In this article, the authors discuss the contest of faculties on discerning the politics of social engagement in the academy. They begin by noting that the relationship between scholarship and social engagement is by no means obvious or unproblematic. They know, for example, that there are less conspicuous forms of scholarly engaged activities than what they might affiliate with so-called political boycotts, such as working on community projects with non-academic leaders and public figures, developing public health or youth voting campaigns, actively cultivating the role of the public scholar, and so on, all of which deserve careful attention. These "civil" and "public" forms of engagement often displace the "political" in name, and yet they seek some sort of interface with various publics and state institutions. Questions abound. Is it possible to conceive of engaged scholarship--and in particular, scholarship in the humanities and social sciences--as apolitical, as some scholars seem to suggest? Or is socially engaged scholarship, broadly construed, inevitably a political endeavor? To answer these questions and consider their implications, one must decide what the "political" might mean, as well as come to terms with how the concept of "engagement" has been discussed in academic institutions. The authors address each of these concerns and argue that the political underwrites contemporary calls for "engaged scholarship," and consequently, that it puts scholars into a double bind generated by the competing and contradictory demands of the contemporary academic industrial complex. (Contains 28 notes.)