blooded Tar Heel. I’m ashamed and horrified by the academic/athletic scandal going on right now. I’m also bummed out by how the university is corporatizing its administration and adjuctifying its faculty (including me).

I can feel both ways at the same time: love, and bummed out. It’s a thing that is possible.

My husband and I are both lifetime alumni association members of UNC. We are season ticket holders. We take our kids to play on the quads and tell them stories about the old buildings. We’re proud to have attended school here. I’d be proud to have my kids attend school here.

So here’s my question for you, my readers, and for all of us who write higher ed journalism:

Why on Earth would I take time to critique higher education if I didn’t care so much about making it better for everyone? For students—first and foremost—and for faculty, staff, and everyone who is a part of this extremely valuable public good?

I wouldn’t. That right there is my mission. I want to make things better. If some dirty secrets get aired, you know what that guy in robes said about daylight and disinfectants. I’m doing the best I can with that mission in mind. I hope you are, too.

Sour Grapes, or Waking Up?

Image by Laura Collins Britton, http://lcbritton.com

Image by Laura Collins Britton, http://lcbritton.com

Recently, a friend I respect told me that she was concerned that my writing on academia came across as though I had “sour grapes.” She was mostly talking about the writing on this blog, although now that this blog is a series on The Chronicle of Higher Education Vitae, I guess she means that, too.

(Some background: She felt like she had to bring it up because we are entering into a business endeavor together. And keep in mind, she was sincerely, truly worried about hurting my feelings. Also, you can see her perspective: Is a crank a good spokesperson for your business?)

But I was truly surprised that she viewed my words as sour grapes—or as anything that could reasonably be perceived as such—in the first place. I actually think I’m kind of pollyanna-ish, once you get past the “let’s stop deluding ourselves” bit. I don’t wallow in misery, and I’m very practical. The point of this whole blog/column #freelanceacademic endeavor is not just to identify problems with our work in higher ed, but to find ways to fix them as well.

I looked up “sour grapes” in the OED, and learned that it derives from one of Aesop’s fables, “The Fox and the Grapes,” and it refers to a situation “in which someone adopts a negative attitude to something because they cannot have it themselves.” So I guess my friend is saying (and I’m inferring here) that since I didn’t get a tenure-track job, I have sour grapes towards higher ed.

But she’s wrong. You can check out my previous post, but know that, right now, I feel like I narrowly escaped by not landing a TT job. There’s something rotten in the state of higher ed, and if I’d moved my family into that dying kingdom, where would I be? Defending it like a lifeboater? Hoarding my meager riches and stomping on contingent faculty? I’d probably be a terrible person and hate myself—IF I were self-aware enough to know what I was doing.

(OK that previous graf didn’t sound very pollyanna-ish, but it does fall under the “stop deluding” exception.)

Besides, this has been the question of the day:

This question isn’t about figuring out how other people see you. It’s about figuring out how YOU see you—and what YOU want to be for YOURSELF.

I know one thing for certain: I do not want to be a tenure-track professor.

They do not hold anything that I cannot have. That’s not sour grapes. That’s waking up.

Now: Soon I will address, in a more hopeful fashion, the wonderful open pathways that higher ed holds for us. Because that hope is there. Those pathways are there. Thinking creatively about learning, teaching, finding making sharing knowledge—we have to do those things. And we can.

Also we have to eat. I’ll talk about that, too.