Recently, the Stanford Report covered the firing of 23 creative writing lecturers in a rather interesting manner. The article, entitled “Stanford Creative Writing Program revitalizes its vision amid growing demand,” begs the question — if there is “growing demand,” then how is the Creative Writing Program not vital right here and right now? Isn’t growing demand precisely a sign of overwhelming vitality? Is it when a sports team is 12-0 that the managers decide to fire the head coach on grounds that they are not “producing”? There is something fishy here.

Such contradictions are to be expected, however, in a media source that long ago gave up any pretense of actual journalism and has for decades been nothing more than an alumni magazine for staff, faculty and students. (Tellingly, I am publishing this opinion piece in The Stanford Daily precisely because the venerable Stanford Report does not allow anyone the chance to question its coverage, or even comment on its online site). Nowhere in its coverage does the Stanford Report mention that 23 Jones Lecturers were summarily fired as part of this “revitalization” process. Even more shamefully, nowhere does it mention that it was precisely when the old vision was set aside and these and other lecturers were allowed to stay beyond their allotted time to develop new initiatives and courses that a thriving (or, in the Stanford Report’s words, “vital”) community was created and sustained.

A rather different account appeared in The Daily. Unlike the Stanford Report, which featured copious and celebratory comments from the departmental and decanal personnel who wielded the axe, but featured zero comments from those who were fired, The Daily carried a balanced report with views from both sides. Those interested in hearing some of those voices can tune into a podcast interview I did with two Jones Lecturers and a student.

Apparently, those doing the firing did so graciously over Zoom, beginning the meeting by praising those present, then informing them of their termination. While in the corporate world it is common to “let go” of a surplus work force, it is equally common to fire those responsible for creating the mess in the first place. But management is still intact, insisting all the while that this is not about money, and that in fact more financial support is forthcoming.

So, if those doing the work are doing a spectacular job, and it’s not a matter of not having the money to continue to employ them, what, exactly, is the problem? Here is where we get to the heart of the matter.

Apparently, the concern is that the current Jones Lecturers are taking up space meant for former Stegner Fellows (this was the original intent of the Jones Lecturership — to provide short-term employment to those fellows). Many lecturers have responded, however, by arguing that creative writing classes are consistently over-enrolled, and that there is room (and apparently money) for both current lecturers and former fellows alike.

Now some may object to this characterization of the situation, and that is fine. What I am most disturbed by is the strange way in which all this has been handled and that it seems a symptom of a larger problem. In my opinion, this debacle, which has now achieved national media attention, is part and parcel of Stanford’s disrespectful and frankly clueless treatment of contingent labor. Let there be no mistake — Stanford’s actions were driven by a need for a manageable and dispensable workforce. To secure that, it sacrificed precisely those who created “vitality” in the first place.

David Palumbo-Liu is the Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor and professor of comparative literature at Stanford.