Search News


Browse Archives

News

Shooting the Messenger?

June 12, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Ebon Fisher was well-liked by students and colleagues alike at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J. A teacher of art and technology, he coauthored his own National Science Foundation-funded research while also teaching upwards of three classes. When two of his students decided to do a senior project on homelessness in the area, he had to hold his tongue to avoid telling them that he was on the verge of homelessness himself.

Fisher made $44,000 plus basic benefits as an "affiliate" faculty member -- the Stevens term for a full-time but contingent teacher, making him ineligible for tenure and stuck at the institute's lowest pay levels. His pay was not high enough to support his partner and son in the New Jersey suburbs of New York City, so his family had to move to Chicago, and Fisher began to sleep on friends' couches in order to make ends meet. Fisher sent a letter to the top administrators at Stevens asking them to look into affiliate faculty pay in order to alleviate his situation and that of others stuck off the tenure track. The next day he found himself with a termination notice.

"I sent a letter saying 'Let's work on this,' " Fisher said. "I'm teaching three classes per semester. I am also coaching students when they have their final projects, so I basically call that a class ... In addition to that I'm doing research, and management of the media labs."

"I know that other [affiliate] faculty have also been trying to get salary increases. We feel exploited," he added

The following day, he says that he was hand-delivered a letter of dismissal from the vice president of human resources and the dean of his college with no explanation for why he was fired. He is still waiting for an explanation.

The gap between pay for affiliate and other faculty across the country is large. According to the latest data from the American Association for University Professors, the average salary for a full professor is more than $108,000 and the average for an assistant professor is more than $84,000.

Patrick Berzinski, director of university communications for Stevens, refused to discuss the matter, stating in an e-mail: "Stevens Institute of Technology does not publicly discuss items relating to confidential human resources or other internal personnel matters."

Julie Harrison, program director of art and technology at Stevens, and Fisher's direct supervisor, said she did not know beforehand that Fisher would be fired. Since no one has ever been fired before in her department, which last Thursday included only her and Fisher, there was no precedent regarding whether she should be given advance notice about a department member's dismissal.

"I've asked HR and there are privacy laws. They are legally bound not to tell anybody," she said. "They don't necessarily have to confer with me if it's not an academic issue. Since it's not an 'academic issue' it's not under [my] jurisdiction."

Harrison maintains that Fisher was an outstanding faculty member throughout his three years at Stevens, working well with both students and colleagues. She also confirmed that Fisher was not receiving what she believed to be a wage capable of supporting a family.

"I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but it seems to me that they are scared about a union," Fisher said. "I'm still waiting for them to put in writing [the real reasons]."

Since Fisher's dismissal, a letter written by his friend who is unaffiliated with Stevens, has been circulating among Fisher's friends and colleagues. It was also posted on Mandiberg Blog, added to a Facebook "causes" website, and listed on Digg.

The letter reads: "I believe the real motive here emits from jealousy and academic politics. To his credit, Ebon has been vocal about the scandalously low pay of affiliate professors at Stevens."

Harrison was less sure about the reasons for Fisher's dismissal.

"I'm not as certain that the events described in the e-mails -- that is, Ebon's letter describing issues of pay -- I'm not sure there's a direct connection to his termination," she said. "It's not clear."

Alan Blumberg, chair of the Stevens faculty council, who does not know Fisher personally but often works with faculty on issues of pay, also said he did not think something like Fisher's story could happen at Stevens.

When Fisher met Mark Samolewicz, vice president for human resources, to pick up the items in his office, he claims that he was confronted with hostility. In a letter he wrote to Samolewicz that was obtained by Inside Higher Ed, Fisher claims that he was followed by half a dozen security officers while retrieving his belongings. A student journalist, who wished to remain anonymous because he felt he did not know enough about the case, had been filming the aftermath of Fisher's dismissal. He said he entered Samolewicz's office with the video camera, which he was told to turn off. The student said that Samolewicz "very aggressively" told him that he did not want to comment on the matter of Fisher's dismissal.

Since Fisher left, he has been met with a great deal of support from friends and strangers alike, creating a sort of movement that Fisher hopes may bring attention to what he considers a broader problem in higher education. He says that he has received over 50 letters and calls from concerned students and faculty. Supporters of Ebon have also been calling and sending e-mails to top administrators.

Wynne Lewis, who graduated this past year, was in the art and technology program with Fisher. Earlier in the year, she met with one of the deans to try to persuade them that Fisher deserved to be on the tenure track.

"I have found that a lot of other students are sad that he's going to be gone," she said. "I took quite a few classes with him. He was one of the most dedicated professors, so for me, it's really quite a loss... He really pushed us to learn, not just to take classes, to really learn."

She added: "They are going to have to replace him because he simply taught so many classes, but without him we couldn't have our program."

Jennifer Serchia, an artist who joined the "cause" on Facebook, has no connection to Fisher or SIT. However, she wanted to take a stand against the extent to which non-tenured faculty are "expendable."

"I admittedly don't know the entire background story, but I've been learning of many similar cases in which there is a driven group or individual trying to pursue their interests in an honest, hard-working way but are being denied without valid reason," she said. "I think it's important to highlight these stories so they receive more objective attention and support, which will hopefully prevent others from being unjustly bullied by a larger power."

"Talk to any adjunct and they will know of at least one situation where the treatment of adjuncts was questionable," said Maria Maisto, chair of the organizing committee for New Faculty Majority: The National Coalition for Adjunct and Contingent Equity. The coalition was launched in February to provide support for faculty in standing up to issues of adjunct discrimination and attempt to shift the way the adjunct system works.

One instance of mistreatment occurred at Weber State University, where adjunct faculty across the country were up in arms in March after President Ann Millner announced that she would cut adjunct salaries at the university by 7 percent.

Maisto stated in an e-mail: "Simply by virtue of their contingent status, no adjunct or contingent faculty member enjoys the formal protection of their academic freedom that tenure was designed to secure, so in a sense we are all potentially as vulnerable as Mr. Fisher."

(This article has been updated from its previous version for further clarification.)

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Shooting the Messenger?

  • Stating the obvious
  • Posted by Carlos on June 12, 2009 at 5:45am EDT
  • Yesterday, IHE had a story on "mobbing," when a department goes insane and gets hostile on one member. (Rodney Dangerfield: "They eat their young!")

    This sad tale is different? No, IMHO.

    As proven by the consulting work of the late Peter Drucker -- the average college is so poorly-operated, it is a miracle that students actually learn anything useful. It would be laughable, if it were not so sad and wasteful. No amount of higher-ed PR can wallpaper over this obvious outcome.

    Those who enter academia should know how it actually works. Ex post wailing is ineffective.

  • MUCH BETTER WITHOUT TENURE
  • Posted by Max Forte , Assoc. Prof., Anthropology at Concordia University on June 12, 2009 at 5:45am EDT
  • Yes, we can see how a tertiary institution with nontenured faculty working for slave wages is so much better than one with more satisfied professors who can focus on producing without worrying about whose couch they will be able to sleep on that night. For the anti-intellectualist knuckle-draggers of the far right, this is like a wet dream come true!

    The problem is this: with more and more stories like this circulating, who exactly is going to be foolish enough to want to sacrifice so much to earn a PhD to enter an unstable, low paid, demanding excuse of a career? Where exactly is the incentive? Is the assumption that those with academic orientations love to be abused? Why should some professionals, with less training, get better remuneration? And since administration is not a "core" function of any university, why are the administrators not the part time underpaid ones?

    Keep this up, and universities will be dead in a generation. That cannot be good news when you consider the intellectual level of some of the unschooled populace, with beliefs about UFOs, Jesus walked with dinosaurs, and Iraq attacked the US on 9/11.

  • Thousands of stories like this
  • Posted by Anonymous Adjunct on June 12, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • The sad part is that this is happening over and over. In my (anonymous) community college an English adjunct found a student cheating on an exam, and took the case to the Dean. The adjunct was told that she had to attend the whole disciplinary process without pay or renumeration for expenses. The adjunct, feeling that she was acting on principle, went through the process, getting the clear message that the Dean was completely uninterested in doing anything about the cheating. The result was that the student was not penalized at all, and was told merely to retake the exam, which the student had already seen, and unlike everyone else, was in a position to prepare for and do well. The adjunct pointed out that this decision was inconsistent with the college's own policies. The next day she was informed by her division chair that the offer of teaching courses the next semester was "a mistake" and she was simply let go for disagreeing with the Dean.

    Next case?

  • This Vicious System Must End!
  • Posted by Another Anonymous Adjunct , Adjunct Professor, Communication & Media Studies on June 12, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • The two-tier bifurcation of higher education between the privileged tenure-eligible, but declining few, and the growing exploited majority of adjuncts with no rights of any kind must end. It is barbaric, anti-democratic and undermines an educational system purporting to represent the highest ideals of human endeavor. If the system cannot correct itself from within, measures must be taken to correct it from without. Exploitive college administrations must be countered by adjuncts organizing on a national, as well as international level. Adjuncts of the world, unite!

  • Posted by G. Tod Slone on June 12, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Well, I was going to comment in depth. But why bother? Inside Higher Ed has censored my comments on five different occasions. It will of course wish to keep that fact unpublished, so this comment shall more than likely go that route too. What I began to write was this: Until in higher ed we begin to value the importance of vigorous debate and courageous truth telling and devalue the current importance of the business model of growth, growth and more growth, higher ed will continue its journey down that model. Then I thought, well, that's Inside Higher Ed's model.

  • Bringing back Past Memories
  • Posted by former adjunct on June 12, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Some years ago-- I had about six years of adjunct teaching. Students often chose to take a second course from me and I was making contributions including a grant. Administrators began taking overload classes- that is bumping out adjuncts to get more pay for themselves. I was even met by one at the door of "my" class on the first day- and told to leave -- so and so wanted the class.
    I was then assigned classes that met at such odd times & places that they never attracted enough students to 'make'. When I visited the equivalent of the provost at that community college to ask for classes that would make and stay pegged for me, I was told that obviously I did not want to work there, and wouldn't get any more assignments! My email and access to other campus technology was withdrawn! Wow! and I thought I was ASKING to teach there? It was definitely brought home to me that contingent faculty are JUST that whether it be from whims, greed, disagreements or anything -- so I began to seek other work and now am happily teaching part time, have finished my PhD and work in a challenging administrative job that affects student learning in a positive way. The word for contingents -- BEWARE- sadly not the best facet of higher education these days-whenever I can I try to stick up for them or as Pogo said (us).
    formerly dissatisfied, now happy!

  • This is becoming rampant
  • Posted by Cocerned in Michigan on June 12, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • This isn't just happening in the academic arena in higher education, but also at the staff level. Colleges and universities are simply putting long time employees out of their jobs because of hard economic times, or for "cause." I know in Michigan we are not a "right to work" state which means employers can simply walk into your office and fire you, making you leave immediately. There is no protection and this "right" is never presented to a new hire or prospective hire.

    Having been in the higher education mix for a very long time, I have seen things and heard things that simply should never be allowed to happen and would probably never happen in any other industry in this country. This may well be the new "silent shame" in America.

  • Posted by Lesley on June 12, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • On a wider level, multiplying stories such as these seem to indicate the low priority academic institutions accord teaching, and the intellectual development of their raison d'etre, the students. In a system that valued teaching, good teachers would be rewarded, rather than exploited. In a system that valued learning for students rather than through-put of tuition-payers, students would learn with faculty members who were respected enough to have adequate time for class preparation & adequate remuneration for their dedicated and skilled work.

  • Adjunct on a couch
  • Posted by The Michigan Guy on June 12, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • I hear what Mr. Fisher is saying and asking for, but I cannot see, under the circumstances, why he would go to his employer and ask for more money. Was his work special or different from that of his co-workers efforts and job descriptions? What added value did he bring to his department or Stevens that warranted a raise? Were the policies and pay scale unclear when he joined? From what I have read, he simply needed more money to get off the couch at his friends place and get his family back to Hoboken – two scenarios I can understand and have experienced myself (although not in Hoboken) – so here is the solution Mr. Fisher that most everyone I have ever met and works for a living does when faced with a situation like this: STOP “coaching students when they have their final projects, so I basically call that a class." STOP…..“doing research” STOP …. “and management of the media labs." ...for now….as none of this makes you money and replace this time with work that pays. If I went to my supervisor and asked for a raise based on my real or perceived needs I am certain she would decline this request, instead I find other ways to make ends meet. It is not my employer’s place to pay me what I need, only what the college / market calls for. It is my responsibility to seek and secure an income(s) that allows me to stay off the couch of a friends home and keep my family with me, however, if there was a union or another third party that could force my supervisor (the company) to pay me what I want or think I need instead of what the company or college can afford – well I suppose my (your) request stating… "I sent a letter saying 'Let's work on this,' …… "I know that other [affiliate] faculty have also been trying to get salary increases. We feel exploited,……..” …. would generate a similar response, although not such a speedy and efficient as you received at Stevens, but a similar response just the same.

  • At Will <> Right to Work
  • Posted by Clarity U. , Assistant Professor on June 12, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Just a moment of light clarification.

    A "right to work" state allows non-union workers in what would have been a union shop, paid at the union level. It's a scheme to limit the ability of unions to grow.

    Employment "at will" means the boss can fire you "at will."

    OK - I've oversimplified. I get that. But I it beats leaving the above mis-statement uncorrected.

  • the privacy lie
  • Posted by bradley bleck , English Instructor at Spokane Falls CC on June 12, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Perhaps in this instance there is a law regarding privacy in personnel decisions, but this is the sort of cover-up and shield used by too many institutions to cover their tracks. Privacy laws are supposed to protect the individual, as are similar policies in business and government, but they are typically used to hide behind when underhanded behavior exists. As was noted, if we can't argue out the truth in higher ed, privacy or not, we are in for a world of hurt as a people.

  • Still more clarity...
  • Posted by RW Adjunct at Graduate studies - Clarity U. on June 12, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • And employment "at will" means the employee can quit "at will."

    And I've oversimplified, too. But it's important that everyone understands that "at will" goes both ways.

  • The irony of adjunct status
  • Posted by SRSR on June 12, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Thank you for publishing this story. Of course the irony of adjunct status is that while theoretical discussions of subaltern identity are going in universities across the U.S., the academy is breeding its own version in those who teach without rights or benefits. One doesn't have to read a text on the political economy of colonial occupation; one can look among the adjuncts in one's department to see its effects.
    Think about what you, as a tenured professor, are enjoying and at whose expense. Are the students you are using to do your research or to teach lower level courses getting pulled into the pyramid scheme of ultimate homelessness?

  • Posted on June 12, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • The security escort is an especially nice touch. I wish I didn't know it was common practice for cutting off adjuncts; apparently it's just too good an opportunity to simultaneously intimidate and shame those who didn't toe the line in whatever way.

    Also: pause to just note that 44K with 'basic benefits' is 3X what many adjuncts in the NE make (without getting any benefits at all) - and it is still not enough to prevent homelessness if the slightest thing goes awry.

  • And still some more clarity
  • Posted on June 12, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • "At will" does not permit parties to violate contract law. Some presidents and provosts have had their clocks cleaned for believing that their throwing a tantrum by "making an example" of someone they don't like is above contract law. (These people can be so enthralled with themselves that they think of themselves as celebrities exempt from laws--obviously made for "others.")

    Substandard administrators sometimes try to punish those who dare to voice any concern or have an original thought by "reassignments." They will try to intimidate even tenured faculty into signing new contracts at lower salaries in mid-year. Don't fall for their childish nonsense. They have to pay out a contract--even if they "relieve" their victims of duties.

    If a school attempts to hire you with a piece of paper masquerading as a contract--meaning you are obligated but the school has no obligation, walk from it. What they are offering is neither a job nor a contract. They are seeking signed permission to exploit you.

    "Clarity-U", once you sign that contract, you are also obligated as an instructor to do what you signed on to do for as long as you signed on to do it. You are not a celebrity above law either and you just can't walk away because you go into tantrum-mode. Otherwise you are just as pathetic as these "managers" in New Jersey.

    People who treat adjuncts this way should never be in charge of people anywhere. We have a leadership crisis in this country. "Business model"??? --- Conservatives, don't make us die laughing about your "business models." The current economic "business model" in this country is bankruptcy and bailouts, or haven't you noticed? The government model is borrowing, bankruptcy and bailouts. Bailouts involve exploiting others--impoverishing others to pay for foolishness. Adjuncts who cannot make a living wage? -- Case in point. Colleges are part of that same culture.

    American higher education is going the way of agriculture. Soon you will see Democratic Party stooges stumping their noxious party line: "Americans just don't want to do this work..." as they open the gates to soon-to-be exploited foreign adjunct instructors, just as they have been doing for decades to agricultural workers. If some party doesn't begin to restrict the ruin of American universities by their own managers, this country will have no meaningful higher education.

  • Irrelevant Argument
  • Posted by Gary Fitsimmons , Director of Library Services at Bryan College on June 12, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I'd like to know how Mr. Max Forte can equate the cause of this problem with being conservative. Your assumption seems to be that all administrators are conservative and therefor to blame for the abuse of adjuncts everywhere. In your estimation, Mr. Forte, I would probably be a source of all of the worlds ills because I consider myself very conservative. However, I see far more anti-intelluctualism in unsubstatiated name-calling in posts like yours than I see among any of my colleagues of like persuasion with me. They also suffer from poor wages for the excellent job they do. They had to work for every bit of education, status, salary security, etc. that they receive just as much as those on the left side of the aisle.

    Conservatism is not the problem, and administrators are not entirely the problem either. It is the undervaluing of education in this country (which, incidentally, I have seen done by liberals as much as by conservatives). Our society rewards popularity and entertainment ability much more than intellect and has done so for decades. That's not the way it should be, but that's the way people are. People who perservere to get a PhD understand that, for the most part, and are therefore not motivated by just money. We dream that it will not always be that way and try to educate others on the value of education. But pointing fingers at one particular political persuasion just gives people who are truly anti-intellectual more reason to be so. Let's try to stick to the issues and stop blaming all of your ills on your favorite scapegoat group.

    The problem is this: with more and more stories like this circulating, who exactly is going to be foolish enough to want to sacrifice so much to earn a PhD to enter an unstable, low paid, demanding excuse of a career? Where exactly is the incentive? Is the assumption that those with academic orientations love to be abused? Why should some professionals, with less training, get better remuneration? And since administration is not a "core" function of any university, why are the administrators not the part time underpaid ones?

    Keep this up, and universities will be dead in a generation. That cannot be good news when you consider the intellectual level of some of the unschooled populace, with beliefs about UFOs, Jesus walked with dinosaurs, and Iraq attacked the US on 9/11.

    Incidentally, I must praise you for taking responsibility for your post by giving a (hopefully real) name. That's more than I can say for many who like to point fingers while hiding behind the anonymity of a fake online identity.

  • Is It Me or Isn't This Ironic?
  • Posted by Deborah Dessaso , Adjunct Professor, Department of English at University of the District of Columbia on June 12, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • Am I the only one to spot the irony between the IH article published a few days ago regarding the so-called worth of tenured faculty to society (an arguable point to say the least!) and today's piece about the mistreatment of adjuncts who perform much of the same work as tenured professors, but without the guarantee of a lifetime job and the ability to use student work for their own research?

  • This is why we are creating NFM
  • Posted by Maria Maisto , Chair, Organizing Committee at New Faculty Majority on June 12, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • It is precisely because of situations like the one Ebon Fisher is facing, as well as the many other ways that contingent faculty are mistreated, whether intentionally or not, that there is such dire need for an organization like New Faculty Majority: The National Coalition for Adjunct and Contingent Equity (www.newfacultymajority.org). It's a big part of the reason why we decided to begin organizing only 3 months ago, and we find it telling that adjunct and contingent faculty are beginning to come to us even before we have the resources in place to help them. Once we are up and running, we expect to be one of the first places to which contingent faculty can turn for support in these kinds of situations. We plan to provide the kinds of resources that people like Ebon Fisher and his supporters can use to publicize his (mis)treatment and enlist support -- including legal aid. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that the academic freedom of contingent faculty is often suppressed in these kinds of overt and egregious ways (as well as more subtle ways), but there is not as much formal data as there should be. AAUP tries to track these incidents, and we will also do so. More importantly, we hope to work with all sectors of the higher ed community, as well as the community at large, not just to call attention to this situation, but to work for real change.

  • Posted by Jack Olson on June 12, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • As one of the "anti-intellectual" members of Max Forte's far right, I raise my knuckles from the floor to my keyboard to ask why anyone takes the job of adjunct if the pay is so low, the job security so doubtful, and the opportunity for advancement so limited? If it's because they have no better jobs open to them, then the solution is to develop their employability for better paying jobs. If it's because they choose a low-paying field, then what right have they to complain about the consequences of their choice?

    A salary of $44,000 is not a poverty wage. It is nearly as high as the median household (usually two paychecks) income for the United States. Yet, the average American family isn't homeless. Most of them own their homes and nearly all the rest manage to pay their rent. Why couldn't Ebon Fisher? If it's because he wants to live where housing is so expensive that it consumes an unbearable share of his income, then his complaint is merely that he wants what he can't afford.

    Next, why are adjuncts so low paid? It can't be that the colleges are broke. The cost of tuition and fees has gone up continually for tweny years and is now at an historical high. Besides, they pay regular faculty and staff much better than adjuncts even as adjuncts have assumed more and more of the teaching duties. No, the colleges can pay adjuncts chump change and replace them as easily as they replace coffee filters because there are simply too many of them. There is no injustice in that, unless it is that the same colleges encouraged them to pursue advanced degrees which even in the academic job market aren't worth much.

  • Posted by Annon , Asst Prof, Architecture on June 12, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • I'd like to know where the average salary for asst profs is $84 000

  • Same ol' stuff
  • Posted by Carlos on June 12, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • " .. More importantly, we hope to work with all sectors of the higher ed community, as well as the community at large, not just to call attention to this situation, but to work for real change."

    Per previous, on how poorly-operated most colleges are --

    Did it ever occur to those involved that "calling attention" might cause even BIGGER problems?

    As in, a GM-like declaration of re-org, with all contracts (including tenure) NULL?

    As in many students and their families realizing what low quality they are getting and demanding higher performance of all involved?

    Careful what you wish for. You may get it, with no one willing to help.

    BTW: on asst. prof. salaries -- the high-demand areas, such as medicine, engineering, MBA, law, can command such salaries. Those areas with thousands of unemployed PhDs have no such demand.

  • "Contingent" faculty
  • Posted by Ilene , Adjunct/Humanities at Chicago City Colleges--Harold Washington campus on June 12, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • "I grow old, I grow  old/I shall wear the bottom of my trousers rolled"  ("The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" T.S. Eliot).

    The pit gets deeper

    The center will not hold

    Greed prevails

    Money rules

    And Education grows old

    and scarce--a brilliant way

    to dehumanize, demoralize,

    and cheapen the whole world--

    Life on Earth becomes a field

    of dreams for blood and bones

    belonging to masterminds

    kept tightly guarded 

    The Control of leadership

    spites the appetites for 

    knowledge and wisdom

    goodness and generosity

    hope and faith. . . .

    The center collapses

    The shattered world implodes

    To Hell with whole thing!

    "I grow old, I grow old"

    Will I die a pauper 

    or a pitiful pathetic pauper?

    Despair  does not become me?

    Then I become despair.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~

    @Ilene Sandman, MA

    June 12, 2009

  • Been there, I know
  • Posted by former Stevens employee on June 12, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • I worked for many years at Stevens, not very long ago, in a management position, hiring scores of employees.  I can say from first hand knowledge that to describe the salary structure as arbitrary is putting it mildly.  The Institute's feeling is that since it is a private college, it can pretty much do whatever it wants and is accountable only to itself.  Neither faculty nor workaday administrative staff are unionized, some people (such as, perhaps, Ebon Fischer) in both academic and administrative roles are paid far less than others at the school who do far less work, and the top administrators are notoriously heavy-handed with those who fall out of favor.  When I read that he was accompanied off campus by 6 members of the campus police (they are police, not security guards, and they are armed), it didn't surprise me at all.  

    I don't understand why some commenters chose to politicize this story.  This was a guy working hard and successfully (presumably conservative values) at a school with an ever-escalating Ivy League price tag and, as it often boasts, record enrollments, yet it is so poorly managed that its budget teeters precariously every year.  Fischer was being paid lower middle class wages (if you think $44K doesn't sound too bad, you've never lived anywhere near Hoboken), and he got the same treatment Oliver got when he said "please sir, may I have some more?"  Meanwhile, the top two administrators' pay is so high that nearly $300 of every student's tuition goes to pay their salaries and living expenses.

    Like others, he will learn that life after this place is much better...unfortunately, he still has bills to pay in the meantime.

  • In Israel, the adjuncts had similar problems
  • Posted by Israely graduate on June 13, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • They were not unionized, and, being afraid for their jobs, were unable to do so.

    What saved the day were actually the leaders of the junior-staff unions (i.e., graduate teaching assitants), who understood that, practically, almost all of the soon to be PhDs will be either adjuncts or out of academe.
    Therefore, it was in their interests to add the adjuncts to the junior-staff unions.

    It took a few years, but recently they were able to do so, and were able to obtain a really good (or at least, a much better) bargain for the adjuncts.

    I have no idea if that can work in the US, though.

  • Buyer Beware
  • Posted by Genx Phd on June 15, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • While I feel for any family struggling to make ends meet, anyone interviewing for and accepting a position should ask all relevant questions necessary about salary structure, advancement opportunities, how many faculty move from contingent to the tenure track etc. If anyone thinks that just because he or she is good at the job, liked by students, publishes and particpates in the campus community, that a tenure position will be offered eventually - don't be deluded. Just because you are good doesn't mean you're noticed or on the radar of the administration - or even your boss. It is up to each of us to negotiate, assess and play the 'what if' game before ever accepting a new position. If the institution doesn't have a data record to demonstrate what is typical or policies in place to show how employees move through the hierarchy, buyer beware.

  • Posted by WT on June 25, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • More of these stories need to circulate. Pass this one on if you can. It's the only way that things will change.

  • Life at Stevens
  • Posted by Dan Hawkins , Engineer on August 23, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • This is in reply to "Been there, I know".

    I don't know when you were at Stevens, but the tenured faculty is definitely organized and had been since about 1978. In fact, I believe that they were the first local of the AAUP to go on strike.

    It is true that the "mice", as we called campus security, were once armed, but my understanding is that this was suspended by the early 80's.

    In support of your comment regarding a salary of $44,000 per year, anyone who hasn't lived in New Jersey is invited to keep quiet. On such a salary one might find suitable lodgings in Allentown, PA but not much closer.