When Bad Things Happen to Good Academics

I wonder sometimes what makes people go bad. There doesn’t seem to be any logic to it. James Gilligan, a forensic psychiatrist who has worked with serial killers, writes that nearly all of them have been abused as children. That makes sense to me. I’m inclined to think that people are like other animals, that if they get what they need when they’re young, they grow up to be well- adjusted members of their species. We know how to make an animal, a dog for example, vicious: simply mistreat it. My understanding is that that works on pretty much any animal. If it gets what it needs when it’s young, it will turn out to be a fine adult. If it doesn’t it won’t, it’s that simple.

I like this view, not simply because it’s humane, but also because it’s optimistic. It gives us a formula for wiping out cruelty and intolerance. We just need to work to ensure that people get what they need. We need to make sure that parents don’t have so many financial worries that they cannot be sufficiently attentive to their children, or worse, that they end up taking out their stress on their children. We need to make sure that every person, every job, is accorded respect, that people are treated with dignity, etc., etc., and eventually cruelty and inhumanity will become things of the past. That’s a tall order, of course, and perhaps it’s idealistic, but it’s something to aim at anyway. There was a time when people said things such as poverty and hunger could never be wiped out. But we’ve made great strides in eliminating them, and have even eliminated them completely in parts of the world. It’s widely believed now to be a question of will, not of practical possibility. If we want to eliminate poverty and hunger, we can.

I like to think that the same thing is true with cravenness and cruelty (meaning that it can be wiped out if we have the will to do so) and generally, I do believe it. But sometimes I’m confronted with examples of what seems to be completely gratuitous and inexplicable viciousness from people whose lives to all outward appearances anyway, would seem to be pretty cushy, people who give no evidence (no other evidence anyway) of having been abused as children. The mystery of why some people go bad gives me a certain sympathy with John Calvin, and others who believe in predestination, or the view that some people are just inherently bad. I don’t really believe that, but in my weaker moments, I wonder if it might not be true.

There are just so many variables. Is it not enough to have loving and attentive parents? Can having been picked last for a team in gym class cause a wound that festers for years leading finally to generalized suspicion and paranoia as an adult? Can one slight on the playground explain a vicious and unprovoked attack on a colleague years later?

My mother once said that in her experience, religion made good people better and bad people worse. (Both her parents were ministers in the Assemblies of God church.) The same thing, sadly, seems to be true of academia. I don’t believe there is a better life than that of a tenured academic. Hardly ever in human experience are the stars aligned so perfectly as they are in the lives of tenured academics. Teaching of any sort is fulfilling but most teaching doesn’t come with the job security and other material benefits routinely accorded to the tenured academic. To be paid to teach, not to mention to read, and write, well, it’s like winning the lottery.

I had some wonderful teachers when I was in college. This led me to believe that teachers were, in general, not simply wiser and more learned than the average person, but also kinder, more considerate, more understanding and tolerant. This made sense to me because they had what appeared to be wonderful jobs. How could anyone not be happy with such a life, I asked myself, and how could anyone who was happy fail to be anything but nice?

Since then, however, I have learned that two kinds of people enter academia: (1) well adjusted people, people who are basically kind and decent, sympathetic and empathetic, people who love to read and sometimes (though not always) also to write, people who like people in general and like to think that in their own small way they are doing something to better the human condition, and (2) maladjusted people who like to use their learning as a club with which they can intimidate others, people who suffer from varying degrees of paranoia, people possessed of a messianic zeal to single-handedly save humanity from what in their fevered imaginations they believe to be the ravages inflicted on it by the forces of evil they take to be embodied in the form of despised colleagues, people who spend more time plotting to undermine and even publicly humiliate these colleagues than they spend on teaching.

There is almost no way to check the damage the latter sort of academic can cause once he or she becomes tenured. They sit plotting and poisoning the air in their departments until they retire, and they do not generally retire until very late in life because they thrive on conflict, a kind of conflict that it is hard to find outside a professional context. When, as sometimes happens, I’m confronted with the spectacle of the damage such people can do, the havoc they can wreak in an otherwise harmonious community of scholars, the pain they can cause to colleagues for whom they have conceived a pathological dislike, I have a certain sympathy with the anti-academic element in our vociferously anti-intellectual society. Academics are not really the plague that they are increasingly represented as being, but there is, lamentably, a sizable contingent that gives the rest of us a bad name.

8 responses

  1. No, I’m not anti-tenure. That would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think there needs to be a lot closer and more rigorous scrutiny, though, of tenure candidates. Most of the really vicious and conniving academics I’ve known were not very good scholars. People who are passionately absorbed in their work, have little time to plot against other people and even less interest in doing so. That’s a generalization, of course, but it’s not a bad one. I’ve actually been engaged in a long discussion on this topic in the comments section of an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education on “The Terminal Year.” You can probably find that discussion if you do a search “The Terminal Year” on the Chronicle site.

    More attention should also be paid to the character of tenure candidates. How do they treat their colleagues? Are they helpful and supportive, or do they try to put down colleagues in order to make themselves look better? I think departments very often get stuck with some pretty horrific colleagues simply because they don’t want to be too hard on people, so they forgive a lot of stuff they really shouldn’t, or look the other way, or make excuses when younger colleagues behave badly. I understand that, of course. People want to be nice. That’s one of the appealing things about human beings. It’s a buyer’s market now, though, in higher education. I think if a department finds it has made some unappealing hires to the tenure track, the answer is to get rid of them–and fast! There are lots more bright talented young people out there, people who are very likely even brighter and more talented than the colleagues in question, not to mention also kinder and wiser and possessed of better judgment.

  2. ” I think if a department finds it has made some unappealing hires to the tenure track, the answer is to get rid of them–and fast! There are lots more bright talented young people out there, people who are very likely even brighter and more talented than the colleagues in question, not to mention also kinder and wiser and possessed of better judgment.”

    Wow ! Sounds like you’re on the laissez-fiare managment track? Get rid of the old high-priced people and bring on the ad juncts.

  3. How do you get that? I never said anything about getting rid of “old high-priced people” or about replacing ANYONE with adjuncts. I said if a dept. finds out it’s made some bad tenure-track hires that they should be let go ASAP and replaced with new and better tenure-track hires.

  4. “People who are passionately absorbed in their work, have little time to plot against other people and even less interest in doing so.”

    A great generalization which holds true in all endeavors. Plus, depending on personality, many of those people are positive collaborators, excited to pass their passion on to others.

  5. When I became an administrator in an academic unit, I found I inherited a tenured full professor who incarnates the maladjusted persona you describe above. That was bad enough, given the insidious, devious acts he has committed for years. Factor in the negative influences on the weaker souls and even the intimidation of the stalwart ones, and the damage increases exponentially. When I tried to expose him, I got pep talks from above about working around him. Tenure has many benefits for your first kind of academic, but its a weapon, both offensive and defensive, in the hands of the second, as there is nothing he can do that can be cited as a reason to remove tenure — that’s how polished a cerebral criminal he is, operating in an environment of academic political weakness.

    As soon as I find the next trapeze, ciao academia.

    • Yes, the negative influence on weaker souls cannot be underestimated. I have enormous sympathy for people who collapse morally in the face of the threat of violence or death, but to do it simply out of a fear that one will not get tenure, or a longed for promotion, that is a sorry sight indeed. “Cerebral criminal,” that’s a good word to describe such a person. How does that happen to someone though, that is what I am still trying to puzzle out?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: