Thanks for this; it's a wonderful example of a sharp eye catching a small detail that opens onto larger issues.
Two grafs in particular caught my eye in the press release:
University spokeswoman Jennifer Hollingshead said the university is currently reviewing the press’ business operations to plan and execute the phase-out. Similar to other industries, scholarly publishing is dramatically changing due to emerging technology, making traditional publishing very challenging. Typically, most scholarly presses do not generate revenue for universities—with most just trying to break even. The UM System currently provides the press with a $400,000 yearly subsidy.Here we see the atomization of universities, with each unit evaluated as to its bottom line. You could complain of the hypocrisy here: I'm sure the Athletics program gets subsidies of various kinds that far outweigh a measly 400K; and following Christopher Newfield, it's likely that sponsored research requires subsidies from teaching intensive units (ie. the liberal arts). But the deeper issue is the atomization and its implicit idea that intra-institutional competition is the way to go to produce "motivation" and "efficiency."
The University of Missouri-Columbia is exploring dramatically new models for scholarly communication, building on its strengths in journalism, library science, information technology, the libraries, and its broad emphasis on media of the future, Hollingshead said. Much editorial work would be done by students who would work under supervision of faculty to prepare for careers in scholarly communication in the new media world. Utilizing a new business model, publications could include much more than text, such as simulations, audio and other elements.
Well, using unpaid student labor in the guise of preparation for careers is not exactly a "dramatically new model," though I suppose you could say that it is good prep for a career in which you will have to compete against unpaid intern labor....
