A refrain of mine this past year or so has been that if I had known how many academics behave, I simply never would have ever considered getting a Ph.D. and trying to enter that field of employment.
This came up again a few weeks ago, when my mother asked me if I missed not teaching at the one art school that I taught at.
My response: no, because there's no tenured positions, and it's horrible administration, and maybe that could have been something workable and decent if they unionized, but people didn't in a timely manner, and so that effectively was all over when the one department chair saw that I was an effective teacher and a good researcher and decided to go after me, to take out someone who makes him look bad.
(Incidentally, half a year ago I related that story to someone random I met who's in admin and who does STEM, and they just shrugged and were like, "It's all insecurity," and I was like, "Yes," but then I continued on and said something about him ginning up pretenses to remove my classes and seriously mess with my minimal livelihood at a time when I was already very economically insecure, which all in all is just very sick and unwell human-to-human behavior... It's really just striking how that half of the behavior gets glossed over in professional discussions among people at that level, that's how normalized that bad behavior and abuse of power is, handwave and an "oh that's just that insecurity some people have," like that's just a prerogative of the tenured that some people can choose to employ, to seek out victims for any and all reasons, no matter how atrocious the circumstances.)
So, after summarizing (again) that situation for my mother, I said my refrain about how I never would have gotten a Ph.D., if I had known how people at that level behaved.
"Why would you know that?", she was like.
And, in a way, she's right.
You see glimpses of that behavior in all workplaces, where there's cranks and drama and you have to please people in power, so any random external encounter with that in the academy, you think it's the same, but it's not, and you just don't perceive how much more pervasive and how much more empowered that behavior is there, where it becomes something almost qualitatively different... If you're external or you're just starting out, you're not "in it" and you don't know enough and haven't done enough to be a threat, and it really doesn't become clear until you gradually ascend levels and become more alike in education and professional status with those actors, just how many of them there are that behave that way.
And, their lifetime jobs empower them to undertake anything they like so long as they provide a rationalization, and enough people just go along with those threadbare rationalizations, usually, just to please the other people with the lifetime jobs and "keep the peace," which is the exact opposite of the good-faith critical behavior that supposedly defines the profession.
(As my one art school colleague who wears [women's] clothes has said many times, "We all know that tenure's the problem, but we're not allowed to say it.")
One of the things that I can't quite figure out is why no-one fully clued me in to that world, from all the professionals there who seemed to have level of positive feelings to me when I was starting out.
One might be a class issue -- people in academic employment tend to come from wealthier backgrounds and specifically academic backgrounds, so they probably just assume as a baseline, that everyone gets that these elites are small self-involved and often ridiculous cartels that you have to coddle and please out of all proportion to normal interaction, and that many of them are incompetent or low-functioning.
One might be a success issue -- even if people don't come from those backgrounds, the people who are in mentor-like positions to you figured it out, so they probably think that you already know it or that you can figure it out, too, so it doesn't need stating any more than it needed stating for them.
Another might be a "high on their own bullshit" issue -- there's this rhetoric of merit that adheres to people who get tenure, and probably a number of people believe that or prioritize that factor over others, not seeing how it's a very arbitrary club because their own membership in that club strokes their egos and causes them to be blind.
All this is on top of how positions have severely dwindled since the 2009 economic crisis, which puts these kind of dynamics into hyperdrive... The more you have to go through endless cycles of postdocs and insecure positions, the more any such people out there are empowered again and again at every new workplace to weed out competition, more than ever... In the past, maybe it was one or two people in your department that you had to tiptoe around as you sought to get tenure, now they're more and more shameless at rampaging and disposing their colleagues, especially since their jobs have become degraded and sh*ttier and it makes them feel better (like kicking the dog after a bad day at work, a colleague who studied ethics has observed).
To look at that externally, now, it's like a race to the bottom, where the fewer and fewer tenured people left are creating more and more stultifying environments, all while the rhetoric is getting amplified in the other direction, and they're more and more accomplished and better quality than ever.
Just what a perverse environment... I wish I had never gotten involved. And that's from someone whose recent research findings put them in the highest level of achievement, even if they're not really being recognized yet.