From what perspective?

Enlighten me. According to whom or by what edict is it so that ‘true education’ is spawned only in the humanities?

I feel this is a tad constricted view of education.

University of Phoenix focuses on business and its good at what it does. It also churns out graduates who excel at their chosen careers.

Is this not a goal of education? To help folks find their niche in life and work at it with passion?

Studying for studying’s sake isn’t enlightenment. It’s myopia

Joey Plazo, Ateneo, at 12:25 pm EDT on July 21, 2007

Faculty Segmentation

Greetings,

Scott Jaschik continues to bring to the reader stories that are not only informative, but also highlights the complexity of issues. This is especially true with the changes in faculty hiring patterns.

His most recent article discusses the increased potential for further segmentation of faculty categories, as the contingent grouping of part-time (adjunct) and full-time non-tenure-track faculty would be separated due to the AFT’s proposal. Taking the positive approach, this will provide opportunities for more visible debate about how to control the increase in casual labor.

Contrary to what is written in many venues, part-time faculty are involved in curriculum formulation and revision, and participate on numerous committees. This is more common at institutions which have larger precentages of contingent faculty.

Cheers,Art H

Art Huseonica, Collegiate Associate Professor at UMUC, at 7:16 am EST on November 30, 2006

Same old tactic...

Thanks, again, Scott for presenting another definitive article.

When the unions fail to get what they want as they strive to maintain the status quo of the overpaid, under-worked, life-time employment of tenured professors, they go to the state legisatures to pass laws regulating what administrations must do. Be careful what you wish for, folks...You may get it!

Edward Winslow, a “tired” Retired business Professor, at 9:10 am EST on November 30, 2006

On Being Ad-Junk

While it may be true that many adjuncts do not want to pursue full-time careers in higher education, there are plenty out there teaching more courses and attending more meetings than tenure track faculty, and they do it just to make ends meet. In many cases, adjuncts do not even have the opportunity to purchase health benefits. They have no life insurance. They do not earn sick or vacation leave. In short, they work ungodly hours for not-so-great pay for multiple institutions and don’t even get what full-timers at McDonald’s are offered!

Oh, and did I mention they still are expected to pay back their student loans on time because teachers in higher education don’t qualify for the same waiver programs that K-12 teachers can get?

Until institutions stop treating teachers like ad-JUNK, you will continue to hear the complaints and proposed solutions. I am not saying tenure is the answer, and I am not saying tenure is a bad thing. But at the very least, some kind of full-time-like stability, benefits and adequate working conditions would be a nice replacement of the current, life-sucking situation that too many adjuncts face every semester.

kgotthardt, at 11:00 am EST on November 30, 2006

Legislation Calls for Adjunct Equity

I thank Scott Jaschik for calling attention to the AFT’s legislative campaign on the academic staffing crisis: Joe Berry is right when he says the legislation is “a first” in its breadth and ambition.

One thing the article fails to emphasize, however, is how serious the AFT is about achieving equity in pay and benefits for adjuncts. (I write as an AFT vice president and the chair of the AFT committee that originated the idea.)

The legislation is as much about adjunct equity as it is about restoration of the full-time faculty corps. We cannot wait until new full-time faculty are hired to address the crisis for current part-timers, many of whom have kept our institutions afloat as budgets were slashed in the 1980s and 1990s. The premise of the legislation is that a degraded labor system undermines higher education for all of us: it reduces students’ time with their professors, limits the number of faculty supported to do research, curtails academic freedom. The solution to the problem is not either/or; it’s to do two things at once: pay part-timers as the professionals they are and restore the balance of full-time and part-time positions.

Barbara Bowen, President at Professional Staff Congress/CUNY, at 11:55 am EST on November 30, 2006

Dividing Faculty into fulltime, parttime, etc

Sandra Schroeder continues to provide a living example of why 75% of the faculty in the State of Washington continue to live in poverty with no job security. She said herself that she has been working on parttime issues for over 20 years. Well, that’s not much of a recommendation from a fulltimer like Sandra who long ago decided that splintering the faculty was a good idea, so that the fulltime faculty could continue to receive more money, percs, and benefits than those capriciously labeled “part-time.” Her “legislation” to “help” those faculty she has helped to label “part-time” is predictable in that there is always some trick to her legislation. The titles always sound good, but the details reveal the same old feudal system, designed to keep 75% of the faculty on their knees. Why is Sandra claiming to “represent” the faculty whom she has kept designated as “part-time"? How much money does Sandra make a year? Who is she really working for, as she continues to use union dues to block and thwart every inch of difficult progress that adjuncts make? It’s past time for people like Sandra to step aside. Adjuncts, who are 75% of the faculty, cannot afford any more of Sandra’s “help.”

Teresa Knudsen, Schroeder’s Attack on Hoeller Predictable and Constant at Fired from Spokane Community College after 18+ years of service, at 12:40 pm EST on November 30, 2006

CART BEFORE THE HORSE ON ADJUNCT QUOTAS

The AFT proposal addresses a real problem in higher ed, but mistakes the cause and confuses the issue with an inappropriate solution. Adjuncts have become a budget balancing tactic for administrations, happy to be paying abysmal salaries with no vacations, sick days or any other benefits. In my first year of teaching as an adjunct I received less than $10,000 (according to my W-2 for the year) for teaching half the course load of a full time employee, and that at one of the highest paying community colleges in my state. If parity were demanded by law for all faculty, regardless of part- or full-time status, then the problem would soon resolve itself, as departments with special outside sources (employed full time elsewhere)could continue to use adjuncts, while others dependent on hopeful new Ph.Ds could transform those jobs into full-time ones. Attempting to regulate how may courses must be taught by full-time faculty misses the point and creates a distraction from the real problem: gross inequity in pay and benefits.

Keith Johnson, at 8:30 pm EST on November 30, 2006

In a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to introduce state or federal legislation to right the wrongs. But that’s not the case, and there has been a great deal of thought, research, and flexibility by AFT when creating the Faculty and College Excellence Act.

The bottom line is that part-time faculty should receive equal pay for equal work and our college courses shouldn’t be taught predominantly by contingent faculty. In every other occupation in the United States, the proportion of contingent workers is about 30 percent. The proportion of contingent labor in higher ed is now about 70 percent.

We all agree that there is a problem. AFT is trying to address the issue for both, rather than pitting one group against the other.

Sylvia Watson, AFT Washington, at 8:35 pm EST on November 30, 2006

I have been following the discussion throughout the day, and am pleased to see the debate it has generated. Open debate is the earmark of a free society.

As an adjunct who has fought for adjunct rights, I am happy to see AFT moving forward in addressing what has come to be termed the “academic staffing crisis.” Although the proportion of full-time/part-time varies on different campuses (on ours, 58% of the courses are taught by adjuncts), there is no question that we need to address this problem.

In the first place, our students do not get the quality education they deserve when their professors are unavailable for conferencing or advisement. Adjuncts try to address this by meeting with students on their own time, but this is not a healthy situation. Furthermore, for a college to really provide quality education, the voices of all its faculty need to be heard. Is increasing the number of full-time faculty the answer? Not by itself. At the same time, part-time faculty need to be respected and treated equitably as the professionals which they are expected to be.

Adjuncts have been an integral part of the development of the Faculty and College Excellence campaign from the beginning. AFT called together an adjunct advisory committee with members representing higher education establishments throughout the country to discuss adjunct working conditions and ways to improve them. In addition, adjuncts have met at national meetings for far reaching discussions about ways to address the disproportionate faculty staffing. One of the suggestions of these adjuncts was for more representation on AFT’s governing bodies. The AFT responded by naming adjunct members to its Higher Ed Program and Policy Council. Furthermore, adjuncts have been involved in the formulation of the proposed legislation both on the national and the state levels.

There are, of course, no guarantees that this legislation will pass or that increased full-time positions will be filled by adjuncts, though past practice seems to indicate that the second of these is likely.

What is important is that we hold the conversation, that we examine the staffing of our colleges and universities, that we look at the working conditions of part-time faculty, and,most importantly, that part-time faculty be an integral part of the process.

Elaine Bobrove, President, Camden County College Adjunct Faculty Federation

Elaine Bobrove, President at CCC Adjunct Faculty Federation, at 5:35 am EST on December 1, 2006

Mr. Fitch

We did take the Act to our adjunct committee and they approved it. I will repeat, over 50% of our community college adjuncts want full-time positions, as shown in a credible research study by a respected UW professor. Those adjuncts will benefit greatly from increases in full-time positions—or don’t their needs count?

Those who remain adjunct either by choice or because their programs aren’t large enough to accommodate a larger ratio, benefit because of proposed salary increases and enhanced job security. It isn’t the Act that would divide faculty, it is those who would misinterpret it.

In Washington State we have spent a great deal of time paying attention to the criticisms of Mr. Hoeller—a great deal of time. I assure you that the belittling, as you can see from other posts in this thread, is quite well balanced on the two sides, even though there are actually not two sides, as both Mr. Hoeller and AFT Washington are committed to improving the situation of adjuncts.

The effort to make change in higher education has been, and will continue to be, a long struggle. The problems can’t be solved by unions waving a magic wand or throwing out bad old union leaders like me. A vast infusion of money is needed, plus a change in the attitude of administrators and politicians who are always looking for a new way to exploit the people who want to devote their lives to teaching and learning.

Sandra Schroeder, AFT Washington, at 5:35 am EST on December 1, 2006

As one of those teaching an essentially full load as an adjunct but who does not seek a tenure leading position, I think that those who object to the goals of the unions to secure more full time positions miss something essential.

An adjunct, no matter how well-qualified or well-intentioned, who cannot pay the bills or feed his or her family cannot possibly teach as well as a fully paid professional. It’s as simple as that. It’s not about social justice or equity or political agendas. It’s a fact of life.

I would not want a starving surgeon who drives a cab all night to perform surgery on me. Would you?

Nor do I want the education of our children, our future, to rest in the hands of those who can educate well, but are not enabled to do so.

Rick Propas, Instructor at San Jose State University, at 7:45 am EST on December 1, 2006

Adjunct in support of change

As a long-time adjunct and union activist, I want to speak in support of the push for more tenure-track positions, in conjunction with job security for those who remain part-time, and pay parity for all. I have been included in discussions and decision-making in this campaign and will continue to be as the campaign heads to the public and the state legislature next year. In Washington state, part-time/adjunct faculty are included in these efforts, and not just as token chair-fillers.

Unions should be about good jobs. Adjunct jobs, as they currently stand, are not good jobs. The positive message in the current campaign is that we plan to take care of everyone by taking a comprehensive approach to strengthening the entire profession.

Some of my colleagues here in Washington who are constantly at odds with the unions will see me as part of the problem—a sell out for working within the union and supporting these sorts of efforts. I would say their attention should be turned to legislators and administrators who shoot down almost all efforts to make even small improvements in the lives of adjunct faculty. There is a culture of abuse which has become acceptable over the years because it allows lawmakers and management to abdicate responsibility for this horrible system. Even efforts that cost no money go nowhere. And generally, adjunct faculty feel too vulnerable to become active and vocal in the fight for change. With more full-time tenured positions, the culture can begin to change. Without them, we continue to move in the wrong direction. SCCFT President for ~700 Part-time Facultyand member AFT Washington Contingent Workers Task Force

Annette Stofer, Part-time instructor at South Seattle Comm Col, at 11:30 am EST on December 1, 2006

Mischaracterizing what Keith Hoeller said

Dr. Keith Hoeller, who has a long and distinguished record as a successful adjunct activist, said he had several concerns about the plan, all of which seemed justified. He said he was afraid the priority placed on adding more new full-time jobs might very well mean the loss of jobs for current adjuncts, and that the plan does nothing to provide truly equal pay and meaningful job security for all adjuncts. These seem like eminently reasonable concerns for anyone who truly represents adjuncts. But instead of taking Hoeller’s arguments seriously and trying to address his concerns, several union leaders have posted comments criticizing Hoeller, and mischaracterizing what he said. Have union leaders become like politicians who only want to hear from people who agree with them?

Jeff Schaler, Assistant Professor at American University, at 4:25 am EST on December 4, 2006

As one of those quoted in the article, I was disappointed, as were others, that that there was so little emphasis on the struggle for equality for existing non-tenure track (contingent or adjunct)faculty. Without a major push in that direction as part of the AFT campaign, major imbalances will only get worse.

I understand why (and actually applaud) the preservation and increase in full-time tenure track (FTTT) positions as a major focus of current FTTT union leaders and activists. However, this can seldom be the the #1 focus of contingent activists, which has to be on the present and future welfare of the contingent majority. It is incumbent upon our FTTT colleagues, who lead nearly all faculty unions above local levels, to remember all of those they represent and, until we contingents are represented in proportion to our numbers in leadership bodies, this need will need regular reminders.

Some unions have negotiated upgrading language that has actually propelled many contingents into FTTT positions, without much loss of jobs by existng contingents (who have a substantial turnover in the best of situations). (ie. Sanfrancisco City College AFT 2121) Not hiring new adjuncts while gradually converting positions as sections become available, with strong preferences for existing contingents, is both possible and equitable. What is needed is the political will and solidarity.

Joe Berry, Adjunct, at 9:16 pm EST on December 6, 2006

Commitment,...and Reality

—"Do what John Sperling, PhD, did with University of Phoenix — no direct government aid. Show us how committed you are to teaching. We’re waiting.”

Oh, please, spare me the idolatry. Univ of Phoenix teaches business, business, and business. It’s a “market-based product” and nothing more. Education—real education—is in the humanities, fields that have no market based functionality. They, however, are the core and sole of critical thinking, expression, and the bevy of other character-building capabilities necessary to every other instrumentalist facet of society, bar none.

Screeds like LL’s libertarianism are sure sign of our end-throes of decadence. The “bottom line” is that education is not a business. There is a dreadful cost to glibbly confusing education with job training.

RH. Baltimove City Community College

RH, BCCC, at 8:35 pm EDT on April 22, 2007