Search News


Browse Archives

News

New Form of Adjunct Abuse

September 11, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

For many adjuncts, an extra course assignment can make all the difference in the world. More money, of course, but also the chance to do more teaching at a single institution. And for some, that extra course may result in a total teaching load that moves them up a pay scale or entitles them to health insurance or other benefits.

At San Antonio College, some of those extra courses are coming with an unusual stipulation. Adjuncts are being encouraged to take on extra courses, as the institution can't afford to hire as many full timers as it would like. But San Antonio also has rules -- providing benefits and higher base pay -- to those who teach 12 credits or more. What to do? The college is asking some part timers to take on the extra courses that bring their total to 12 or beyond, but then to agree in writing to pretend that they aren't teaching 12 credits.

Concerned faculty members provided Inside Higher Ed with copies of signed waivers and memos that are used in such situations. A department chair writes a dean a memo saying that a given adjunct will be teaching just over 12 credits this fall, but then adds that the adjunct is willing to sign a form so that he doesn't get the benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled. Then the corresponding waiver, which is notarized, has the same adjunct certify that he is waiving 1 semester credit of pay, so that he will be paid for less than 12 credits, even though he has committed to teaching just over 12 credits. The faculty members who provided the documentation did so on the condition that the adjuncts who agreed to these terms not be identified.

Gwendolyn Bradley, who works on adjunct issues for the American Association of University Professors, said that the practice "seems to mark a new low in the exploitation of adjunct faculty." She said that the AAUP was requesting copies of the relevant documents to see if it could help those involved. The ability of a college to get adjuncts to sign these waivers speaks to the part timers' need for more courses and income under questionable circumstances, Bradley said, and to the adjuncts' "lack of any job security."

Deborah Martin, a spokeswoman for the college, confirmed that some adjuncts are given waivers to sign as a condition of receiving certain course loads -- and that those waivers involve the adjuncts accepting pay for fewer credits than they are actually teaching. She said that this isn't the first semester that this has taken place, and that it's done "to prevent a class cancellation" when an adjunct qualified to teach a course already is teaching 9 credits and an additional 3 credits would put the adjunct at 12.

She said that this isn't unfair to adjuncts because it only happens after a dean has "explained the situation." (Apparently the dean never explained the situation to the Alamo Community College District, of which the college is a part. Officials there didn't respond Wednesday to questions, but a district lawyer told The San Antonio Express-News that it didn't know about the policy and would try to stop it and compensate those denied pay in this way.)

Asked if this policy represented an attempt to deny benefits to adjuncts who should be receiving them, she said that wasn't the case. She said that to be eligible for benefits, an adjunct would have to work 90 days at 12 credits and that the full semester is only around 85 days. Asked if some adjuncts might be teaching consecutive semesters and so lose benefits under this scenario, she said "we're not trying to keep them from getting benefits."

Why would the college ask adjuncts to accept payment for a smaller credit load than they are teaching, and to certify this in a notarized form, if this has nothing to do with denying adjuncts compensation they may have earned? Martin said "that's a good question." She then said that Ruben Flores, a college dean who handles adjunct matters (and to whom the waiver forms authorizing pay for fewer credits than adjuncts are working are addressed), would explain the rationale for the system. Flores did not respond to messages.

Martin repeatedly said of the system being used: "It's either that or cancel the class."

Gerald J. Davey, an adjunct at San Antonio College who has served as the adjunct representative on the Faculty Council there, did not sign a waiver, but he has spoken with those who have and is angry about the system being used. Davey said that, in years past, once an adjunct has had a contract for 12 credits, benefits and higher pay scales have kicked in -- and that the waivers are an attempt to limit what adjuncts receive from the college.

"It's disgusting that they have sunk to this level," he said.

Because adjuncts need the work, they feel that they "have no choice" but to accept these contracts, even though they are giving up pay (at a minimum for the extra credit hours) and benefits they deserve, Davey said. Adjuncts are being told to "take it or leave it," and so go along with the system, he said. "It's a quid pro quo."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on New Form of Adjunct Abuse

  • Starvation Wages, No Benefits
  • Posted by Diogenes on September 11, 2008 at 7:55am EDT
  • And if you decide to enforce the policy, courses will be cut, contracts voided, and these adjuncts will sink deeper into poverty. When would anyone sign such a waiver? Because for the short term, enough money to feed a family one more semester and keep from bankruptcy trumps the long term need for benefits. I've known that level of desperation way back when. You charge in on your white horses to end it, you'll feel great about yourself as they sink even lower because of your "help." The system needs reform in "head and members." Unless both ends of the problem are dealt with honestly, you'll just make more people miserable. Just love that business model infecting administrations today. Using adjuncts turns a dandy profit, but is akin to slavery. And some never want it to change.

  • Criminal America
  • Posted by GBrown on September 11, 2008 at 8:25am EDT
  • I hope and pray the day comes when perpetrators of crimes such as these face jail time and are prosecuted. Our society increasingly resembles an arena where the powerful exert their wills without regard for laws, policies or human decency. And for what - a few bucks.

  • Change the frame of reference
  • Posted by Administrator in training on September 11, 2008 at 8:25am EDT
  • "Martin repeatedly said of the system being used: “It’s either that or cancel the class.”"

    This is the crux of the matter: Martin reduces the problem to choice ‘a’ or choice ‘b’. In fact, there are a myriad of choices that she is not considering. For example, the departments could create a long term instructional plan to try to avoid having to hire so many adjuncts in the first place. They could create permanent positions, perhaps non-tenured positions, which would create a more stable work force. These are only a few suggestions, no doubt there are many more that would work even better. The assumption of limited solutions is the problem that creates a culture where administrators hire adjuncts and exploit them.

  • explaining "the situation"
  • Posted by JP Craig on September 11, 2008 at 8:35am EDT
  • I can't imagine any conversation that would justify this practice as anything other than exploitation. I can, however, easily imagine myself as an adjunct in that spot. I'd wonder what would happen to my contract for the next year if I wasn't a "team player."

    When the school claims they do this practice (regularly no doubt) "in order not to cancel classes," what they mean to say is "in order to avoid hiring more faculty." The next issue to clear up is whether or not schools should be relying on so many adjuncts. I mean absolutely no disrespect to the quality of adjunct work. But this school's practice is exactly the sort of thing you can expect from having created a second or third class faculty citizen.

  • Posted by Fed Up on September 11, 2008 at 9:08am EDT
  • Why don't the administrators involved in this volunteer to give up some of their own benefits, including their raises and bonuses -- in order "not to deny students the opportunity to take these classes". Why don't they themselves teach these classes for free? It's funny how the administrators themselves never seem to suffer in these situations -- and yet it's considered acceptable to ask the ADJUNCTS to make a sacrifice "for the good of the institution"? This is laughable and makes me sick.

  • Posted by van on September 11, 2008 at 9:08am EDT
  • This is a good example of the primary reason I left a Tech. school. Working from 7A-10P wasnt what I had planned. Minimal pay and no insurance.
    Educator pay has been sad for many years, but we still taught with pride and dignity. Now, as stated in this artical, it seems the dignity has been taken as well.
    We love what we do, do what we love but we as educators we need to reassess what it will take to uphold professional dignity.
    It is sad to see institutions take advantage of this.

  • crux
  • Posted by Steve Street , adjunct lecturer at Buffalo State College (SUNY) on September 11, 2008 at 9:40am EDT
  • "It's either [these waivers] or cancel the class" is the crux of the matter indeed, reflecting the priority of this school's administration: neither students nor teachers, i.e. Used to be, such a school spokesperson would at least pay lip service to a concern for education.

  • It's Obvious
  • Posted by Peggy on September 11, 2008 at 10:00am EDT
  • It's obvious what the intent of this action is. If you go to their website it appears they are preparing or are in the application process for the Baldridge Award. How would this sit in that process?

    Certainly does not bode well for San Antonio College. Interesting that the community college district did not know this was going on???

  • How is this different? Where's the story?
  • Posted by Andrew at Virginia Tech on September 11, 2008 at 10:40am EDT
  • How is this different from the graduate student system where the university makes you sign off on only working 20 hrs per week to avoid considering you as an employee thus avoiding having to pay you benefits? At the same time the faculty and administrators know that you cannot complete the requirements for your degree by only working 20 hrs per week? Is it different because the adjunct is considered more deserving of benefits than a student who returns to pursue a degree after working in industry for 5+ years?

  • Texas and Adjunct Pay
  • Posted by Sean on September 11, 2008 at 12:35pm EDT
  • Texas is notorious for the way it treats adjuncts. Since we are an at-will employment state, the wages are low, the expectations are lofty and the thanks very little. I this case, Adjuncts are expected to carry the same load as full-timers, but without compensation or benefits. Their pay scale per class ranges from less than $2000 dollars per class to $2739. The district doesn't offer part-time insurance to the adjuncts.

    San Antonio College is in clear violation of the ACC policy. The argument that classes would be cancelled is not a counter to the ethical concerns of salary and fair treatment. The full-time faculty of SAC would never tolerate this type of shell game with their salaries--how dare they not demand the same treatment for their part-time peers.

  • I can't decide what amazes...
  • Posted by Tim Lacy on September 11, 2008 at 1:30pm EDT
  • ...me the most about this story. Is it the the astounding stupidity of some San Antonio College administrators, or their brazenness?

    On the stupidity side, well, did they really think they wouldn't be exposed at some point? Or do the key personnel have zero ability to empathize with those whom they employ? How did the dean or president in charge of this situation rise to her/his position without having some knowledge of academic labor issues?

    On the brazenness, perhaps the administrators simply believed there would be no consequences? Or perhaps they felt that "the free market" allows for this, so why not take advantage? Could someone turn them into the Department of Labor? Oh wait, I forgot about who's currently in charge there.

    People like to talk about "the system" in such an abstract way. What needs to happen here is that either one or several fingers need to be pointed. Then the charges need to be verified. Then an administrator (or more) needs to be replaced. Although it might be easy to point the finger at Ruben Flores, there might be a higher up at fault.

    But "the system" will never change until the proper individuals are held accountable. - TL

  • should be criminal
  • Posted by bradley bleck , instructor at Spokane Falls CC on September 11, 2008 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I agree with those who point out the false dichotomy of either having adjuncts sign waivers or cancel classes. How about pay people for the work they do and if they are due benefits because of it, provide those benefits. Even if the person doesn't get benefits because of the length of the term, that's no reason to have the lowest paid work for free, even in part.

    Ethically, the classes should be canceled rather than abuse both the adjuncts, and by extension, the students. One can only hope that there are laws against this sort of thing and that those responsible, from the dean on up, get what's coming for such behavior. I'd be talking to a labor law lawyer rather than the AAUP. I suspect that will get the proper attention focused on the problem. The suit could probably be filed as a John/Jane Doe to protect people from retaliation.

  • Actually, it's an old form of abuse
  • Posted by Keith Hoeller on September 11, 2008 at 5:40pm EDT
  • Although the title of the article is "A New Form of Adjunct Abuse," it is in fact another aspect of a very old form of exploitation.

    For the myth of the two-tiered system is that adjuncts "just teach" and should be paid only for their in-class hours, as though teaching were piecemeal work and only a few teachers deserve to be paid for their out of class duties like preparing lectures, grading tests, talking with students, etc.

    The major difference between part-time and full-time work is not that full-timers attend committees. It is that full-timers are paid for each and every hour they work, while part-timers are only paid for their in-class hours. Part-timers are not paid for the many hours they work outside of class.

    ALL adjuncts--who are paid only for their in-class hours--have their work hours undercounted by their colleges. San Antonio has just been more explicit about this than other colleges.

    Kudos to Gerald Davey and other faculty for their courage in bringing this matter to our attention.

  • Adjunct Abuse
  • Posted by John Yudelson , VP for Lecturers, California Faculty Association chapter at CSU Channel Islands on September 11, 2008 at 5:40pm EDT
  • When does San Antonio College post the signs over the water fountains and bathrooms that say "For Adjuncts Only?" Maybe SAC can turn the desks around so the Adjuncts can teach from the back of the classroom.

    To borrow from the McCarthy hearings of the 1950's, SAC, have you no sense of decency?

  • Wal-Mart College
  • Posted by Chris Nagel , lecturer at CSU Stanislaus on September 11, 2008 at 5:40pm EDT
  • The college administrators in this case have chosen not only to require employees to comply with fraud, but also to treat lecturer faculty as substandard human beings. This is almost inexpressibly disgusting administrative malfeasance. The administrators shouldn't just be fired, they should be prosecuted.

  • We stand with you--al l 12,000 of us
  • Posted by Elizabeth Hoffman on September 11, 2008 at 5:40pm EDT
  • As a longtime contingent faculty member at Cal State Long Beach and a statewide officer of the California Faculty Association, I applaud the contingent faculty at San Antonio College who had the courage to speak out. My union represents 24,000 faculty members, 12,000 of whom are contingent. Even when protected by a strong union, it's scary
    to speak out when we see or experience unfair, unethical, humiliating treatment, and all of us should stand with the San Antonio contingent faculty.
    If there is retaliation, let us know and CFA
    will be in Texas to carry a picket sign, speak at a protest, or whatever is needed.
    I also applaud the AAUP, as always, for being part of the fight to get the truth out.
    Elizabeth Hoffman

  • Adjuncts
  • Posted by Marka Burns , lecturer at California State University Long Beach on September 11, 2008 at 5:40pm EDT
  • I would like to comment on the article " New Form of Adjunct Abuse" . This is yet another example of lecturers being treated as 2nd class citizens. This and other kinds of abuses continue to be perpetrated because they are not usually publicized. I congratulate the brave adjunct/lecturers for their courage in coming forward. Thank-you for bringing this issue out into the open. No doubt this kind of abuse and other "creative" ways around lecturer rights will continue without the pro-active and brave lecturers out there who take risks.

    The only way to head off these kinds of abuses is to have a strong Union and a collective bargaining agreement. otherwise this kind of abuse of power will continue and lectures will be taken advantage of.

  • Honesty
  • Posted by Bruce Hartsell , Lecturer at CSU Bakersfield on September 11, 2008 at 6:15pm EDT
  • It's always amazing to me when administrators ask people to be dishonest -- as if being dishonest when it suits the administrators is OK, but it's not OK when it doesn't suit them.

    I try to teach my students to do better than this, but they learn a lot from the examples they see.

  • For Shame, For Shame
  • Posted by Karen Davis , Lecturer at CSU Monterey Bay on September 11, 2008 at 9:05pm EDT
  • John Hess, an esteemed California Faculty Association colleague and a former longtime CSU lecturer has been known to say, "A contingent lecturer is never more than 15 minutes away from total humiliation".

    Well, it appears that San Antonio has reduced the time to less than 15 *seconds*. For shame, for shame.

  • College spokesperson Deborah Martin takes a page from Goebbels
  • Posted by Jonathan Karpf , Lecturer Representative at San Jose State University on September 11, 2008 at 10:30pm EDT
  • that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. Her claim that the waivers adjunct lecturers were "asked" to sign had nothing to do with denying them benefits is disingenuous at best, as is the notion that since the dean explained the ramifications to affected adjunct faculty, there is no harm, no foul.

    Kudos to Gerald Davey, Inside Higher Ed, and the AAUP for shining a bright light on this insidious and egregious example of the sort of abuse, lack of respect, and frank exploitation that contingent faculty off the tenure line face on a daily basis. How can the administration at San Antonio College say with a straight face that they are furthering the mission of their institution?

    I second what Elizabeth Hoffman wrote; Texas may be an (Orwellian-inspired) "Right to Work" state, but if the folks who make the big bucks at SAC are unable to find it in themselves to do the right thing, then perhaps those of us fortunate enough to teach at unionized colleges and universities need to come down to San Antonio, stand shoulder to shoulder with our adjunct academic colleagues there, and help the administration do the right thing.

  • Baldrige dilemma
  • Posted by Bob P on September 12, 2008 at 5:40am EDT
  • Going for the Baldrige Award? You must be joking. This prestigious award is based upon collegiate practices that reflect quality that is fostered by leadership and demonstrates results. The college would have to demonstrate that such policies result in a BEST PRACTICES for others to consider.

    They need to reconsider their application!

  • Posted by Greg Tropea on September 12, 2008 at 5:40am EDT
  • Nauseating.

  • Posted by Adjunct on September 12, 2008 at 9:40am EDT
  • Disgusting.

  • Looking for a change
  • Posted by Manuel S Gonzalez Canche at University of Arizona on September 12, 2008 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I believe that the situation presented in this piece is a clear example of a crisis that has already arrived, and which could get even worse if "Administrators" continue to base their decisions only on a economic rationale without taking into consideration ethics, human rights and even the values of the academic profession.

    In addition, I belive that, in one way or another, this situation will lead (or force) to an academic mobility. One in which part-timers who refuse to be abused will decide to leave their employing institution. However, I cannot imagine their destination. Perhaps they will look for a place in the private sector, or maybe they will get a job in another institution of higher education or even they could stop working for a while (even if they do not want to, or afford to do so).
    I completely reject this abuse, since part-timers are carrying out a very important function in the modern society. Basically it is because of part-timers' duties that full-timers have the time necessary to carry out other duties. In this sense, part-timers not only have to perform roles that are not considered as important in today`s academe, but also are less compensated to do so and even abused.
    What a sad situation, but we should remember that certainly we cannot change our past, but we can start building our future. This future should be based in justice and ethics.
    I think that the real challenge for researchers and policy makers is to look for the ways to balance administrators' influence or power on the academic heartland, as Clark would say. I mean, regulations have to be pursued to avoid that administrators or managerial professionals interfere with the academic work of faculty members. I agree with the fact that administrators must try to avoid the waste of resources, but giving them complete authority to control even what happen inside the classrooms is just too much. Clear evaluation and advancement criteria have to be published in higher education institutions in order to allow every faculty member to have the same opportunities to persist and develop their academic careers without considering race or gender characteristics. It must not be the case that part-time faculty are relegated to the periphery of the academe, neither should it be that managerial professional lay part-time academic off using arbitrary criteria.

    Thanks,

    Manuel

    ¡SE LUMEN PROFERRE!

  • Lecturer Abuse
  • Posted by Chris Haynes , Lecturer, Geography Department at Humboldt State University on September 12, 2008 at 3:50pm EDT
  • This just about takes the cake in administrative arrogance and exploitation. Did they attend the same manager summer camp as those who operate sweatshops in our urban areas? I could rant and rave about this for days but I'll keep it to a single point. What kind of message are they sending to students about the importance of higher education when instructors are treated in this manner. If they gave a damn about the academy they would give up their own health benefits (and maybe their jobs) so courses could be taught.

    FACULTY WORKING CONDITIONS ARE STUDENT LEARNING CONDITIONS!! Shame on those managers!!!!

  • Hard times for teachers
  • Posted by Robin at UTSA/SPC on September 12, 2008 at 3:50pm EDT
  • First, I want to make it clear that not all of the Alamo Community College District treats their adjuncts this way. In my case (not at SAC), I have been treated fairly and sometimes better than I expected. I'm always paid for what I do and my chair always makes sure that I have classes. Besides, he does care and even told a number of us about this issue.

    The problem with Texas is money. This is especially true in San Antonio. Unless someone in tenured at one of the many institutions, we just don't make a living wage. I work full time (non-tenure) at a 4-year school and part time for ACCD; this is all to make the same amount as a first-year high school teacher in any of San Antonio's school districts. The full time positions at most of the school's cap how many classes a person can teach -- in my case 4. That doesn't make the bills, so in order to equal things out, I take 1-2 classes per semester with ACCD. I also try to take at least 3-4 summer classes from both instiutions. When I work that much, I can have a competetive wage. With that in mind, it's no wonder we adjuncts will do the waiver.

    Second, there is serious competetion. There are few non-tenured and tenured positions, and the non-tenured don't pay much, so most of us are also adjuncting (even with a full-time position). You add all the people with full-time work who adjunct with those that only adjunct, and the numbers are outrageous (a friend of mine expects he won't find an adjunct position in history of another 2-3 years -- he's already been waiting for one year). Many adjuncts know if they don't teach the classes, and if the college doesn't like you, you are put at the bootom of the list, which means you may not get a classes for a semester or more. To stay ahead, they do as told.

    Again, I'm lucky. I have to work more than I probably should for what I get paid, but at least I haven't been put in this situation. That's because some of the chairs and deans do care.

  • Posted by Joe Berry , Chair at Chicago Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor on September 14, 2008 at 6:20am EDT
  • I echo the praise for those who have exercised the courage to speak out. I have two points to raise in addition to agreeing with most of the discussion so far:

    1. The only answer to this sort of behavior by administrators is organizing by the people being screwed, namely the contingent faculty, hopefully in alliance with tenured faculty and other campus workers, but alone if necessary. That is true in union and employee unfriendly Texas just as much as it is in New York, CA or IL, where I teach. There is a movement out there of "precarious" faculty and you are not alone, but anyone in this situation needs to not act alone.

    2. Reality check: this is the sort of thing that happens all the time to a huge section of the general working class workforce, which is growing more insecure and contingent by the day as good jobs are being turned into bad jobs at an amazing rate. It is horrible, it should be criminal, and it is very common as one goes down the economic food chain. The only answer for any of us is #1 above, and we in academia will be stronger if we recognize that we have a lot more in common with the contingent day laborers (who are presently organizing -- google NDLON) than we do with our bosses.

  • Posted by Joan Morris, ANP-BC, CNE , Full time instructor at University of South Florida on September 16, 2008 at 11:30am EDT
  • This discouraging news is not a surprise considering the national trends in faculty hiring at this time. I would recommend that accrediting bodies formulate stricter expectations with higher percentages of the faculty to be required to be full time employees of the institutions. Without immediate and meaningful demands of accountability for faculty employment and development, the quality and consistency of higher education is at risk for a serious decline.

  • it takes two...
  • Posted by Happy Former Adjunct , instructor on September 18, 2008 at 5:15pm EDT
  • As an econ instructor at a very fine university in the midwest, I find it somewhat amusing to see the term "Adjunct Abuse" used in this story. Whatever happened to a willing seller and willing buyer agreeing on a price? I was an adjunct for several years at my university and was asked to go to a "full time" role, most likely because I had done a good job in my role as an adjunct. I also have my own business and teaching brings me both a reasonable wage, benefits, and I enjoy it tremendously. Would I teach without the benefits? If I were compensated for my time with extra cash I certainly would. Here's my point, it an adjunct is willing to accept a contract like this, that's their decision. If they don't like it, look for a better situation. Your contribution will determine your compensation. If you stay in a position where you think you're not being compensated well enough, then I ask you why? The only explanations are that you really aren't worth more there, or you are unwilling to find a new better paid position.

    Peace and good will.