Hispania at 200:On Publishing, Perishing, and Perishable Publications Luis Álvarez-Castro The title of this paper entails a conscious provocation. Two, as a matter of fact. As for the first one, the only certainty that we can hold about the second centennial of Hispania is that none of us (reading this in 2018) will be able to witness it. What I would like to argue in the next pages, however, is that it partially falls onto us and the decisions that we make as academics, both individually and collectively, that such a second centennial comes to happen at all. Let me rephrase this point in more positive terms: by reflecting on a number of professional issues that could determine what Hispania might look like a hundred years from now, we can chart possible paths for the field of Spanish and Portuguese Studies that guarantee its relevance for future generations of students. For this is the key word to consider—students. Regarding the second provocation embedded in the subtitle of this paper, I am sure that the readers of Hispania are all too familiar with the academic saying, "publish or perish." What is probably less known is that this maxim was already in circulation in the late 1920s, at a time when our discipline was just in its infancy (Doyle, Mieder, and Shapiro 209). The obligation to produce and publish scholarship, compounded by the ever-increasing number of faculty involved in the process (including graduate students who compete to enter a shrinking academic job market), has resulted in a seemingly irreconcilable dichotomy between teaching and research, with harmful corollaries for both realms. As Imad A. Moosa explains in Publish or Perish: Perceived Benefits versus Unintended Consequences, the phrase 'publish or perish' "describes the pressure put on academics to publish in scholarly journals rapidly and continually as a condition for employment (finding a job), promotion, and even maintaining one's job" (1). And this is precisely where the problem lies with a good deal of scholarship—namely, in the fact that it is not devised to benefit students or the discipline at large but rather to merely satisfy the requirements for professional advancement that most individual faculty face (particularly those requirements concerning tenure and promotion). In her 1990 book Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in America, Page Smith issues a scathing indictment against the perversity of this publishing climate, by decrying that, "The vast majority of the so-called research turned out in the modern university is essentially worthless. It does not result in any measurable benefit to anything or anybody…. It is busywork on a vast, almost incomprehensible scale … in short, it robs the student of an education" (7). The scholarship thus conceived is what I refer to in my title as perishable publications. I am far from original when I propose such wordplay based on this anxiety-laden expression. To name just two precedents in book form, we can recall Persist and Publish, by Ralph E. Matkin and T. F. Riggar, and Publish, Don't Perish, by Joseph M. Moxley. (I leave aside fictional manifestations such as Publish and Perish: Three Tales of Tenure and Terror, by James Hynes.) What I find quite revealing about these works is that, even though they are how-to guides to academic writing and publishing, and as such they do not fundamentally question the premise of their subject matter—that is, that academic survival is predicated on the publication of scholarship—they still offer illuminating reflections on the adverse effects of the publish-at-all-cost mantra. Those effects can be inferred from comments by Matkin and Riggar, who reminisce, "our [End Page 501] respective doctoral programs failed to prepare us for subsequent employment in academia" (4), but it is Moxley who more clearly articulates the need for balance in the teaching-publishing divide. "Rather than choosing between scholarship and teaching," he argues, "we should focus our energies on improving both activities. We can do this by rewarding excellence in the classroom as well as excellence in scholarship. Moreover … we must redefine scholarship so that it includes practical and pedagogical applications" (176). In what follows, I will expand on these ideas as they...