As academics, we do our "work" (writing) but not our "course load" (teaching, advising, etc.) for free , because it's part of our job and because it builds our credibility in the discipline. We're paid partly in the coin of "you should do this because you love it," something that the blogosphere has hashed out before. It's a slightly different animal from what Kreider describes, but we still have to think about it in these situations:
- Taking on an extra piece of advising, or a workshop, or some other piece of work because "it will benefit the university," says the administrator who is getting paid to convince you to do it.
- Doing administration or service and being paid in the coin of genuinely believing that this will make your department better or benefit students, even though it counts nothing, zip, nada toward promotion and tenure and will take you away from the writing that will help you achieve them.
- Traveling to conferences to deliver papers--sometimes partially reimbursed, true, but necessary to do your job.
- Reviewing: not just student papers but grant applications, books, tenure packets, scholarly journals and so on. Worth doing? Absolutely--but there has to be a balance.
- And here is the one I'm most ambivalent about, in part because Open Access week raised awareness about it: Yes, information should be free. Yes, information in journals would benefit more people if it were widely accessible outside the subscription databases.
The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/open-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard) has useful information on the subject, too.