I have to admit, I'm a bit torn. I, too, want to "teach as [I] [was] trained," and to be paid decently for it (at least as well as others are paid for more research-oriented jobs, and with equal access to service/governance and tenure). But I'm not so sure about the rejection of alt-ac careers; after all, taking on work outside the academy is one way to demonstrate the larger applicability of our skills and knowledge, and to bring market forces to bear on the academic hiring pool. Really, I think alt-ac and reforming the academy should be both/and, not either/or. Finally, to get really petty, they managed to use "past" when they meant "passed," and to include some really stale, cliched language (expressed in sentence fragments, no less) in item #3 of their
Or am I just being an old grump, sniping at the idealistic young'uns who, truth be told, I'm half-afraid will eventually end up with TT jobs that replace my own non-TT one? Am I drinking the kool aid/embracing a false consciousness because there's a part of me that wants to go to panels in areas that interest me and browse the book exhibits and try to envision how I might reinvigorate my own academic career (the reason I originally decided to go this year, even though I am not (yet) on the market, and even though, truth be told, I can't imagine how I'll manage to fit writing a book -- which I can now envision -- in among the obligations of my 4/4/2-plus-freelance-work-to-pay-the-bills load)? Besides, what do you want to bet that pretty much everybody sticks a penny in their badges in "solidarity" and then goes back to business as usual?
This is either going to be very interesting, or very depressing. Or, quite possibly, both. Any and all pre-MLA thoughts (or specific answers to the question above, or whatever) welcome below.