Search News


Browse Archives

News

Academic Freedom Under Many Assaults

October 31, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

"Academic freedom," that is, the inalienable right of every college instructor to make a fool of himself and his college by vealy, intemperate, sensational prattle about every subject under heaven, to his classes and to the public, and still keep on the payroll or be reft therefrom only by elaborate process, is cried to all the winds by the organized dons.
-- The New York Times, 1916 editorial

NEW YORK CITY -- In prefacing his remarks with The New York Times’ response to the American Association of University Professors' first report on academic freedom, Robert M. O’Neil set up his argument that academic freedom has since -- but only relatively recently; hence the Times' scathing tone less than a century ago -- evolved into a “canonical value.”

“There are plenty of examples to support the view that academic freedom is not fully understood or accepted. But at least in my view we’ve come a long way from McCarthyism,” said O’Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and a former University of Virginia president.

Or have we?

“It is by no means clear how much the academic community has learned from the McCarthy years,” said Ellen W. Schrecker, a professor of history at Yeshiva University who, like O’Neil, spoke Thursday during a conference focused on "Free Inquiry at Risk: Universities in Dangerous Times," held at The New School, in New York City.

Citing some examples, Schrecker mentioned the University of Nebraska’s recent cancellation of a speaking appearance by William Ayers, the education professor whose history with the Weather Underground has played a prominent role in the presidential campaign; the high-profile dismissal of Ward Churchill from the University of Colorado; and the tenure denial of Norman Finkelstein at DePaul University. “Universities are still accommodating themselves to the demands of politicians and other outsiders to eliminate embarrassing faculty members,” Schrecker said.

“In the name of financial exigency and market competitiveness, administrators have been subverting the autonomy of the faculty. Worse yet, faculties are disappearing,” she continued. “Two-thirds, that’s two-thirds of today’s teaching, is being done by what’s known as contingent faculty members. These people, no matter how skilled or qualified they may be, cannot provide the same kind of education as a traditional faculty."

Scholars at the conference Thursday focused heavily on the subhead of the conference title – “Universities in Dangerous Times." They discussed growing threats to academic freedom coming from outside the university (external political pressures and corporate influences, for example), and also from within. In terms of threats coming from within the university structure, speakers and audience members referenced long-standing tensions, such as those between moneyed trustees and faculty, but also newer threats created by changes within the university itself. These changes encompass not only a shrinking proportion of full-time faculty, but even a redefinition of the very word “professor," one speaker said.

“We often ignore the very wide range of institutions in which contemporary academics work,” said Craig Calhoun, president of the Social Science Research Council and a New York University professor. As higher education has grown, the so-called American "professoriate" has too, from 246,000 around 1950 to more than a million today, he said. "'Professor’ becomes a word that covers a variety of different job conditions. These professors teach varied teaching loads, they teach different levels of students, they do different levels of research, they have varying job security.”

Calhoun said: “We situate our thinking about academic freedom and how to preserve it in relationship to these institutions where we work, and changes in these institutions -- realizing that they have become very big business.”

The twin issues of the corporatization and politicization of the university and their impact on free inquiry were undercurrents throughout Thursday’s sessions. From the beginning, said Joan Wallach Scott, a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies’ School of Social Science, universities have depended upon philanthropy or state legislators, or both. In either case, she said, “the question of strings attached to the money is always a problem" -- one that requires a seemingly eternal vigilance.

In addition to considering changing university structures that could limit free inquiry, speakers also scrutinized the organizations whose very existence makes academic freedom possible – disciplinary societies. “Disciplinary communities provide the consensus necessary to justify academic freedom as a freedom for faculty,” said Scott, in that they certify the competence of faculty in their fields. At the same time, however, in setting up standards of judgment and norms, the resulting “disciplinary orthodoxies” can limit free inquiry on the part of scholars.

Scott said, later on, “It’s a certain awareness of the perils of disciplinary orthodoxy that ought to be required of faculty.”

Also on Thursday, scholars spoke of specific circumstances surrounding academic freedom at Israeli and Palestinian universities (neither prognosis was promising), and academic freedom at emerging research universities in Africa. While it’s generally accepted at these developing institutions "that academic freedom is an absolutely necessary condition,” in reality the situation is more bleak, said Ahmed Bawa, a distinguished lecturer in physics and astronomy at Hunter College who has worked on higher education issues in Africa for the Ford Foundation.

New research institutions are emerging in a much more interconnected world than did early research universities in the United States and Europe, said Bawa; this being the case, they are subject to strong external pressures.

The three-day "Free Inquiry at Risk" conference is being sponsored by the New School’s School for Social Research, and commemorates the 75h anniversary of the “University in Exile,” created within the New School in 1933 for scholars who fled from fascist Europe. The conference continues through today, which features a panel of American college presidents as well as an examination of free inquiry in a number of countries in transition.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Academic Freedom Under Many Assaults

  • Your article seems only concerned about the Right Wing
  • Posted by Ichabod Schloppenheimer III , Dimeritus on October 31, 2008 at 8:15am EDT
  • I recall vividly the moment at a faculty meeting about 20 years ago when a distinquished senior member of our chemistry department stated that she now felt more pressured by the rising forces of political correctness from the left than she ever had during her younger days at Zagreb under Tito.

  • Posted by kgotthardt on October 31, 2008 at 8:20am EDT
  • --But at least in my view we’ve come a long way from McCarthyism--

    We certainly have not. In this time when any critic of the war is immediately labeled "Anti-American," and any proponent of helping the poor is labeled a "Socialist," we are in times that undermine our ability to speak out against social ills in the classroom and in general. These labels have led to hateful rhetoric spreading within issues like immigration, homelessness, and enthnicity.

    We also live in times when faculty (and students) who speak out against administration and school policy are systematically removed from their positions, a dynamic ignored by accreditation agencies which, at least passively, support the institutions that perpetrate what I will call white collar crimes, since these very institutions collect hoards of federal and state funds via grants and government backed loans.

  • Attempt reality
  • Posted by Frank on October 31, 2008 at 8:50am EDT
  • In a business -- yes, a taxpayer-subsidized business -- where one tenure-track, soft-side faculty position in the USA can draw 350+ applicants where 50% are qualified and 25% are well-qualified, the working conditions are so terrible?

    I've lived in countries where people behaving like those at this conference are never heard from again. That's real.

    Want free speech? Quit your job (90 well-qualified applicants, step forward), go down to the local park, and speech all you want. No one will stop you -- if you don't use a bull-horn or demand money.

  • Posted by kkroll on October 31, 2008 at 8:55am EDT
  • The conference title suggests that community college faculty were not (may not) have been involved in the discussion.

    The issue of academic freedom(s) on community college campuses is also at stake, and, I think, worthy of attention.

    Here's why:

    Community colleges now teach over 50% of all undergrads, and with rising tuition costs at 4-yr institutions, that number is only going to grow.

    The use of part-time faculty at community colleges is well over two thirds and growing.

    Many community faculty who are full time teach without tenure.

    The corporatization and privatization of the public community college is in full force: businesses are now telling community colleges what curriculum to offer, and news reports appear every day promoting the community college as the place to get vocational and technical (re)training.

    I realize students go to college to get a degree or training in order to get a job. Of course they do, that's a no brainer.

    What's alarming in the current culture, however, is the complete disregard for any notion of a liberal arts education, the notion that (even) community college students need to be committed and actively engaged citizens and not simply worker bees.

  • Posted by Any Data? on October 31, 2008 at 9:50am EDT
  • "These people, no matter how skilled or qualified they may be, cannot provide the same kind of education as a traditional faculty.”

    Statements like this are routine in comment on higher ed. Are they backed up with evidence?

  • Bush Administration's Contribution
  • Posted by Sandy Thatcher on October 31, 2008 at 9:50am EDT
  • And please don't forget how the Bush Administration has contributed significantly to this problem by denying visas to many foreign scholars invited to speak at academic conferences in the U.S. or hired to teach at American universities whose political views it does not find congenial.

  • academic freedom and intellectual safety
  • Posted by Gillian Thorne , Dr. on October 31, 2008 at 10:05am EDT
  • As a conservative administrator of a rigorous academic program at a large university, I value academic freedom with responsibility. But that responsibility is frequently abrogated by those whose belief in their own exercise of academic freedom impinges upon the rights of others. This has created a kind of backlash that questions extreme interpretations of academic freedom. For example, introductory courses need to be balanced and represent a variety of theoretical and historical approaches to every discipline. Academic freedom is too often taken to be license to indoctrinate vulnerable young minds. This is too often true in our K-12 education system as well. In addition, academic freedom in liberal-leaning academe is taken to mean that conservative opinions such as mine are representative of a lesser level of intellect and, as such, are often targets of pejorative and demeaning comments rather than invitations to honest debate and exchange.

  • Any Data?
  • Posted by kkroll on October 31, 2008 at 10:23am EDT
  • Yes. With respect to community colleges. I would recommend starting with Grubb et al. Honored but Invisible, and Levin et al. Community College Faculty: At Work in the New Economy.

    Even proponents of community colleges admit that part-time faculty compared to full-time faculty hold fewer academic degrees, are less active in the profession, meet with students less, hold fewer office hours, have less of a presence on campus....

    This is not a criticism of part-time faculty; it is a criticism of the community college culture that exploits them.

  • Freedoms come with Contingent Responsibilities
  • Posted by jburn on October 31, 2008 at 10:55am EDT
  • Will someone, anyone, provide me with an OPERATIONAL definition of academic freedom? I suspect there exists little agreement concerning faculty rights and responsibilities under this intangible conceptualization of “freedom.” Further, the persistent ambiguity associated with this concept has, in my opinion, contributed to a misinterpretation of the rights conferred to faculty. I also suggest the term “right” overshadows corresponding responsibilities. The latter is problem inherent in this society and among educators and administrators.

    So, should faculty have the RIGHT to free inquiry? Of course, and without such freedoms knowledge would remain stagnant. However, in the process of exercising that right, faculty have the responsibility to provide a balanced and well-informed discussion – including alternative explanations of the information discussed – even if those alternative explanations are inconsistent with his or her perspectives.

    For example, Ellen W. Schrecker stated, “’Two-thirds, that’s two-thirds of today’s teaching, is being done by what’s known as contingent faculty members. These people, no matter how skilled or qualified they may be, cannot provide the same kind of education as a traditional faculty.’” Well, now I have Professors Schrecker’s personal worldview concerning contingent faculty. However, I would now like the Professor to exercise the responsibilities implicitly associated with her freedom of speech: Provide empirical evidence to support her observation – evidence that extends beyond personal observation – rather, clear and credible evidence resulting from sustained systematic empirical inquiry.

    No correlations – no imputed relationships between abstract variables – but, real experimental or even quasi-experimental comparisons between classes taught by a tenured and/or full-time college professors vs. contingent faculty and student outcomes.

    Should the concept of academic freedom extend to the practice of teaching – even if a faculty member utilizes practices that are inconsistent with the needs of students, the workplace, and principles of effective practice? Absolutely not! If faculty members wish to exercise their rights to autonomy under the pretext of academic freedom, they have the contingent responsibility to become principled and effective educators. I have witnessed faculty members misuse academic freedom to avoid introducing technology into the classroom, thwart efforts to build effective online learning systems within their respective disciplines, and as a basis for diminishing the quality of learning experiences and assessments.

  • Posted by Any Data? on October 31, 2008 at 11:10am EDT
  • Thank you kkroll. The information you provide describes part of the educational process. But there is no a priori reason that such differences in process should lead to better, worse, or unchanged outcomes. Is there good evidence that factors such as you describe harm student outcomes?

  • Response To Frank
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 31, 2008 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Okay, Frank, I’ll buy your argument, but I do have a problem. What if I’m on the faculty of the College of What’s Happening Now ... and in that capacity I’m an exemplary employee. And what if, on my own time and having been impressed by your advice, I stroll out on the Diag and pontificate (without a bullhorn and without soliciting) on topics on which I am informed (or not) and in which I’m interested.

    Oops ... CWHN canned me for speaking out like that. What now?

    Disclaimer: On the basis of my personal experience, I am not a big fan of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the “Protection” of “Free Expression.”

  • Everyone is free
  • Posted by Frank on October 31, 2008 at 12:40pm EDT
  • " .. What if I’m on the faculty of the College of What’s Happening Now ... and in that capacity I’m an exemplary employee .."

    There's a joke that economists tell: two economists crash-land on a desert island. One has a case of canned food. What to do? Second economist: "assume a can-opener."

    Well, of course, assume good ol' Friz is a FOUNDER of CWHN and has a seven-year contract (longer than the U.S. president's). This protects against arbitrary discipline.

    And should he get irked at the CWHN president for taking his parking space or serving lousy beef in the cafeteria, he'll just march across the street and take 80% of the student body with him. Because he's the reason that they are there. Of course.

  • Posted by Lee J Rickard , Some Historical Perspective is Needed at UNM on October 31, 2008 at 1:35pm EDT
  • This is very much like issues about non-academic unions, in that people seem to have forgotten the extreme difficulties that had to be overcome in the past to achieve our present protections. That's why the quote from 1916 is so apt.

    May I suggest that a good starting place to recover that history is Upton Sinclair's 'The Goose-Step'?

  • What the future holds
  • Posted by fearful on October 31, 2008 at 2:00pm EDT
  • If his campaign's behavior is any indicator, Obama's administration will feature suppression of dissent and criticism to a degree that hasn't been seen in this country in decades. It will be a Marcusean wonderland of repression. These are frightening times indeed.

  • fearful?
  • Posted by Larry on October 31, 2008 at 4:35pm EDT
  • Fearful, Please provide the court and docket numbers of any criminal or civil cases in which someone was sued by the Obama campaign or criminal charges were brought for some rhetorical injury against the Obama campaign. As an academic, I am sure that you are aware of the need to be extremely precise about these issues, and not simply repeat internet rumors.

  • Fearful, Lar?
  • Posted by L.L. on November 1, 2008 at 9:00am EDT
  • Dang, Larry .. glad to see you're still with us ..

    You want a cite? JOE THE PLUMBER.

    His tax records were made public. Apparently from a Democrat-controlled office. The Chicago way?

    Also his child-custody records. And his work records.

    NO one -- including Democrats -- should have their financial records released publicly. That is a FELONY.

    Oh. JTP doesn't qualify for "academic freedom?" He's just a nobody?

    Sorry. Lar -- take the day off.

  • Interesting discussion
  • Posted by Igor sillem , teacher on November 1, 2008 at 10:45am EDT
  • it seems to me that ideological witchhunts in the us have always originated from the right. am i wrong?

    repression on luther king
    repression on vietnam peace activist
    repression on animal activist
    repression on muslims in america
    repression on teachers critic of israel

    not sure that that it is the case in israel. we
    have not much repression apart from what is going
    on in the occupied territories.

  • Responsibility
  • Posted by Joe on November 1, 2008 at 10:55am EDT
  • The NYTimes definition of "academic freedom" must have been satire. There is no reason to support a faculty member who has clearly departed from logical, rational, and well-designed teaching. University is not a place you go to be a footloose and fancy free spirit. You go into higher education, as faculty or student, to teach (or learn) in a structured and disciplined way.

  • Posted by Jim Scandale on November 1, 2008 at 11:25am EDT
  • “These people, no matter how skilled or qualified they may be, cannot provide the same kind of education as a traditional faculty.”
    Notice that the comparative “the same kind” does not of itself, imply inferiority of either kind of education. The speaker apparently intends to imply an unequal level of quality.
    Kkroll says that some unnamed proponents “admit that part-time faculty compared to full-time faculty hold fewer academic degrees, are less active in the profession, meet with students less, hold fewer office hours, have less of a presence on campus....” This too is intended to show an unequal level of quality due to the “fewer academic degrees”, “lower level of activity in the profession”, less face-time with students, “less of a presence on campus”, etc.
    As a proponent of community colleges and their level of education, I would point out that adjunct faculty are much more likely to bring “real-world” experience into the classroom and by doing so, motivate students who aren’t heading toward the goal of an academic career. I don’t understand how a “presence on campus” contributes to a higher quality education. I certainly do understand how being “active in the profession” contributes to the welfare of full-time members of the profession but as to the bettering of teaching skills, the connection isn’t clear.
    My experience with both full-time, tenured faculty and part-time, adjunct faculty at several institutions of varying sizes leads me to believe that the adjunct folks are much more interested in the work of teaching and the full-time folks are more interested in advancing their academic careers, including in their daily schedule such activities as chasing grants, writing repetitive conference papers, participating in departmental infrastructure maintenance, planning community service work, traveling to conferences where they can gain reputation etc. etc. I’m not aware of the effect that this has on the teaching process, beyond the absorption of vast amounts of time and energy.
    I don’t mean to imply that all full-time faculty ignore their students in favor of their “careers” but it is a common problem.
    jim

  • "McCarthyism"
  • Posted by DFS on November 1, 2008 at 9:30pm EDT
  • Anyone -- especially IHE -- who uses this term now must justify it after having read Ann Coulter's Treason.

    (I'm sure you academics have thoroughtly considered all of her notes in the book -- being, of course, academics.)

    Otherwise, you are a sheep further profligating a misnomer.

  • Academic Freedom, Truth, and Joe the Plumber
  • Posted by Ronnie Hawkins , Assoc Prof of Philosophy at Univ of Central Florida on November 2, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • I'm curious about the many comments that seem to be coming from a rather self-righteous right-wing point of view. It is my understanding that "Joe the Plumber" was discovered, by what I would call the press doing its job with respect to someone who suddenly made himself into a public figure, that he isn't actually a plumber and that he isn't someone who owns, or is even on the verge of owning, a plumbing business pulling in more than $250,000 a year. In other words, he is a liar.

    I am amazed that, despite these disclosures, his name continues to be invoked and the lies continue to be propagated, if not quite as overtly. As an academic philosopher--and as an American citizen who has watched in dismay as our hallowed institutions have been upended one by one over the last eight years (and more)--I must ask, what has happened to our concept of TRUTH?

    Some blame "postmodernism," "antirealism," and other disciplinary meanderings for the slippage into ethical and epistemic relativism that has seemingly occurred on a widespread basis over the last several decades. I would rather point the finger at the many well-meaning people, within and outside of academia, who have stood on the sidelines and let concepts like "the truth," "justice," and "the common good" be trashed without stepping up to the plate and taking to task those who have been doing the trashing. Tenure, in my understanding, was supposed to protect the ability of at least some faculty members to do just that--tell the truth as they see it. Regrettably, even those who have tenure seem to be far too cowardly to do so, and now we all are facing the possibility of a severe attenuation of the freedom of speech that is our birthright. Shame on everyone who has let this happen.
    RZH

  • Part time adjuncts
  • Posted by Prof Ed on November 2, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • Reasons for employing time faculty: (1) those who have careers outside the university bring a perspective to students that professors who have never worked outside a classroom cannot bring to students--at the same time, many part timers have no experience beyond classrooms and thus cannot bring in that kind of career perspective; (2) any labor done by part time employees without benefits is cheap---the same logic that drives U.S. agribusiness to employ undocumented illegals also drives college administrators to employ adjuncts.

    Now, of those professionals in careers, how many of them would want to be in a profession where the work is done mainly by part-timers? A bake-sale mentalility now championed by virtually all college administrators cannot support a true profession.

    I would like to see equal enthusiasm for outsourcing administrative work that administrators show for outsourcing the educational function. In truth, a professional accounting firm could do a far better job than most academic offices of finance. How many adjunct administrators have you seen on your campus? Associate and assistant dean functions handled by part-timers without benefits--seen much of that? Hey--these people could bring some "real world" there too.

  • Q for Frank
  • Posted by CTS on November 2, 2008 at 3:25pm EST
  • I know I will be sorry for this, but my curiosity must be satisfied: can you please define 'soft side' for me? I'm not being provocative. I have read this phrase [possibly in other posts from you?] several times recently, and I just don't know what it means.
    Thanks in advance.

  • Q for jburn
  • Posted by cts on November 2, 2008 at 3:30pm EST
  • Another question-post. 'jburn' wrote, "I have witnessed faculty members misuse academic freedom to avoid introducing technology into the classroom, thwart efforts to build effective online learning systems within their respective disciplines, and as a basis for diminishing the quality of learning experiences and assessments."
    I'm intrigued by these claims; could you give us some details? (I'm especially interested in how academic freedom is related to use/refusal to use online systems.)

  • Totally missing the point on JTP
  • Posted by EngProf on November 2, 2008 at 7:35pm EST
  • "I’m curious about the many comments that seem to be coming from a rather self-righteous right-wing point of view. It is my understanding that “Joe the Plumber” was discovered, by what I would call the press doing its job with respect to someone who suddenly made himself into a public figure, that he isn’t actually a plumber and that he isn’t someone who owns, or is even on the verge of owning, a plumbing business pulling in more than $250,000 a year. In other words, he is a liar."

    No, he is an ambitious guy trying to get ahead in life. He *is* a plumber, just like *I* am an engineer--even though I do not have a PE license in my state.

    JTP's not a liar. He is a common citizen who had the temerity to ask The One a question that revealed a disturbing point of view. No, he doesn't make $250K now. That wasn't his point.

    Don't you have dreams for your future? Have you never had a plan for yourself? Have you never considered the ramifications of that plan BEFORE you put it into action? Should we brand you a liar because you haven't fulfilled your plan yet?

    The media crucifixion of an ordinary American who dared to ask a question should concern us all.

    We should also be concerned that the $250K figure has now dropped to $120K. That's in the realm of a two-earner family where each makes $60K. Hardly what I would call rich.

    But of course no one will pay attention to that, it's just change we can pay more for.

  • Reply to CTS
  • Posted by jburn on November 2, 2008 at 9:30pm EST
  • "I’m especially interested in how academic freedom is related to use/refusal to use online systems."

    I too am intrigued by this extension of academic freedom, and would encourage you to review my entire post in this regard. I was requesting an operational definition because I do not believe this extension (and the other described) is warranted or even plausible.

    The argument has generally extended from interdisciplinary expertise to educative knowledge linked to that expertise. I offer you the following paraphrased and redacted example….

    I, “Professor X”, do not believe that my material can be properly taught using online learning mechanisms. I also do not believe that my disciplinary interests can be properly taught or assessed in an online learning environment. My discipline recognizes that online learning is an inferior form of education. It is my personal opinion, as a disciplinary expert, that the multicultural aspects of my discipline cannot be adequately portrayed in an online environment.

  • Cite for ol' Lar
  • Posted by L.L. , Legal Asst. at Ol' Lar on November 3, 2008 at 9:45am EST
  • Your cite, sir --

    http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/29/joe30.html?sid=101

  • JBURN
  • Posted by cts on November 3, 2008 at 1:30pm EST
  • Ahh; I've got it. So, you have encountered professors who claim that their academic freedom permits them to decide whether or not they use various technologies (yes?).
    I think's that a stretch. It seems to me they should simply argue that they know how to teach in their areas, and they do not think certain technologies will work for them. I guess choice of pedagogies might fall under 'academic freedom' in some way .. but, as I said, it seems a stretch.

  • Cite For Ol’ Lar? ... I Don’t Think So
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on November 4, 2008 at 5:05am EST
  • Larry asked for any civil or criminal cases in which ...

    1. someone was sued by the Obama campaign.

    2. charges were brought for some rhetorical injury against the Obama campaign.

    Since L.L. has no answer to Larry’s question, he resorts to his usual strategy – one that we have witnessed waaay too often in recent days – by obfuscating the issue with the introduction of Joe the Plumber ... the most fraudulent character to hit the scene since the quite wonderful Borat.

    In truth, I love a good fraud, but you have to admit:

    1. Barack Obama went out of his way to provide Joe with a serious answer ...

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/matt/2008/10/joe-the-plumber-revealed.php

    and

    2. John McCain made Joe a famous campaign decoration ... and that required vetting by the press (not by the Obama campaign). And you’d be surprised at how much information one can get from the public domain about each and every one of us.

    To learn more than you will ever want to know about L.L.’s favorite citizen, check out ...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/politics/17joe.html?ref=politics

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8kY9cDZff8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x_DVH7QDZ0&feature=related

    So Larry, I’m with L.L. ... take the day off. He’ll get back to you when he can figure out what you were asking.

  • "Academic Freedom"
  • Posted by Jean Waggoner , "contingent" on November 9, 2008 at 6:40am EST
  • When 80% of community college faculty and close to 66% of all university faculty, nationwide, are "contingents" we must be fooling ourselves that there is any sort of academic freedom. Full-time hires are seriously vetted for compliance with departmental and institutional political policies. Those of us who teach "part time" (usually 3X the hours of full-time faculty in a given year, as we earn 37c to their dollar, at best) are required to adopt the decisions of full time faculty on course syllabi, textbook "choice" and everything else we are not able to be on committees to have a voice about. In the new era of the "student friendly" campus, even the content and tone of feedback we provide students on their work is prescribed. In some cases, the latter is prescribed by students' limited academic vocabulary and comprehension of nuance, but
    those things are a reflection of who we are as a society, also.