The dream of freethinking academic institutions is dead
It's time for a new way to approach learning
Photo by Christina Morillo
On April 17th, 40 editors of NeuroImage and NeuroImage: Reports quit, citing unethical charges for access to scientific information by the publishing giant that owns those 2 journals, Elsevier. A whole month later, the news finally made it into mainstream media. I heard about it for the first time this week. The Guardian reported on it this week, as well.
While this may seem like a highly industry-specific outcry, it’s not. These 40 editors are challenging what has been the norm for so long - payment in exchange for what should be free knowledge.
I don’t agree with people who refuse to take a vaccine and cite a lack of trust in “scientists pushing government propaganda”. I do understand where their mistrust comes from because the lauded institution of free-thinking academia is, well, complicated.
We can probably all agree that while hospital CEOs are greedy and so are insurance companies, most of the doctors that work in them are just as frustrated with the hoops they have to jump through to deliver care as we are.
Academia is the same way. Greedy publishing companies like Elsevier make billions of dollars a year by charging researchers thousands of dollars to make their research open access to the public, even as many scientific researchers surrender the rights to their work once it’s published in a specific journal. If work isn’t open access, then the public has to pay - so companies like Elsevier make money off of scientists who value open access to work.
Did I mention researchers don’t get paid to share this knowledge? Unless prestige pays a mortgage. It’s ironic- I publish content here, and sometimes I get paid. A scientist publishes novel findings about a life-saving treatment for cancer and gets nothing but recognition. Prestige.
Certain research gets more funding. Sometimes this is justifiable, I would argue, but other times it’s not. The reality of academia is that even the best-intentioned people are biased, and academia is full of people who don’t have the best intentions.
Why? The bottom line is money. That’s the bottom line for publishing companies. It’s the bottom line when deciding what research gets funded. Rare diseases get less funding for a reason - fewer people are impacted by the finding of the research, making it less profitable.
However, 9 out of 10 times, the individuals seeking to widen scientific knowledge and communicate it to the public are simply trying to make the world a better place. To save lives or preserve ecosystems. They’re frustrated, too.
This act of rebellion got me thinking about what the academic dream is. It’s obviously not to pay oodles of money to go to school, publish scientific findings you stayed up countless nights in pursuit of, and then still be broke.
Perhaps we should redefine the dream of academia and who gets a seat at the table.
When I used to think about college, before I went to college, I imagined I would spend my days in a Hogwarts-esque library. Vaulted ceilings, encyclopedias of books, and the like. My peers and I would have think-tank discussions in class. College would be a place to dream.
College was actually a place where dreams went to die. That was slightly dramatic- I had plenty of new dreams in college. Like graduating, or another cup of coffee, or please just passing this physics exam. However, my dream of college definitely died in college.
The library was dimly-lit and depressing, and it was more commonly where people went to cry or fornicate. I majored in Biology, so there was right or wrong. Critical thought wasn’t really a thing that was fostered.
As I’ve thought about how outdated parts of academia are over the years:
Going above and beyond as a professor that isn’t tenured in the hopes of getting tenure
Being unable to get fired once you are tenured, even if you aren’t a great professor
Meager pay for post-doctoral students who are making groundbreaking discoveries and are neck-deep in student debt without the kind of salary that say, a doctor, has to look forward to
I’ve thought about who gets to have a voice and who gets to participate in the conversations that shift the narrative.
Who gets to learn? Who gets to understand the concepts changing our world? Who has time to care? Who has the money to pay for education? Who’s just trying to put food on the table?
The experiences of marginalized people have historically had no place in academia, from racism and sexism in research labs to refusal to acknowledge the lived experiences of oppressed people in the classroom to campus police and public safety being unsupportive of rape victims and victims of hate crimes.
Universities were created by white men, for white men. Perhaps we should evaluate how much our educational institutions, from freshman year to Ph.D., are upholding oppressive systems of power.
Universities and academia were created so that humanity and society could learn and grow. It seems that by staying stuck in the past and refusing to acknowledge real barriers to entry into academia, whether the inability to pay tuition or lack of scientific literacy, we’re going against the very ethos of a freethinking institution.
The 40 Elsevier editors saw that. They’re forming a non-profit, open-access journal - allowing anyone to access scientific information and no longer letting greed drive what they publish. No researchers will have to pay for open access to their work. They can’t be accused of pushing any agenda except publishing the facts.
Who will be next to jump ship? And what does the future of academia look like?
Church Signs
I haven’t been driving a lot this week, so I found this church sign thanks to the Internet.
Have a good week!
xx
Camille
Academia is very lost at the moment. And I can’t understand how the adjunct system is legal. Also, don’t get me started on the failings of administrators constantly threatening to cut “low-profit” arts programs!
Have you read Sarah Kendzior's books The View From Flyover Country and They Knew? While I feel there were moments her argument got a little hyperbolic, she definitely discusses this issue in the world of academia, particularly with all of the really important information that has been paywalled for the general public.