Everyone knows the world we live in is increasingly centered on technology — its invention, design, construction, marketing and — most importantly — its use. Science, technology, engineering and math careers abound and STEM-major students receive incentives for choosing more “worthwhile” tracks. Such a society denounces the humanities and its subfields.
Without a doubt, STEM majors are treated with more respect than anyone majoring in the fine arts or anything that falls under the umbrella of liberal arts. Unfortunately, this sentiment is beginning to extend beyond the university. The attitude that humanities disciplines are of lesser value has become all the more prevalent in the working world we’re trying to enter.
How are the humanities devalued in the real world? We could try to count the ways, but this column has a maximum word count. However, the best representative of this is described in “Slaves of the Internet, Unite!,” an article by New York Times contributor Tim Kreider.
Kreider explains that, even after graduation, much of a writer’s work is done for free. He is regularly asked to contribute to other publications as well with no reimbursement, and with The New York Times on his resume, that’s a little shocking.
It makes sense for undergraduates to take unpaid internships and submit to papers, magazines and websites for no money to build their portfolios. Between the published sample and the exposure, submitting for free is profitable in its own way. Getting “paid” in exposure and contributor copies is perfectly acceptable pre-graduation. Accepting anything less than actual money later on is detrimental to society’s perception of the value of good writing, art, music and more.
Maybe the artsy folk are asked to produce for free because they would produce with or without being propositioned. After all, they chose to follow a passion as a career. This is a scary thought process because it implies STEM folks feel no connection to their profession, which is completely false. Even worse, it conveys to those with talent in the humanities that there is no reward in cultivating it, that no amount of prowess will be rewarded in the ways it should.
Shouldn’t writers be flattered they’re being asked to contribute? Yes and no, because while their work may have been chosen above that of others, apparently it’s still not worth paying a penny for.
As online publishing gains traction, it’s getting even harder for writers to make their work — and it is work — seem tangible enough to deserve pay.
Once a degree hangs securely on the wall, solicit opinions on your portfolio and resume from professionals in the field. If they confirm it’s up to par, the time has come to stop accepting zilch for your work. That goes for you too, artists, photographers and musicians.
By accepting no pay for their work, writers confirm their craft has no value and validate a client’s decision to withhold any tangible reimbursement, even though writing is a specialized skill. When one person confirms his or her work has no value, that message will be applied to every writer, artist and so on in the future.
If we can collectively agree that what we do has merit and assert that in all of our business interactions, maybe others will treat us as though that is the case. Until then, start drafting your rejection emails to all the jerkholes who think your material isn’t worth commissioning the right way.
Rest assured they’d never ask for a free haircut, and feel free to point that out to them.
Katie McPherson is a UF English junior. Her column usually runs on Tuesdays. A version of this column ran on page 6 on 11/4/2013 under the headline "Writers should be compensated for work"
