Tom Kealey’s Statement about the ’23 Firings’ at Stanford
A few days after the ’23 Firings,’ a professor from another university wrote to me, inquiring politely as to whether I was misrepresenting the issue. I replied to him politely below, and cc’d who he’d cc’d — the President, Provost, Vice-Provosts, and Deans of Stanford. I’ve left the professor’s name and affiliation out of this public posting. I thought his questions came from genuine curiosity, and so I replied in that spirit.
My answers may shed light on the overall situation. One note: when I say that the Jones Lecturers built the Undergraduate program, I mean under the guidance of our fierce defender, Eavan Boland, and actually her predecessor as director, John L’Heureux. Many others such as Christina Ablaza (always!), Tobias Wolff, and Mary Popek had an important and critical hand as well.
My main point in this response can be found in the final line: “I am upset that this unique, highly popular, and innovative program — oddly, one of the most Stanford-like Stanford institutions — needed a chisel, and instead only got the hammer.”
Dear ___________,
(cc’s Stanford President, Provosts, Deans)
Thank you very much for your statement and question, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage.
The Undergraduate Creative Writing Program that the Jones Lecturers have built is unique to Stanford and within Stanford. It is a notable competitive advantage that the university holds over other institutions. You will not find Creative Writing as the most popular minor (by far the most popular Stanford minor) in any other STEM heavy school. Many young computer scientists, athletes, engineers, and of course students in the humanities, literally choose Stanford because of its Creative Writing program, and not just to work with any teachers, but to work with these specific teachers.
When I began in 2003, we offered 25 classes, all either beginning or intermediate poetry or fiction, plus one advanced class in each. If we count the Sophomore Seminar courses, we now offer around 120 Creative Writing Courses, including courses that are taught nowhere else in the world such as the Graphic Novel Project, the National Novel Writing Month Course, American Road Trip, and many more. If this decision to fire all 23 of the Jones Lecturers holds, these courses and this community of writers (lectures and undergraduates) that has been built over two decades will no longer exist at Stanford. The students clearly understand this, which is why their reaction is so intense and collective.
I’d encourage you to read their petition here. It actually explains the program better than I could. But I want to make the point again — this unique and specific competitive advantage that Stanford holds is here because of these unique and specific teachers. I’ll expand further below.
But to your questions:
Aren’t the Jones Lecturers just post-docs? This comes up whenever I speak with a dean. I understand that we’re a unique group, and it’s hard to define us. But we have a term for post-docs in the university system, and they’re called “post-docs.” We are lecturers and always have been. We can say to an elephant: “You have four legs, live in the plains and jungles, and are technically a mammal, so aren’t you a lion?” But elephants aren’t lions, they’re elephants. And Jones Lecturers aren’t post-docs (at all), they’re Jones Lecturers.
It’s not my contention that anyone who becomes a Jones Lecturer should have a job for life at Stanford. It never has been my contention. But our Creative Writing Program has expanded at a unique and astounding rate over the past 15 years. There are hundreds of students on our waitlists who can’t get into classes. There is plenty of room for new Stegner Fellows to be added as Jones Lecturers.
Can Stanford go on adding new lecturers and keep all the current lecturers too? Right now, yes, they very much can. But into infinity? No, of course not. But it would make sense that any university would want to retain its best talent, so there needs to be an assessment system in place. Not one of the Jones lecturers or students are disputing this.
As of last week, the quite frankly clumsy assessment from the university became something to the tune of ‘We don’t really understand what the Jones Lecturers are, we feel threatened by them for some reason we can’t quite put our finger on, so unfortunately their positions will have to be humanely euthanized. But we will get some new Jones Lecturers that we feel more comfortable with.’
I’m sorry, but that’s what’s going on, and we all know it.
But if you had one of the top symphony orchestras in the country, and you decided to fire every single one of its musicians, and then replaced them with young, promising, inexperienced musicians, you would no longer have one of the top symphony orchestras in the country. The supporters of that orchestra would be dumbfounded and furious about why this decision was made.
We are seeing this reaction not only from students, but from many hundreds of academics, Stanford alumni, and writers from across the country. Here is a very helpful letter from playwright David Hwang, who is an alum of Stanford and whose child is a Stanford alum.
As another example, if the San Francisco 49ers decided to fire Christian McCaffrey, George Kittle, and Deebo Samuel and all their other players and replace them with all talented and promising rookies, that would be a terrible San Francisco 49ers team for many years to come. Their fans would be aghast.
Do musicians and players cycle in and cycle out in orchestras and football teams? Yes, they definitely do. This is true of most positions at Stanford too.
Firing all 23 Lecturers at the top Undergraduate Program in the country is a terrible decision. I am making the best case I can here. The students and many others are making the best case that they can. If the leadership of Stanford University can’t see that, well, I don’t know what to say. It couldn’t be clearer.
Another creative pathway needs to be found.
Dr. _______, it is completely true that we will be replaced with younger and lower-paid lecturers. You asked if I was being honest there, and yes, since that is true, I am being completely honest there. Do I think this is the main motivation for this decision? No, I don’t. But it is a terrible look, because it is a terrible thing to do.
If all the Deans of Stanford University were fired and replaced with younger and lower-paid alternatives, the Deans would be very angry, and they would be right to feel that way.
‘But you’re not a Dean, are you Tom?’ No, I am not. I’m a simple Jones Lecturer. I’m kind of a quiet person, believe it or not. I think of myself mostly as a teacher, though of course I love to write, and I try to bring that joy into the classroom. But I’m one of the architects and builders of this Undergraduate Creative Writing Program, which is one of the jewels in the crown of Stanford University. And I and my colleagues, and more importantly the STUDENTS, deserve much better.
I am going to continue to push back on this decision. I would rather not be doing it in such a public and heated way. We were left out of this decision-making process completely. It was handed to us as a final decision. It was done in a very uncollegial manner. I can only fight with the tools I have available.
If any of the deans or administrators on this email would like to meet with me in an off-the-record manner and discuss this further, I would be happy and grateful to do so.
Thank you very much for your email, Dr. ________. I hope I have addressed your concerns, or at least engaged with them. I understand the confusion about what the Jones Lecturers are.
Finally, I’m not personally that upset about leaving, if that is my fate. I’m proud of what I built here, and the impact I had on the university, my colleagues, and especially the students. But I am upset that this unique, highly popular, and innovative program — oddly, one of the most Stanford-like Stanford institutions — needed a chisel, and instead only got the hammer.
Best wishes to all here,
Tom Kealey
