Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

The Adjunct’s Moment of Truth

September 10, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Like most of us who work in higher education, I really don’t have the time, or the courage, to be an activist for adjunct faculty rights. But I’m making the time and I’m summoning the courage because I’m not only an adjunct; I’m a parent and a citizen who is concerned — indeed, afraid — for the future of higher education.

I don’t have time to be an adjunct activist because, for one thing, I teach English composition — one of the most labor-intensive teaching assignments out there. This semester I’ll have to respond to 85 students on two different campuses and almost 2,000 pages of writing, and I want to give them all my very best effort as a teacher. At home I’ve got three kids under the age of 12 — one with Asperger’s Syndrome, one a toddler — and a spouse who has to look for a new job in the worst economy in decades.

For those reasons I’m also just a little bit afraid to be an adjunct activist. If you’ve been reading the news, you know that contingent faculty members are among the most vulnerable workers in higher education, and each story I read about them losing their jobs to budget cuts or possible political retaliation sends a chill up my spine. Not surprisingly, many people have suggested that for the sake of my family I could — or should — be using my time to get a “real” job that actually pays a living wage — with benefits.

Yet here I am, improbably, helping to lead a new national organization that has been formed to advocate for such basic and unfathomably overdue rights for contingent faculty as equal pay for equal work; decent health and retirement benefits; job security; unemployment insurance; and professional working conditions, including academic freedom. In recognition of the fact that faculty off the tenure track, according to the Department of Education, now constitute nearly 70 percent of the higher ed teaching population — some 800,000 professionals — we’ve called ourselves New Faculty Majority: The National Coalition for Adjunct and Contingent Equity.

Our organizing committee met on the adj-l listserv and decided to bring to fruition an idea that had been raised at the Coalition on Contingent Academic Labor (COCAL) VIII Conference in 2008. Since February 2009, NFM has created its mission statement, incorporated, and begun the long process of applying for nonprofit status. We have a growing Board of Directors and Board of Advisors, and, most significantly, a powerful new Web site that will help us with membership, education, and advocacy. Even without significant resources yet, we’ve begun those advocacy efforts by publicly supporting brave faculty members like Ebon Fisher and Gerald Davey, who have had their livelihoods practically destroyed after daring to draw attention to gross inequities in the treatment of contingent faculty. Our goal is to have a national staff and engaged membership working year-round for the transformation of the current exploitative academic labor system into an ethical structure that treats all faculty members with justice, fairness and dignity.

When I became an adjunct four years ago, it didn’t take me long to realize just how bad it can be, even though I had spent years, as a grad student and working in higher ed associations, largely ignorant of the daily reality of contingent faculty working conditions. The tenured professor who hired me apologized for having to offer such low wages, and my colleagues tried to orient me to the program and the campus in the middle of their own hectic schedules, since the university has no orientation program for adjunct faculty. At Thanksgiving, as I dove into my stack of papers after dinner, a relative asked why the university could not assign a graduate student to grade my papers for me. I looked at him incredulously.

One of my NFM colleagues, Anne Wiegard, recently reminded those of us on the organizing committee of the essay “The Housewife’s Moment of Truth” by Jane O’Reilly, from the December 20, 1971 issue of New York Magazine — the issue that introduced Ms. Magazine to the world. It’s part manifesto and all poetry; you don’t have to be a woman or even to have known one alive during that time to be moved by it. It describes the little and big moments in which the lowest points of humiliation and demoralization are transformed into the courage that builds social movements. Another NFM colleague, Vanessa Crary Vaile, was a charter subscriber to that upstart new publication. “Adjuncts of any gender are the housewives and handmaidens of academia,” she says. “The click of recognition, not the exclusive domain of any group, is universal for awareness and consciousness-raising — that point of no return past which you can never return to a previous frame of mind.”

The click of recognition. My Thanksgiving moment was the first of several. The ones that followed? When I faced the prospect of having to support my family on my adjunct’s salary alone ($20K over a year to teach the same number of courses as most full-time faculty members, and not even that when I don’t get summer work). When a colleague who -- like me -- was denied unemployment insurance over the summer because she supposedly has “reasonable assurance of employment” without a contract, at the same time couldn’t get a loan because she couldn’t show adequate proof of employment without a contract. When I heard about an actual single-parent adjunct who had to sell her plasma to buy groceries. When a friend who has taught “part time” for decades at one institution was turned down for a “full time” position at twice the salary plus benefits — to teach exactly the same courses and do all of the extra work that she had always done voluntarily — at that same institution.

When I discovered that buying into the university’s insurance plan for my family might cost more than my monthly paycheck. When an administrator on my campus actually acknowledged —publicly — that Walmart treats its part-time employees better than colleges and universities treat adjuncts and that we constitute a “highly educated working poor.” When 17 adjunct colleagues and I wrote a letter to the editor of our local newspaper drawing attention to contingent faculty working conditions and only one tenured professor from our department would join the two officers from our campus AAUP chapter I had invited to sign it. When I realized that my children are likely to have college instructors who are either overworked, distracted tenure-stream professors or undersupported, freeway-flying contingents — in either case, effectively being prevented by colleges and universities from being given the highest quality education possible, and of particular concern given the diverse needs of so many student populations — Aspies like my child, parenting students, and veterans, to name a few. When I saw the confusion in a bright young student’s face as I told him I couldn’t, in conscience, recommend that he pursue a graduate degree in English and a career in college teaching if he also intended to support himself, much less a family.

“Those clicks are coming faster and faster,” O’Reilly wrote of the life of a housewife in 1971. They are in 2009, too, for adjuncts. They were put in motion by the adjunct activists who have been speaking out since I was in college 20 years ago. But to speak of generations of adjuncts is, necessarily, to acknowledge that the “second wave” of adjunct activism, as my NFM colleague Rich Moser calls it, has arrived. And of course, the clicks that have heralded its coming are not just clicks of recognition but also the ubiquitous clicks that define our Internet-driven era, the clicks that have helped to produce the highest level of political participation among our citizenry in recent memory. For one of the things that makes NFM different from every laudable organizing effort that has gone before is that we are unabashedly harnessing the communicative power of the internet. Earlier attempts to capitalize on the power of the Web, including the adj-l listserv, have been lifelines to many contingent faculty members nationwide, and we are building on those efforts. But we recognize that for the movement to succeed, we have to inspire clicks of recognition and resolve not just on campus but in the larger community.

To that end, we have been inspired by the success of organizations like www.MomsRising.org, which was instrumental in getting the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed this year through relentless electronic education and advocacy, much of it carried out by tens of thousands of harried, overworked parents whose couldn’t always go out into the streets to demonstrate but could easily click on a link to send an email to Congress. We see organizations like MomsRising and United Professionals and others as potential allies that will help us to reach as many people outside of academe as possible.

Of course, technology alone will not accomplish our goals. While our Web presence will be critical, another factor essential to our success is, still, time. It takes time to raise money, to educate the public, to engage with our colleagues on the tenure track and in administration, to lobby legislatures, to take unscrupulous institutions to court. We need all the people who lament the current situation – and I don’t know anyone who doesn’t, at least publicly — to commit their time, energy, and talent to changing it, even if it will take time — and courage —that they think they don’t have.

So in this effort, I don’t have time for union bashing or union fundamentalism; I have plenty of time for principled advocacy. I don’t have time for partisan politics; I have plenty of time to cooperate, as a Democrat, with my Republican adjunct colleague and NFM’s vice president, Matt Williams. I know that the principled but pragmatic approach we are espousing at NFM will not sit well with everyone; however, I really don’t have time to worry about that or to be afraid of the barbs that will come our way. As Paul Begala recently observed in a thoughtful reflection — born of experience — about health care reform: “[P]rogressive politics is ... a movement, not a monument.”

I’ve made time for NFM because I believe it will use my time wisely, and working with colleagues committed to social justice and educational quality has given me courage and inspiration. I’m not interested in wasting time demonizing administrators, ridiculing tenure, scapegoating adjuncts, or quarreling with other adjunct advocates; I am interested in investing time in thoughtful, honest discussion and collaboration for the purpose of fixing a system that is broken. But — I also don’t have time for a lot of talk that doesn’t lead to action. Why? Because college students don’t have time to wait for all of us involved in higher education — contingent faculty, tenure-track faculty, staff, administrators, trustees and legislators — to find some courage. Because we don’t have much time before my kids and countless others are ready to start college. And because neither my family nor my students have time for me to find a “real” job when I already have one; if teaching isn’t a real job, then what is?

Click.

Maria Maisto is a contingent faculty member in Ohio and president of the Board of Directors of New Faculty Majority: The National Coalition for Adjunct and Contingent Equity.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Adjunct’s Moment of Truth

  • Adjuncts are NOT Second-Class Citizens
  • Posted by Gemma on September 10, 2009 at 6:30am EDT
  • Maria,
    Thank you for speaking out on behalf of many of us who for different reasons have chosen the path of “adjunct” faculty. I have been teaching as an adjunct faculty for several years now. Teaching is what I love best. I chose this path when I started a family. Caring for three children -- being involved first-hand in their daily lives -- is next to impossible with a full time job. Although I don’t regret my decision, I am increasingly tired of being treated like a “second-class citizen.” Adjuncts are NOT second-class citizens, but unfortunately they are treated as such.

  • Thanks!
  • Posted by Better Safe Than Sorry , full-time lecturer at one at which most of the teaching is done by non-tenured faculty on September 10, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • And thanks from those of us who haven't "chosen" to be non-tenured or part-time, to be shoved three to a small office or twenty to a bank of cubicles, to be snubbed in the halls and relegated to distant parking lots, to teach in distant classrooms, and to receive paychecks that would seem large only to the even more-exploited graduate instructors. Yep, thanks from those, published though we may be, and conference-goers that we are, who aspire to teach classes full of majors and maybe even a graduate course, yet who find ourselves year after year watching our intellectual capital dwindle as we teach 4- and 5-class semesters of freshman and sophomore courses.

    (If you're a grad. student reading this: don't just think, wow, this person is bitter. That's the mistake I made. One can be both bitter and accurate.)

  • Posted by Steve at Western Michigan University on September 10, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • Thank you Maria! As a part-timer myself, I know much of what you've been through. I, along with several other part-timers, had had enough a year and a half ago, and began organizing a union for instructors at our university. It has taken an enormous amount of work, but the instructors here approved the union last summer. We have now begun bargaining our first contract!

    National organizations are very important, but there is no substitute for organizing locally. Both levels are essential.

  • Posted by Mike on September 10, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • Not that I think this is for everyone...

    But personally I (an American) chose to move to Asia rather than teach English for less than US$100k per year. EVERY discussion of humanities faculty working conditions should, without fail, mention stories such as mine. Americans who choose to be adjuncts in their home country rather than work for a US$-6 figure salary abroad need to recognize that there is choice here-- no doubt, in many cases, a good choice, but still a choice.

  • Full disclosure -- 600+ applicants, one job
  • Posted by Carlos on September 10, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Try as I might, I do not see anything in the U.S. Constitution that specifically says someone has the right to demand a certain job. (See, also, Churchill v. U. of Colo.)

    And this recent IHE op-ed --

    http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2009/08/31/marinoff

    This broadening tactic invariably attracts more – rather than fewer – applicants. We expected to receive between 200 - 250 applications by the December 1 deadline. To our surprise, packages began to arrive in droves, and eventually in wheelbarrow-loads from the mailroom. In all, we received submissions from 637 candidates.

    As "Jimmy the Greek" might say -- "dang, those are long odds, bro." Dang right, Greek.

    Unless the Democrats finally sober up and allow their tax-enslaved masses true educational choice, as well as national post-tenure reviews -- the odds of a significant number of new college teaching jobs being created none and 100% none.

    So -- do what you gotta do. Just don't be delusional and expect the public to buy in. They're just not that into more taxes for an obviously broken-down system that's "good enough for government work."

    Yes, a hard-nosed view. Welcome to reality. Get used to it, please. I seriously doubt if it will change, in the mid-term.

  • Will it ever change?
  • Posted by Bill Lipkin , adjunct professor on September 10, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • I have been adjuncting off and on for over 45 years. Take it from me, very little has changed. Yes we are making more per credit now than 45 years ago, but in proportion to full time faculty salaries our percentage has grown at a much, much smaller pace. Over the years I have been given 'plums' of 6 month or 1 year temporary full time positions, only to be told that the funding has run out and I need to go back as an adjunct. Several times, at several schools, when real searches were made for tenure track positions I did make the final 2 or 3 only to lose the job to an 'outsider', someone from another school. And in most cases they did not last too long. Why don't higher ed administrators realize that they should stick with the good things they have and not bring in the unknown from elsewhere. In 2000 I ended up number 1 on a list of over 250 applicants and actually had an appointment to sign my contract, when the college president decided that if he hired me as tenure track he would lose the best and most flexible adjunct in my department, and chose to give the job to the number 2 candidate who came from elsewhere.

    So where is the equity? I manage to make a decent living teaching at 4 or 5 schools per semester, driving all over central and northern New Jersey, teaching online courses and having little time for my family life. Why should we be paid 1/5 of what a tenture track faculty members gets and have to work 5 times harder to get comparable pay (even without benefits).

  • Posted by Anne on September 10, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Thank you Maria (and fellow Buckeye)--hopefully NFM will have some impact. Although I've not been a "roads scholar" like a majority of my colleagues, I love teaching at my community college; indeed, I am proud to call myself a teacher. I, too, have family members tell me I need to find a full-time job with benefits. And that is the rub: I do not want just a full-time job, I want to do what I love to do, teach. However, I can no longer teach if I don't make enough money to pay for a $24.99 flu shot let alone the multiple medications I am supposed to be taking but don't because of the expense.

    As much as I love to teach, as much as I love my students and know I am a good teacher, I have to believe my life is worth more. Much more.

  • Posted by jim on September 10, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • I agree. Thank you, Maria. And I hope that your position as "president of the board of directors of New Faculty Majority" pays well because political retaliation is neither unusual nor a myth in all jobs in all walks of life.
    But I would like to respond to "Better Safe Than Sorry". (Excuse the italics; the editor has me cornered.)
    BSTS talks about being "shoved three to a small office or twenty to a bank of cubicles". In my experience, having a private office is a luxury that very few organizations will offer to employees. Having a private cubicle is a benefit that many jobs do not offer to anyone. Maybe if the places where we teach offered fewer such luxuries, there would be more positions available.
    Being "snubbed in the halls" is more a function of academic preparation than adjunct status and being snubbed isn't anything that anyone can control apart from the "snubber".
    I'm not sure how graduate students can be called "exploited" since they are being paid to work in the field that they must love a lot in order to even attend graduate school. If someone offers to pay me $1.00 every hour that I wash cars, I am a fool if I complain after accepting the job with my "eyes open". It seems to me to be the epitome of self-centered complaining to talk of my low wage and the hard work. The world doesn't owe me a job at any pay, just because I need one.
    I also have a possibly naive view of the supposedly meager salary paid to adjuncts since in New York State I am paid very well for every course that I teach at non-proprietary colleges (they are another story entirely). If I aspire to teach classes full of majors and graduate students, again, if such jobs are available, find one! If they aren't available, stop complaining! Being discriminated against in a job search is a whole other story though.

  • As a former adjunct, now full-time,
  • Posted by DFS on September 10, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • I want to sign up in solidarity to the New Faculty Majority.

    We have to do something about this situation.

    As long as there is a plantation, -- well Duh!, we know what happens there. It's time to destroy the plantation.

  • Posted by powertoparttimers on September 10, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • "As long as there is a plantation, -- well Duh!, we know what happens there. It's time to destroy the plantation."

    Yes, absolutely. We have to start looking at this issue with full-on class consciousness. Let's stop this quibbling between full-timers/part-timers and those who have "quit" academia/those who haven't. While we are doing all this quibbling (divide and conquer) the CEOs and college executives are getting richer every year.  Why? Because the money is moving UP to the administration. The money is moving UP to corporate partnerships. 

    This is a class issue, plain and simple. This is also a race and gender issue. Just when women and people of color get to the academy in record numbers, "Oops!" the jobs are no longer there. Coincidence? 

    We supposedly had a women's movement and a civil rights movement. So why is a disproportionate amount of part--time faculty women and people of color? We need to connect these interests as a part of a UNITED labor movement. We need to band together and burn down the plantation.

  • "Balancing" the books....
  • Posted by vfichera on September 10, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • It is interesting to compare the coverage of the founding of the New Faculty Majority by Inside Higher Ed with that by the Chronicle of Higher Education (cf. http://chronicle.com/article/An-Activist-Adjunct-Shoulders/48348/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en)

    At IHE, the female adjunct faculty member is herself the author of the article; at the CHE, the staff member writes the article -- with maximum, indeed, unqualified editorial control.

    At IHE, the coverage is replete with links to the NFM Website as well as the sources and sites discussed in the article. At the CHE, the staff member provides no traceable link to information about the location of the NFM site or other relevant persons or materials.

    Heaven forfend! The Chronicle of Higher Education knows very well that its most cherished and courted audience, higher education administration, might not approve.

    The exploitation of at-will, temporary, minimum-waged employees, predominantly female, is the funding base for the expansion of higher education’s administrative cohorts both in number and in salaries -- and the funding base of the Chronicle of Higher Education, as well.

    Welcome to the IHE, New Faculty Majority, where even the underpaid, contingent employee has her own voice!

  • Posted by No Longer an Adjunct on September 10, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • I fully support higher pay and better working conditions for adjuncts. However, comparisons between adjuncts and tenure track faculty make little sense. Adjuncts do not do the same job. When adjuncts want to start doing research, committee work, advising students, performing service -- and when they want to start being as closely examined in their performance as the basis for reappointment, then they should be compared to tenure track faculty. In exchange for their low pay and rotten working conditions, adjuncts do only the teaching portion of a complex job. In exchange for their lack of job security and benefits, they can and do invest little in the governance of the campus, design of curriculum and new courses, supervision of student organizations, mentoring, and fund-raising, and in most places do not even have to attend faculty meetings. Adjuncts are very focused on what they do not get in terms of salary and benefits, but not at all focused on what they do not have to do on the job. As a tenured faculty member, I have not grad students to grade my papers either. And I cannot go home and relax once I've taught my courses because my job doesn't end with teaching. If an adjunct finds it hard to combine teaching with family responsibilities how much harder would she find it to do the full job (for full pay and full benefits)? The price you pay for job flexibility and the opportunity to perform a scaled down version of a difficult profession is the lesser pay and benefits. If you want more pay and better benefits, trying working hard enough to be a viable candidate during searches, which begins with adding research to your daily duties, because adjuncts who do not publish have no chance at a tenure track job.

  • Ho w Muich Longer, Ad-Junkeds?
  • Posted by Dana , English Composition at 6 CA CC's on September 10, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • I wanted to take my SUNY Ph.D. learning into community colleges because I did not want to teach hormonal junior high and high-schoolers, and I felt CC students were more down to earth than the universith students I taught as a GTA. After getting my Ph.D. in composition theory, my 4K per class plus benefits I earned as a GTA turned into 2.5K per class with no benefits as a freeway flyer at five CA CC's.
    With the CA budget criis, I've experienced others like myself who taught excellently for over 10 years and are suddenly without work. Most CC's have "dumped" over half their adjuncts has full-timers take as many overload and summer classes as before and revel in the nice fat cushion of adjuncts there are to be bumped off before FT's have to make any sacrifices to the budget crisis.
    The real evil in all this is the decsion made decades ago to make part-timers "at will" and "temporary" forever in CA and many states' ed codes. Until ed code is changed, adjuncts will forever be subject to at whim firing, abysmal pay, and lack of respect. Since community collges don't have much political currency (taxpayers won't willingly pay more to pay part-timers more), CC instructors are forced to leverage their nurturing good will and concern for students against the ability to get paid properly.
    Teaching is one of those nurturing professions that make demanding more money for nurturing a bit like a mother demanding more money to give affection to her kids or a nurse leaving a patient to suffer because the nurse is not getting paid well. For decades higher education institutions have depended upon adjunct[' willingness to live under a bridge rather than "short" students to educate hundreds of thousands of students on the cheap.
    But is was only when there became a shortage of nurses--because they were even more horribly exploited than adjuncts--that nurses started to get paid decently. Unfortunately, it will take a HUGE number of adjunct defections from higher ed for the financial wheels to start turning out decent pay for 3/4 of the teaching professionals. All the whining, shouting, writing, demonstrating, and "activism" will do nothing as long as the complaining faculty jump through hoops to take that Friday afternoon class on a half hour's notice.
    Want respect and decent pay? Then don't teach unless and until you get it. I made the painful decision to leave adjunc-ting a few months ago and I pray that tens of thousands more will do the same, all to the betterment of the profession.

  • Adjuncts
  • Posted by Fossil , Professor of Mathematics (emeritus) at Gargantuan State U. on September 10, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • In the department where taught for forty years, there were basically two kinds of adjuncts: (1) Grad students whose compensation covered tuition as well as a stipend and (2) adjuncts who had absolutely no aspirations to become tenured faculty (beyond the realm of possibility, in any case) and who taught, not because they needed the money, but mostly to fill up their spare time with moderately interesting work. I don't offer this as a typical picture, or to refute the notion that in many cases, adjuncts are cynically exploited. I merely point out that the situation is far from uniform.

  • Various: vfichera & No Longer an Adjunct
  • Posted by DFS on September 10, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • vfichera: Thank you for this comparison.

    I have long suspected that this is indeed the case. I have gone to Chronicle several times, and I have been duely dissapointed in not only the lack of navigability there -- in some kind of logical sense -- but in the tone and flavor of what is published. Now I have some insight on why this is so.

    Now, back to the poster known here as "No Longer an Adjunct". Look, dude (or dudette?), there are all kinds of full-timers, tenured, part-timers, adjuncts, etc., but there is still the one distinction: do I have a job next semester or not?

    I have been an advisor as an "adjunct", and I have also not been such an advisor as full-time.

    As an "adjunct," I have also served on several committees. I have never had a teaching assistant. (I would never want anyone else to grade my students' papers.)

    Further, the idea that "when they want to start being as closely examined in their performance as the basis for reappointment, then they should be compared to tenure track faculty" is not only bullshit, it's insulting -- one of the perks of being "tenure-track faculty" is not being under such highly-focused a lens. I submit that there is much more discretion available to administration in deciding not to renewing an adjunct when compared to the heavenly-gifted untouchably privileged. Else, Ward Churchill would have had a much shorter time in front of the nation's focused lens.

    You, 'No Longer,' are part of the problem. Please get out of our way, or just learn to duck.

    It's coming.

  • Good point, Fossil,
  • Posted by DFS on September 10, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • And, BTW, are you Frizbane 'undercover?'

    We haven't seen his posts in a long while, and I know he's up there, in years.

    I miss him.

  • Management's Dream Increases
  • Posted by Dana , English Composition at Ex-Freeway Flyer on September 10, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • [I apologize for my typo-filled previous post, done on a shaky train]

    It's college management's dream to have a huge group of faculty who will perform their best (and keep their college accredited) for one third the price of a small group employees they must by law hire. To add to part-timers' willingness to live on "saint currency" is the fact that in community colleges, adjuncts are not "vetted" or evaluated thoroughly. Full-timers must go through four years of probationary gates before getting that permanent job with benefits, but an adjunct can be hired on a single call from a faculty department chair. CC districts don't want to put more money or labor into evaluating adjuncts becauses that would give premise for adjuncts to receive better compensation. Thus, adjuncts are viewed as "second class citizens" because they are not truly evaluated.

    The biggest obstacle to getting part-timers to become activists, besides lack of time, is differing financial needs. About 30% depend solely on teaching part-time at several institutions to survive--and many are too afraid of losing their classes if they speak out. The rest have other income in the form of another full-time job, pension, or spouse; they don't really "need" the money and love teaching so much that not being humanely compensated is no big deal. The increasing dependence of higher education on contingent labor has lead to more potential community college job seekers entering graduate schools, which do nothing to warn students that not nearly enough full-time jobs exist when they earn that 80K degree, and flooding the market. A huge oversupply of nurturing teachers who will perform their best really cheaply. A manager's dream indeed!

    What adjuncts to can "afford" to teach for nearly nothing need to consider is that what they deliver to students is no less valuable to students just because they have other income. In fact, the source of the other income (and benefits) is really what subsidizes the adjunct's teaching.

    Given all the above factors, the ONLY way adjuncts will ever ever get paid more is for thousands to leave the teaching profession in droves. The shortage worked for nursing; it can work here.

  • The Adjunct's moment of truth
  • Posted by Gerardo Nebbia , Adjunct professor/Economics at El Camino College, Torrance, California on September 10, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • This was a very informative article that illustrates a big problem. In California where I teach, adjuncts were introduced in the Community Colleges in a big way with the '60 percent' law of 1967 that created a permanent underclass in those institutions.

    The race was on. The new law dramatically slowed down the creation of tenured full time posts. At the same time there was an explosion in part timer professors.

    By the way, I suspect that this legislation took place with no effective opposition from faculty unions.

    I also suspect that this proletarianization of a layer of faculty imposes higher supervisory costs on the institutions involved, since there is less of an incentive for these new wage-slaves to perform well. In one college where I teach, for instance, management actually sends 'supervisors' into class rooms to make surprise visits in the evening to make sure that the professors are actually there, or that the class was not dismissed early.

    This chronicle is not unique to academia. In fact, the use of contingent labor has increased through out society as businesses look out for more flexible ways of managing the human capital that they hire. Contained in the campaign against the mistreatment of contingent faculty is the struggle against the profit system itself.

    I do not think that the struggle of adjuncts has any chance of success if it is posed in isolation from those other struggles, or in opposition to those faculty, which are fortunate to have tenure. I think that the fight for part-time faculty rights has to begin by making a broad appeal to all sectors of the labor movement, and to unorganized workers as well, including Wall Mart. This is has to be a political fight that goes well beyond writing letters to legislators, beyond picketing and protests.

  • The Unions and Adjunct-dom
  • Posted by Ariel , Composition at Three CA Community Colleges on September 10, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • I belong to the two big teacher's unions in CA. One is relatively weak and small, and the parent mostly K-12 union does not care a whit about adjunct teaching conditions. The other has launched a national campaign to mandate the hiring of more full-time facultly in higher education and paying adjuncts pro rata pay. But CA is broke. I was taken aback when an executive of the larger national union told me that while the national and state unions strongly advocate for equal pay for equal work for adjuncts, the underlying , hidden truth is that community colleges could not afford to operate if adjuncts were properly paid. The taxpayers' willingness to shell out more so that all CC faculty could be properly paid is just not there. Why should they pay more for politically unglamorous community colleges when they seem to be running OK with mostly underpaid adjuncts? When I"ve tried to drum up sympathy for adjunct working conditons, the taxpayers says"Thank you." --if they're being polite.

  • Organization is a Necessary But Not Sufficient First Step
  • Posted by Keith Hoeller , Co-founder at Washington Part-Time Faculty Association on September 10, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I have often pointed out the problems that arise when adjunct faculty are thrown into the same unions with their full-time counterparts. The AAUP, AFT, and NEA remain committed to the two-track system and the hegemony of the tenured faculty.

    While the formation of an organization for adjuncts is a necessary first step, it is not sufficient in itself to bring about the major changes that are needed in the academy. There are several problems that any new organization needs to solve:

    How will the group avoid ceding control to the tenured faculty in the organization, be they members or advisors?

    Will the group take stronger stands than those already taken by the three national unions?

    How will the organization avoid being co-opted by the unions?

    How will the organization remain independent of the unions if the group invites union leaders into their fold, either as members or advisors, and if they take money from unions?

    Will the group offer clear and strong goals, such as full equality for adjuncts and the abolition of the two-track system?

    Given that the tenured faculty have three unions to represent them, it may very well be that the adjuncts will need several organizations to bring about the necessary changes to the academy.

  • Posted by WTF on September 10, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • If even 50% of the people working as adjuncts at America's colleges and universities quit on the spot, most of those institutions they work for would be effectively shut down.

    But we all know that will never happen. Too many adjuncts live from paycheck to paycheck as it is; they cannot afford to quit even a humiliatingly underpaid job. Also, too many adjuncts falsely believe that, if they just work hard and long enough, a tenure-stream position will magically appear, a situation which has happened so rarely in the past 20 years as to be almost an urban legend. Poverty and false consciousness work wonders at controlling the masses, comrades.

    So long as people are willing to exploit hardworking their fellow Americans in the name of education, the situation will continue until EVERYONE teaches for love instead of a livable wage.

    Wanna be a professor? Be a gentleman (or gentlelady) hobbyist on the side! No expertise required.

    P.S. What's with all the regular commenters still seemingly ignorant of the contemporary usage of terms? For instance, a grad student who receives compensation of tuition and stipend in return for teaching is no longer an adjunct; I don't care what your school called it in the sixties because today they are called graduate assistants. For nearly 20 years, "adjunct" has been used as shorthand for an instructor who is paid a (usually extremely) small stipend to teach on a course-by-course, semester-by-semester basis. The person teaching a class on the side for fun and pin money really is not the norm. If only!

  • Underpaid Affiliate Faculty = APARTHEID
  • Posted by Mary DeVon , Executive Assistant at Squaw County College on September 10, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • The use of underpaid faculty, by any definition, is a form of apartheid. i.e. grotesquely less pay for the same work.

    Whether they are paid or not, adjuncts and affiliates simply MUST do research to keep up with their field so they have timely information to deliver to their students. If you want to argue that adjuncts do less research, you are admitting that Colleges and Universities are selling "professors" while delivering used cars. What a shame all around. ALL teachers need to be on top of their content and do research and be paid equally for the same work. Is apartheid where this country is heading? (False titles rather than skin color is the determining basis for discrimination). Are we now a has-been country which is switching places with South Africa? Are we becoming the new 3rd World with apartheid education considered practical and realistic?

    Time to wake up, citizens. Maria Maisto's article and her New Faculty Majority are right on the money. Time for change. THAT'S realistic.

    (Are you listening Obama?)

  • How about a national walk-out?
  • Posted on September 10, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • If it's unreasonable to hope that adjuncts will leave their jobs in droves as one commenter suggests, then maybe an organization like NFM can at least help sponsor a national walk-out or boycott day, like gay rights groups did some years back, to help show taxpayers what happens if there are no adjuncts.

  • Day Without an Adjunct
  • Posted by Ariel , English Composition at 3 CA CC's on September 10, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Getting adjuncts to walk out even for a day aint gonna happen. The half who teach "for love" would see no purpose in disrupting their students' lives protesting over money ("Goodness, you knew the pay when you signed up to teach your classes, right?"). The other half would be too afraid of losing their jobs. When I quit taching English 100 in the middle of a semester to take a non-teaching job, I was replaced in less than ten minutes--literally. Perhaps all the cuts that are happening will finally sober up the "for the students" holdouts; they will either get other jobs (if there are any), get militant, or both.

  • Reply to Jim
  • Posted by Lydia Edelhaus on September 10, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Jim, I think you are missing the point of the shared-office/cubicle issue, as well as the snubbing and pay issues.

    When I was a Freeway Flyer years ago, I went out to get a non-academic job in self-defense, to supplement my meager earnings. Initially, I was hired as a part-timer and was assigned to share an office. I remember the amazing feeling I had on my new job, when I came to work on my second day, to find the following items: my name on a nameplate on the door, underneath my office-mate's nameplate; my own telephone and extension; my own desk, chair, and filing cabinet. I had become so inured to being ignored and second-class, that the tears actually came to my eyes at these small indicators that I was not being seen that way in this office, even though I was still only a part-time employee. The tears were for my own recognition (click, as someone else said) that I had accepted my second-class status quo for so long I didn't even think about it, until I was treated with dignity at this other job. (From my corporate friends and family members, I hear a similar story; even if one is in a "cube", it is one's own "cube", with one's own desk, phone, extension, filing cabinets, etc. -- vastly different from being herded into anonymous and humiliating adjunct-faculty bullpens.)

    Snubbing at the academy is not a matter of academic preparation; it is most definitely a class issue. My PhD compared more than favorably to existing tenured department heads' Master's degrees, and that was the case for many of the rest of us as well. A previous generation of tenured profs simply did not always have their PhDs, and some never got them, or got halfway through. This did not block either their tenure nor their ability to serve as department heads, and more power to them. But as far as they were concerned, adjunct faculty were more or less invisible. In my new job, no one snubbed me. I was part of the staff, attended staff meetings, helped to set policy, was able to have my voice heard, was agreed with, disagreed with, and otherwise engaged with as a fully fledged human being. Click, again.

    As for the pay issues, it is beyond the pale to reduce the gross inequities here to a matter of feeling entitled to a job. No serious thinker about these issues believes that. What we are saying is that if you are hired to do an extremely serious job -- teaching -- the way to prorate the salary is to do so within a much more fair and equitable range. Many adjuncts would be happy to do committee work, advise students, fundraise, and all the other things that "real" employees do; but we are not asked nor even permitted to do such "real" work. Generally, most of us are not invited to faculty meetings and are not considered part of the "real" work force. In my other job, I became a fully-fledged part of the workforce the day I was hired. I was paid less than full-time workers and I received fewer benefits, but these issues were prorated fairly and I never felt exploited.

    In closing, I recommend that you review Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" as he speaks about, first, the four ways to assess just and unjust law (in this case, policy), and second, how it feels to be invisible as a human being, how it corrupts the soul and can so easily become internalized as no more than one's just deserts.

  • Questions for Adjuncts Teaching Composition
  • Posted by T.R.M. , Associate Professor/ Composition-Rhetoric at Regional Public University on September 10, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • I have some questions for the author of this piece, and for all of those adjuncts who teach composition:

    1. Do you have a Ph.D.?

    2. If you do have a Ph.D., is it a Ph.D. in composition/rhetoric? (The standard defense that you have a Ph.D. in "English" will not suffice here. If it's a Ph.D. in literary or cultural studies, in linguistics, or creative writing, your answer to this question should be "no.")

    3. Have you taken at least three credit-bearing graduate-level courses in composition/rhetoric?

    4. Do you have publications and/or conference presentations in composition/rhetoric? (Have you presented at CCCC? Have you published in CCC, JAC, Composition Studies, Rhetoric Review, etc.?)

    5. Are you currently engaged in a research or writing project in rhetoric/composition or writing studies?

    If you answered "yes" to all of the above questions, I agree that you are an exploited adjunct and that you deserve my support. If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you are a part of the problem and not part of the solution. If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you are most likely a tool in the more than century-old administrative edifice that uses the teaching of writing as an economic support mechanism for literary studies.

    If you answered "no" to any of the above questions and you teach composition as an adjunct, you are not exploited. You are a foot soldier for the exploiters.

  • Get a grip, please
  • Posted by J.J. on September 10, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • More than 75% of higher is taxpayer-funded -- large, uncaring bureaucracies where chaos is S.O.P. and the lifers appear to have stopped caring 20 years ago.

    For God's sake -- wake up! There is more to life than this! Really!

    My God, look at this --

    " .. In closing, I recommend that you review Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" .."

    Comparing standing up to racial intolerance to wanting taxpayer-supported jobs? You have got to be kidding!

    Get a grip. Please. Thanks.

  • Judging is not that Simple
  • Posted by Dana , English Composition at Several CA CC's on September 10, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Actually, I answered "yes" to all of the questions about composition/rhetoric. My Ph.D. and contributions to an essay anthology, as well as my being regularly published in local newspapers, should "mean" something--more money, more respect among my full-time colleages--right? Wrong!

    After teaching and publishing for ten years, here's the respect I received in the English department of several CC's: My column about a local dean changing the grades of five (pretty, blonde) students of a newly hired (and fired when she complained) adjunct won "column of the year" and was later used as a basis for a forum in Sacramento about grade changing policy. When it was first published, it was not put on the English dept. bulletin board. But letters to the editor from full-timers in the same departments were regulary posted, even if they said little or nothing.

    The bifurcation of faculty teaching the same courses (and no B.S. about adjuncts not "doing what full-timers do--they can and do serve on committees just as capably if asked and paid to do so) most notably at the CC level has brought out an almost Milgram-like acceptance of abuse of colleagues that would be comic if not so tragic. The abusers know that there will probably never be a shortage of Ph.D'd "victims," and so the handy excuse, "After all, you signed up to work under these conditions" is just so conveniently dismissive. The worst offenders are often FT's who made it over the fence and got hired full-time. Human nature is what it is; Hobbs is smiling.

    State budgets have gradually become shrink-wrapped around community colleges underpaying three quarters of highly educated, dedicated, and giving professionals. One can hope that the thousands of suddenly laid off and painfully disillusioned adjuncts whose students and the educational system will miss them terribly, will hear that "click", pick up the pieces, and move onto new jobs. But it will be awhile before enough leave the profession for the state and the country to finally say (It took RN"s 80 years to finally quit in enough numbers to generate better pay) "gosh, I guess we should pay them more money."

    But perhaps even more hideous and malignant than the lack of enough cold cash for teachers to live on is what the birfurcation has brought out some of the worst of human nature. Let's see if the excuse-makers and qualifiers can understand this: EXPLOITATION, DISPRESPECT, AND MAL-TREATMENT OF FELLOW TEACHING PROFESSIONALS IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

    Got that?

     

  • Another perspective.
  • Posted by Trace Urdan , Research Analyst at Signal Hill on September 10, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • With the rapidly growing pace of online education, the adjunct faculty market is one of the most frictionless and efficient labor markets that exists. Yet the unspoken bias of adjunct faculty toward more prestigious institutions gets in the way. The other factor that gets in the way is tenure. This is an outmoded model from another era that unfairly distributes resources where they are least productive. The goal of making tenure distorts the labor market further as adjunct faculty effectively give up compensation for the option value of grabbing the golden ring. If all professors were adjunct, I suspect there would be no need of "activists" or wildly inappropriate references to Dr. King.

  • To T.R.M.
  • Posted on September 10, 2009 at 9:00pm EDT
  • "If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you are a part of the problem and not part of the solution. If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you are most likely a tool in the more than century-old administrative edifice that uses the teaching of writing as an economic support mechanism for literary studies. If you answered "no" to any of the above questions and you teach composition as an adjunct, you are not exploited. You are a foot soldier for the exploiters."

    Talk about blaming the victim -- not only are adjuncts responsible for (and therefore deserving of) their own working conditions, but THEY are supposed to be responsible for ensuring quality by nobly refusing job offers for work they might actually be able to do well by any objective measure? But of course the WPAs are too busy presenting at conferences and writing for journals to actually go into adjuncts' classrooms to see how well they are teaching, or to offer them opportunities for professional development.

  • empathy
  • Posted by jgh , newly hired ass't prof at cc on September 11, 2009 at 3:15am EDT
  • Having just gotten hired as an assistant professor I am grateful. I realize what a miracle it is and if not for the miracle, I too would right now be a vastly underpaid adjunct making do economically while spinning rationalizations about loving to teach. I absolutely agree with Dana, "State budgets have gradually become shrink-wrapped around community colleges underpaying three quarters of highly educated, dedicated, and giving professionals."
    This will not change until thousands of adjuncts just decide not to put up with it any more. Supply and demand. Until there are no more PhD's lined up to take these underpaid positions nothing will change. Not a very optimistic point of view, but if thousands of adjuncts did not take the opportunities presented during the recent economic bubble, its hard to see how the pool will shrink in the coming jobless recovery.

  • Posted by jim on September 11, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • This is a response to Lydia Edelhaus. I don't think I am missing the point about offices and cubicles. I agree that there is a range of accomodations from nothing, through a bull-pen with a large table, to shared cubicles, to "private" cubicles, to shared offices, to private offices to corner offices etc. My point is that I don't teach for dignity and respect, I teach because I love to do it. Getting respect is wonderful and I am grateful wherever and whenever I get it. But to blame the institution where I work or even the entire community of colleges and universities because I don't get respect is unrealistic and unwarranted. I have taught where all I got was a large table in a bull-pen and I have taught where I got sole-residence in a cubicle. I would love a private office and all day to work in it and meet with students but the lack of an office is merely a distraction and a large inconvenience, not a lack of respect. Nobody owes me luxury.
    As for snubbing, people in power will always snub people without power and adjuncts have very little power. I will agree that academic preparation is not the whole story and I will point out that the managers, administrators and tenured folks without terminal degrees are a relic of a bygone era. Nobody gets to those positions today degree-less and maybe the folks who snubbed you realized that.
    As for pay and being invited to faculty meetings etc, I probably have a one-sided view. I have worked at state universities where the pay is way beyond what I expected and at proprietary colleges where the pay is abysmal. Nowhere was I excluded from faculty meetings and although I was always way too busy to serve on committees (teaching 5-8 classes per term) I never got the impression that I wouldn't be allowed to to contribute. As for the proprietary colleges, many of them have as a stated goal, the elimination or near elimination of full-time faculty in favor of a totally- adjunct workforce. This is of course, a financial decision and I think it stinks. I would prefer a full-time job with all the benefits and "security" that would accompany it but I don't think that the school owes it to me. The old saw, "equal pay for equal work" is handy and even meaningful but I'm not sure how to apply it here. It will never be the case that full-time people are paid on a course by course basis so what is fair for me?
    As for the comment that I reread Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", I can only agree with the poster JJ. Comparing what Dr. King faced to what I face is ridiculous. Lack of luxurious working conditions and snubbing by less-capable people is the way of the world. Calling it "unjust policy" is inflating it beyond the reaches of my common sense.

  • Supply side responsibility
  • Posted by Dana , English Composition at Several CA CC's on September 11, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • In addition, graduate schools must ethically limit the number of applicants to Ph,D programs in which the graduate's ultimate goal is a teaching job in a community college or state university. But this will NEVER happen, what with grad schools scrambling for students paying big bucks to support the almost comically over-bloated and puffed up academic machine.. I once asked a Ph.D. colleague if Ph.D professors in any of the humanities did anything more than trade journal articles with each other. No curing cancer, no developing enviroment-preserving "green" machines, no developing an economically efficient health care plan, etc. I personally looked forward to imparting humanities-oriented critical thinking skills to my community college students, even Iser, Eagleton, and Elbow never made it into my syallabi.
    With 60K in student loan debt I think most graduate higher ed teachers like myself need to do "something" with their doctorates, so they settle for 2.5K a class in a community college. As long as the chair likes them and they don't complian, thousands of adjuncts win the "prize" of getting a 67% load every semester (the top limit in CA), they forgo the dentist and car repairperson, and just deal--until a new chair does not like them, for a reason never to be disclosed, and they find themselves without classes at one college after they've turned down a class at another college because of schedule conflicts.
    It is absolutely uncocsionable for grad schools to enter so many more potential higher ed teachers into their Ph.D. programs than there are real jobs for these graduates to take. Period. I know devote what little time I have to warning my students NOT NOT NOT to strive to enter graduate school with the goal of teaching in a community, state, or private college or university. Get a certificate to teach in K-12 instead. As I said before, until the supply of adjuncts "willing" to put up with abuse decreases, there will be no respect and decent compensation

  • Dark days
  • Posted by Maggie on September 11, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • I'm saddened and weary to keep reading about the horrors of adjuncting. It's just not an option for single people or those with families and mortgages to pursue this as a career path any more. But what of the flood of PhDs and MFAs on the job market? What are they going to do? 

    I finally stopped asking for class assignments after ten-plus years at a four-year college in Boston. They had been offering me only one course a semester, and no summer work, for the last two years, after years of being offered the maximum number of courses and at least one term of summer work. I moved three hours away and was still commuting, but the salary for one course a semester barely covered my travel costs. I guess they were forcing me out so they could give more courses to adjuncts with less seniority who are still several years away from reaching the highest pay sector. So, a cost-saving measure, forcing out veteran adjuncts (gods what a horrific phrase)? Then again, this college doesn't have money problems as far as I know.

    I'm just about to start a job teaching composition at a community college; at half the pay I enjoyed teaching media classes (that I designed) at my former job. Sigh. I gotta get out.

  • Remember the Part-Timers
  • Posted by Scott , Adjunct at Large State College on September 11, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • I don't doubt being a full-time adjunct pays little for the amount of work, but I'd like to note there are those of us who adjunct part-time and are actually pretty happy with the situation.

    I really, really wanted to get a PhD in the Liberal Arts, but when I looked at the job market I realized the chances of getting a tenure-track position were slim to none, unless I managed to get in a top-tier graduate program. So with my Liberal Arts undergrad degree, I took a grad. degree in Business, and never looked back. I have a decent daytime job, and I've been an adjunct for over a decade at my local state college. For me, the two nights a week I spend teaching is rewarding, almost fun, and it's on a topic (Information Systems) that is the focus of my professional career.

    I get medical, dental, and retirement from my day job. The adjunct position nets me right around $600.00/month, and that's much more than I could make doing anything else part-time.

    This is not to put down the valid concerns of other posters, but just to make you aware that there are part-time adjunct faculty who are very pleased with the status quo. I think part of the issue is that you have to look at market forces, and pursue the education and training that is in demand. It's the reason I didn't pursue a PhD.

  • Posted by E.R. on September 11, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • The notion that adjuncts are people teaching something on the side as a hobby, as if equating adjuncting to, I don't know, decorating cakes, is antiquated. The use of adjuncts in different disciplines varies, but at least in the humanities, a vast number of those adjuncts are Ph.D. holding, experienced professionals who are hoping to find a real, paying tenure-track job in a blighted economy. Yes, they may be glad to have some kind of job this year (at the least it keeps them in the field to try next year). But take the adjunct in my case who is at a state flagship university, who teaches twice as many classes as any member of the faculty, full time or not, who researches and publishes and attends conferences funded by a credit card instead of departmental funding, and who has frequent out of class assignments on top of teaching that can add up to as many as eight extra hours per week. This same adjunct is paid such a whopping salary that his children qualify for free lunch at school. If you tell me that an adjunct like this isn't working enough, isn't doing all the research and professional jobs that Big Grownup Real Professors do, then I agree--you'd better duck.

  • a matter of degree?
  • Posted by PhD- , Forever 100 level writing at Tan-King U on September 12, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Dear TRM,

    Do you have the highest evals in your department, or a long history of published material that had public acclaim and high readership? Plenty of my colleagues have all the requirements you seem to think necessary and not nearly the success rate I do.

    My university, in drafting up my 'excellent' ratings, lamented that I did not 'choose' to take a higher degree, even after admitting that my doing so would not change my adjunct status. And on $20,000 a year, how would I possibly to do it anyway? If you think a PhD in Rhetoric adds up to top flight composition teaching skills, stick with the Chronicle, where old curmudgeons still get to rant about 'add-junks' because they must defend the outrageous costs of advanced degrees.

  • Probably will leave teaching
  • Posted by Rebecca , Adjunct in English on September 13, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • I have been working as an adjunct for 6 years. I teach 6 composition classes on 2 different campuses, 1 of which is 97 miles from my house, and spend all of my spare time grading papers. I also work as a writing tutor at one campus to earn extra money. I have no time to publish or volunteer, and why would I volunteer for something that I will get little recognition and no pay? I cannot afford to pay for travel to conferences. I may not "advise" students, but plenty come to me during my required office hours, and I hand out lots of advice. I have applied for many tenure-track positions both at other colleges/universities and at one that I teach. I have never had an interview! If you are an older adjunct (like me), the adjunct curse is even worse. I once volunteered to work at a fund-raising book sale, and when I went to the sale to work, I overheard two of the tenures saying they didn't want to let adjuncts handle the money because they didn't trust them. I left and never volunteered again. During the summers, I spend all of my time looking for a better job with more pay and benefits. I love teaching, but every year, it gets more difficult to swallow the snubs by tenured faculty, the long hours of grading papers, and the reality that I won't get a check in June, July, August, and December. At one place I teach, I never see some full-time faculty members because they spend so little time on campus. I suppose they are busy going to conferences or publishing when they are not teaching their 2 classes per semester. It is sad that I have to look for work that I might not like just because I am working myself to death for such little pay, no benefits, and little appreciation.

  • Posted by Guerin Fritzlen , Adjunct/Mathematics and Computer Sciences at Metropolitan State College of Denver on September 13, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I just recently went through a divorce and the opposing side said continually that I am over educated and underemployed.

  • Lydia Edelhaus
  • Posted by DFS on September 13, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • What a wonderful post! And this, despite all of the academically-proliferated horror stories about the evils of capitalism and the down-trodden 'victims' there.

    I believe it's time for a national adjunct walkout -- for one day. Then, after all of the blather from the blatherers like TRM, another national adjunct walkout for a week. Let administration quickly and 'effortlessly' scramble to replace someone for only one day, then, let them do it for a week. If necessary, then, do it for a month. Then, a semester, etc.

    How is such a surprise possible? I don't know -- let's just borrow Dear Leader President's phenomenom: let's just keep in touch by personal email. Let everyone sign up in front, personally.

    Then, let the shit hit the fan. At least the public would pay attention -- probably only through the reportage of something like (gasp!) Fox News or the student public. Don't expect ABC, CBS, NBC, or the NYT or AP to do anything but play it down.

  • Dedicated to Teaching
  • Posted by Anonymous, Please on September 13, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I have been an adjunct while employed full time and, for sixteen years, having adjunct status at multiple institutions as the key source of my income. I have balanced many courses, including the staple required ones as well as somespecial opportunities (becoming rare) to teach upper-level ones, continuing education, and so on. I've designed workshops in the community. I've maintained freelance writing and editing on the side, on a small scale. I raised an initially medically frail son and assisted an aging mom. I thought that my skill set was sharp enough that I would be able to transition either into community college teaching full-time (I have applied for multiple positions) or publishing full-time when I was ready to re-enter the workforce. I am adept at working with people of many ages and backgrounds and pour heart and soul into my work, often innovating, always carings, and getting good results from students in my classrooms. (I teach writing, critical reading, research, and so on.) I'm sorry if this sounds like a letter of application. Regrettably, the economy we now face and the reality of being an older worker has me close to hitting the wall. I do not have a Ph.D. I thought I was spreading my wings by doing varied work and honestly didn't realize that I was possibly cornering myself. I have learned the hard way that there is a limit to the number of classes I can teach in terms of sheer energy, but it does not generate enough to live on. I work in some form six days a week.

    All that said, I propose the following:

    (1) a credentialing system that takes into account the number of years of adjuncting;

    2) pro-rated pay/benefits of some kind;

    (3) full-time faculty and administrators that get behind the equity issues to avoid the "us/them" mentality; and

    (4) mentoring for those who wish to stay within higher ed. and are willing to serve our institutions in other ways.

  • Another Angle
  • Posted by Dana , Ex-Adjunked at Many on September 13, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • Imagine K-12's being staffed like community and state and some private colleges. One third of the teachers will enjoy job security, benefits, and being held to a high standard of quality. Two thirds of the instructors will have abysmal wages and must teach at more than one school, have little or no benefits, and no job security. The K-12 district will depend upon the underpaid and disrespected teachers the nurturing "good will" to educate their young children to state standards.
    Voting parents of K-12 children would never tolerate this. But these same voting parents don't really care about community colleges especially and rarely get concerned enough to pressure legislators and politicians to devote more state money towards making sure ALL teachers in higher ed are paid properly. They don't care that getting a properly paid teaching job has about the same odds as a very good or terrific performer earning enough stable income to support him or herself.
    Until taxpaying voters see the importance of taking tax money away from something else to truly support higher education, especially community colleges, I'm afraid the only recourse ad-junikeds have is to "bite the bullet" stop whining, and vote with their feet by leaving the profession and creating a shortage.

  • To stay or to go?
  • Posted by Trexan , Adjunct Professor on September 14, 2009 at 5:00am EDT
  • It seems to me that many have posted that a viable solution to the adjunct situation is to leave the profession. This is counter to the purpose of this article and the NFM, or other local advocacy groups. So, what should we do? Should we stay and try to be agents of change in academia, or should we go find ourselves another career?

    I suppose that is a personal decision for each to make: yes, I agree it is about options. We can either choose to do something about a situation that is highly dissatisfying for some (since it's been noted that some are content with the current status quo), OR we can choose to do something else with our lives. BUT the worst thing is to do nothing.

    I don't know what the outcome will be -- maybe advocacy groups like NFM will help and local advocacies will form unions, etc. (which will come at a hefty price for which someone will have to pay); maybe enough adjuncts will find other careers which may or may not bring about that "beneficial shortage" that has been compared with the nursing profession.

    What I do know is bits and pieces I've been gathering all year to try to come up with a more complete perspective about what is going on in higher ed:

    1. John Stossel (ABC news) did a report on "The College Scam" and what it shows is that there is an increasing number of people that say, "the heck with college/higher ed". People that are unwilling to get into huge financial debt for degrees that also get them nowhere (and they're not the ones seeking teaching positions).

    2. In contrast, we have Obama's campaign to push for a mandatory one year of post-secondary education because a K-12 education won't cut it in the future (indeed many complain that the quality of their public education is deplorable -- done by FT mostly, of course). Obama wants to increase the percentage of our population with higher ed degrees.

    Of the former, some have noted that higher ed is just a means to indoctrinate people to a certain way of thinking -- because heaven forbid one actually learns critical thinking and thinking for oneself! So, for example, I'm supposed to swallow each and every single liberal teaching (in a variety of disciplines) that does everything it can to put down my conservative beliefs which I have studied applying principles of logic, philosophy, history, science, etc. and come to adopt through rational, cognitive deduction. For instance, I've learned to laugh at the claim that "there is no such thing as Absolute Truth" when this statement itself is easily refuted by asking, "are you absolutely certain?"

    Of the latter, what is the point of Obama seeking a more educated population (a population of PhDs) if said population is unable to be gainfully employed FT? What is the point of seeking accountability from higher ed institutions (by tracking graduation rates), if not also seeking accountability from these same higher ed institutions for employment practices (equity & inclusion of PT contingent workers)?

    For generations, we have revered three gods: the God of Education, the God of Capitalism, and the God of Government. Meaning, education will save us, free-market practices will save us, and/or government will save us. Save us from what? From poverty, from ourselves, perhaps?

    Well, something is obviously not working to our satisfaction. Why would that be? What is missing from this picture?

    Addressing the adjunct issue specifically, I would return to my original points: choose to stay in this but be proactive towards changes you hope to see, or choose to find other work that might meet your immediate needs first. But, do not do nothing. It is the one luxury you cannot afford.

  • Productive Change
  • Posted by Hannah , English at Several on September 14, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • After having participated for fifteen years in many contingent advocacy groups on the local, state, and national levels, I can tell you that when all is said and done (and these could fill their own library), any possible legislative changes have always been put on the back burner because "while we totally agree with you in principle, we just don't have the money now." And they never will, no matter how methodical or rigorous our lobbying. Many adjuncts themselves don't want to devote precious time towards a fruitless pursuit (that may result in their not getting classes), and local districts and state and federal politicians know that there will always be an unlimited supply of adjuncts willing to deliver accreditation-worthy performances on "saint currency." Good old conservative capitalism in the form of supply and demand will always keep our compensation and respect low. The only way to get higher pay is to create a shortage in the supply of "willing" exploitees. If it worked for "nurturing" RN's it can work for ad-juinkeds.

  • A Reply to my Critics
  • Posted by T.R.M. , Associate Professor, English at Regional Public University on September 14, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • I suspected my original post might draw angry replies from a number of correspondents. I also suspected that my arguments would be misrepresented. Thus, I was not surprised to read the reactions here.

    A bit of personal background: I was a composition-teaching adjunct for a couple of years. I was hired to my first adjunct position after I made a phone call in response to an advertisement in a local newspaper. I had an MA degree in creative writing and a BA in English literature. I was invited for an "interview" the next morning, and that interview consisted of: 1) the department chair scanning my one-page CV for about fifteen seconds and my writing sample for perhaps twice that long; 2) the question "Can you teach composition for us on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.?" Never mind that I had no experience teaching composition . . . I was going to land my first academic job! The pay wasn't great, but at least I would get my foot in the door--or so I thought.

    It took less than a semester for me to realize what a sham the whole enterprise was. I was pretty good at teaching composition, despite having no explicit preparation to do so. But "pretty good at teaching composition" turned out to be a relative term. I now realize I looked good only in comparison to some of the other folks who shared my office (50 adjuncts, four desks, one phone). The fact that I didn't yell at students in class, accuse every student of plagiarism, or refuse to continue reading any paper after three (perceived) grammatical errors did wonders for my student evaluations.

    After a year of cobbling together a meager living through adjunct teaching at three or four schools at a time, I decided that I would apply to Ph.D. programs, and that if I didn't gain admittance to one of them after three years of trying, I would leave academia and figure out something else to do with my life.

    I got admitted to a few Ph.D. programs on my second year of trying, and I chose the one that offered me the best financial deal. I specialized in composition studies, because my adjuncting experience had demonstrated to me that teaching writing was a difficult but necessary professional commitment that is usually given short shrift by college English departments.

    I earned my degree, delivered a few conference papers and published a couple of papers, and went on the job market. I got a tenure-track job (it required a significant geographical move) and started my career in earnest.

    That career has taught me a few things--first and foremost, that English is an academic discipline that has, for more than a century, built a scholarly empire for literary studies on the labor of underpaid, underappreciated, and (here's the politically incorrect part) frequently underqualified teachers of first-year composition. Second, I have learned that indignant pontification, rather than cogent argumentation, is the reflex response from literature teacher/scholars to anyone who dares question their divine right to rule over the teaching of composition.

    An here's the kicker: many of today's composition-teaching adjuncts are not the victims in this scenario. I'll agree that their pay and their working conditions are terrible. But since so many of them are among the most vociferous and ignorant purveyors of this decade's anti-comp/rhet diatribes, they are more properly viewed as unwitting participants in a massive scam.

    There's much more that I could say here, but I'll end with this note: I never, as one respondent claimed above, argued that people should "nobly reject" job offers. No--the people in question should never have sought or received such offers in the first place. And that goes for me too. Given my qualifications at the time, I should never have been offered my first job teaching college composition. (No doubt, someone will take that comment, twist it, and try to use it to discredit my argument. So be it.)

    I'm simply here to remind some (not all) composition-teaching adjuncts of an uncomfortable truth: that the real victims in English departments today are not the adjunct masses, but rather the increasing numbers of tenured and tenure-track compositionists whose scholarship, pedagogical initiatives, and proposed curricular reforms are routinely ridiculed by the dominant "literary" culture in English departments.

     

  • Career Quicksand
  • Posted by Dana , English at Several CC's on September 14, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
  • It's hard to establish cause and effect here, but the adjunct's being able to be hired via a phone call from the department chair and evaluated by a simple student scantron keeps the "justification" alive that they are not worth more than poverty pay. When you ask districts why they don't vet and evaluate adjuncts more thoroughly, they repy they don't want to put any more "resources" into evaluations. So, there's this huge logcial twilight zone in which adjuncts could--or could not be--terrific teachers. Since we'll never really know, lets' keep them low paid and if they don't like it they can leave. With state budget cuts to education, there is no adjunct anywhere that cannot be replaced in ten minutes.

    At several colleges "eminence in the field" qualifies many teachers who never got a masters . We had a retired dancer from the New York City Ballet to teach dance as an adjunct, and he is indeed terrific and beloved by his students. But for lack of thorough vetting and evaluations, we'll never know if he could be a great full-time instructor. Same with me and my colleagues who have published novels, read papers at conferences, and did the whole puffed up "academy" thing. Some have gotten extremely good evaluations for ten years and have thus proven themselves to be excellent teachers. But because they are adjuncts, often over age 45, they never will be full-time, decently paid tenured teachers.

    At many CA CC's around me, dozens of adjuncts--many with proof they are great teachers of multiple courses within their discipline--who have been dropped, thus saving tenureds in higher ed the anxiety spreading through the K-12's about losing benefits, jobs, even overload. The ironic kicker is that getting rid of adjuncts does not save districts a whole lot of money! And so you have tenured s near retirement who literally show up once a week to three day a week classes, call in sick weeks at a time, sometimes sleep through class, insult students, and generally get paid 100K a year to be abominable teachers, while an enthusiastic newbie just out of grad school might just be better at educating students.

    But we'll never know, because a lynchpin of keeping adjuncts starving and scared is the lack of vetting and useful evaluations. Tenured colleagues always point to the moving across the country, going through four years of probation, and the taking on of shared governance duties as automatically making them "better" than adjuncts. Maybe, maybe not. The real tragedy is that what gets lost in this almost comic bifurcated system is lack of attention to what is really best for the STUDENTS. As a result, many innovative, dedicated, and truly excellent educators will be tossed out along with the newbies "who should never been hired." Apartheid in higher education trashes educators and students alilke.

  • A Reply to T.R.M.'s Reply
  • Posted on September 14, 2009 at 10:15pm EDT
  • First, not to quibble, but since you are, presumably, an expert in communication: to say "the people in question should never have sought . . . such offers in the first place . . . " is really no different than saying that they should "nobly reject" such offers. It is still blaming the victim. You should have started and stopped at "the people in question should never have received such offers in the first place." Otherwise, it's just like saying the battered spouse is equally to blame as the abusive spouse.

    Second, you still have not demonstrated, beyond anecdotally, that a teacher with a background in rhet/comp produces better student writers than a teacher with a background in literature. I suspect that's impossible to do, so all you're really doing is lobbing another destructive grenade in the lit/comp turf wars.

    Is that really more important than treating the people who are doing the actual teaching (whether they are lit people or comp people) -- and possibly even doing it well -- humanely? Or do only comp people deserve humane treatment?

    What do you, as a tenure track professor, actually intend to DO to change this situation that you deplore, since it is YOU and not the adjuncts who really have some power?

    Looking forward to your reply.

  • T.R.M. Still There?
  • Posted by Anonymous, Please on September 16, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • I'm not sure that full-timers and adjuncts fully know each other. That is part of the problem. It is easier to marginalize or stereotype or denigrate people we don't know. The reality is that teachers share values. I observed part-timers and full-timers from the sidelines as an academic secretary aeons ago. At that time, observing adjuncts, I thought: "I'd rather have a desk job doing something unglamorous than wandering from place to place." What happened? I gave birth to a medically frail child in mid-career (public relations) and did not have a flexible employer. I returned to teaching, which I had maintained while working full-time, with tremendous love and passion. My goal was to teach in almost as many venues as I had written in. I did not take part in anti-comp/rhetoric debates...or anti-literature debates...I was focused on my students' words blossoming, putting into practice what I had learned about writing from writing, inspiring others, and being inspired by them. I have only begun to realize how deeply, for me, teaching is an art. It breaks my heart now, when potentially having the most to give with 25+ years of teaching/writing experience, perfecting these arts, that teaching markets are closing/narrowing. I have tried for full-time teaching positions, making it to finalists a few times. My work, to my students, was very public...but perhaps not visible to key people. What I see in NFM is that some folks still have hope, and I applaud them for that. I reiterate my call/gentle appeal to full-timers to consider whether the situation of part-time colleagues is something to which you might lend an ear, if not action. At the very least, consider the possibility of mutual friendship, in some cases mentorship. Life is short, and these are very difficult economic times.

  • kudos
  • Posted by George K. on September 16, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • I wish you well, Maria; I was there over thirty years ago when this situation began to develop, wrote in protest, urged reform. . . Fast forward: last week I was invited to a discussion of Donoghue's THE LAST PROFESSORS (I'm largely retired) and had to listen to a Dean of a liberal arts college comment on the "value" of adjuncts who bring "real world experience into the classroom." He didn't have a clue and will probably never get what you're talking about. Like so many, who fail to see how these working conditions eviscerate campus culture, mock the possibility of an academic community, and perpetuate injustice, he doubtless prides himself on making "the best of bad economic times." Good luck to you.

  • Damnedf you do, damned if you don't...
  • Posted by Dana , Ex-Adjunked at Several CC's on September 16, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • Inside Higher Ed's article a few days ago on how the US News college rankings are deceptive turned the screws in even tighter for adjuncts. This rag called the rankings deceptive because various institutions of higher learning under-reported how many part-time/adjunct/contingent faculty were teaching most of the classes, implying that students were not getting their money's worth because they were being taught by contingent faculty.

    Well, I could rant and rave about such an unconscounably classist, philosophically cannibalistic, elitist atttitude towards colleagues who happen to be egregiousl yunderpaid and abused, but I'll simply respond by saying, "Hey, without that convenient cushion of contingent faculty to bump off, the "regular" faculty might have to worry about their pay and benefits being slashed, as is happening in the K-12's." Be glad this largely unprotesting cushion exists for tenureds to look down upon, because with the way the economy is going, there soon may be no cushion left.

    For this thread, I will say that the article pointed out the need for ad-junkeds to leave this profession--like, yesterday. Being valued because one is willing to teach fully and live on saint dollars (which my dentist, landlord, and grocer would not accept) only shoots their prospects of getting paid properly higher into the dream ozone. I imagine there are many contingents like the author and like myself who will not put up with levereging our nurturing professionalism totally against the ability to get paid decently and voted with our feet rather than short innocent students to avoid doing even more work for free, the consultation and extended course preparation that tenureds get paid to do.

    Best to make a clean break of it and come back to teaching (which I miss terribly) only when my skills and talents are valued philosophically and monetarily.

  • T.R.M.'s response
  • Posted by T.R.M. , Associate Professor, English at Regional Public University on September 16, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • It seems that some people have been awaiting my further response in this debate. I attempted to post to this site twice yesterday, but for whatever reason(s), those posts never appeared on IHE. Let's hope I have better luck here. I don't have a great deal of time today, so I'll try to be brief.

    It's been written that I'm "blaming the victim." I would respond that I'm really blaming the system that allows the victims to be victims in the first place. But the situation is complicated by the fact that the victims so often collude with the system. In English departments, the major engine of "adjunctification" is the required first-year composition course. By demanding that virtually every entering student take a single course (almost always) offered by the English department, the university essentially creates an administrative nightmare: a required course where the sections can hold no more than 20 - 30 students (under ideal conditions, it would be half that). Do the math. How many sections do you need if your university has an entering class of 3000 students? It's an adjunct labor-generating machine.

    I know that adjuncts are undercompensated, maltreated, and disrespected. I used to be one of them. But in English departments (as opposed to other disciplines) there's another side to the coin. I've been told by adjuncts that the whole field of composition studies is "just nonsense," and that they know all they need to know about teaching composition by virtue of having taught a few sections. I've witnessed a scenario in which an adjunct reacted indignantly to the suggestion that his available professional development funds (back in the days when such funds were available) be used to pay the tuition for a graduate course in composition theory at a nearby university. "I don't need that," was the angry reply, "I already know how to teach comp!" This very same adjunct, moments later, became even more angry when the department chair stated that using these funds for a graduate course in the Victorian Novel might not be the wisest allocation of scarce monies.

    What do I plan to "do" about the situation, as one correspondent demanded? I've become an advocate for abolishing first-year composition as a requirement. Instead of one required course for all entering students, there should be a much wider range of elective writing courses, available to students at any time during their undergraduate careers, taught by people with both practical *and* scholarly expertise in writing and a keen familiarity with comp/rhet scholarship. That would change the landscape dramatically.

    I could write much more if I had time, but that will have to be all for now.

  • Comp-Purity in CC's
  • Posted by Hannah , Ex-Adjunct at Several CC's on September 16, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
  • When I took Comp/Rhet classes at SUNY, Albany, SDSU before that, I also gave the adjunct persepective at CCCC conferences. GTA's at SUNY could teach basic essay writing, writing about various forms of fiction, and literary magazine editing, among other courses, as basic freshman options. The classes would interconnect: the essay writing class would compose a character description for the Reading Drama class assigned to write a short play, and the editing class would critquie student submissions to the literary magazine (anonymously), after which the essay writing class would distill common themes in from the critiques from the editing class, etc. Another way the classes intermingled was for the essay class, Reading Drama, Intro to Rhetoric and Comp, American Cultural Studies, the sociology and psychology classes to all apply their lenses, in an essay on a common work such as "The Lottery."

    We GTA's were permitted to suggest ways of improving the Rhetoric and Composition classes, carefully documenting the theories behind the suggested changes. I felt a great amount of freedom, and GTA's got paid much more than adjuncts in CC's or even lecturers in some 4-years. As a writing center tutor, I helped job and college applicants write cover letters and acconting students translate various economic theories into understandable essays.

    When I got my Ph.D. I was suddenly plunged from the heights of Ivory Tower purity to English 100 at several community colleges. However, I find the notion of abolishing the standard freshmen comp class curious, since what can be taught in these "Critical Thinking and Compositon" classes ran the gamut from writing essays from a "standard" classic essay-based anthology to writng essays on dreams or doing essays on experiences in a Service Learning program. I taught the standard American Compostion "form" (taught in the pre-requisite classes) as well as experiemental types of writing with the new media. When you suggest eliminating the standard freshman composition requirement, then, you'd be eliminating mostly a course in critical thinking--a HUGE foundation to apply to all subsequent courses.

    But Englilsh compositon is perhaps the course most abusive to adjuncts. While full-time comp teachers at many institutions are getting their loads reduced to 12 to compensate for all the extra essay grading (about half hour per essay), the adjunct restricted to a percentage of a full-timer's load in CA (67% now), gets paid about eight hours a week to teach but actually works another 16 unpaid hours in class prep and grading. You can see why it's compostition instructors who become the most activist adjuncts.

    It seems that many who discuss adjunct exploitation try to work around rotten parameters that already exist, instead of trying to change the parameters, or "think outside the box." In the ed codes of most states adjuncts are "at will" and "temporary," no matter how many years they teach. As long as the ed code is not changed to make adjuncts as carefully hired, evaluated, and paid pro rata with full-timer pay (as happens in the K-12's), all the blaming, whining, philosophizing, judging, and yelling will still be working in the rotten parameters and thus accomplish nothing.

  • Just Quit
  • Posted by Bill Curry , none at none on September 20, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • My department reduced my course load abruptly from 5 to 2 courses--not enough income to live on. Prior to adjuncting I lost a continuing-line position due to a massive layoff due to a restructuring at an institution where I'd worked for two years and didn't have tenure. I didn't plan to adjunct but somehow got sucked into it. It's not worth it. You get the dregs of the courses that are left over, you're not paid enough, and often continuing-line positions go to those less qualified. If your main thing is adjuncting (i.e., you don't have a full-time job and are adjuncting on the side) I strongly recommend getting out of it. Otherwise you are helping to continue a program that doesn't pay highly educated people anything remotely like what they should be paid. I strongly recommend that if you want to teach in college that you do something, anything, other than adjunct until you can get a full-time, continuing line (whether tenure-track or not) position. Otherwise, if you enjoy demeaning, low-paying work, in which you will have a very heavy work load (if you're lucky enough to get it) to make anything like a subsistence salary then by all means go for it.

  • point of agreement with TRM
  • Posted by PHD- on September 20, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • Dear colleagues,

    When I teach the argumentative portions of 100 level writing, I urge students to consider what is called the 'Rogerian' method when the debate is on a high-stakes or uncomfortable topic, which is one we seem to have going here. So let me demonstrate where TRM and I (and no doubt many of you) have an overlapping concern. To quote TRM's response:

    "English is an academic discipline that has, for more than a century, built a scholarly empire for literary studies on the labor of underpaid, underappreciated, and (here's the politically incorrect part) frequently underqualified teachers of first-year composition. Second, I have learned that indignant pontification, rather than cogent argumentation, is the reflex response from literature teacher/scholars to anyone who dares question their divine right to rule over the teaching of composition."

    If this was meant to be your argument in the first place, I wish you had stuck to it. I thoroughly agree that the worst comp profs are usually those with Lit PhDs and that considerably more attention needs to be paid to writing across the curriculum well away from 'literary criticism', which is how most of the hoary Lit folk see it. However, I agree with another of your critics above who said that you failed to demonstrate HOW a PhD in Rhetoric is necessarily better, much as we might like it to be true. I have met some of these in the past who would be better off teaching in a Philosophy dept, since they have spent most of their time teaching 'The Greeks' or coming up with wild ideas in community service or poster-painting instead of actual writing assignments.

    I would be very pleased if my administration took the larger part of this Comp vs Lit issue seriously, especially as it also affects such things as Writing Centers, WICs and WACs. However, I guess they still think that Lit PhDs look better on paper.

  • Fpr Some of Us, It's a Calling
  • Posted by Anonymous, Please on September 22, 2009 at 5:45am EDT
  • Some of us who have gotten ourselves entangled/enmeshed in an economically unviable choice have done so for love of teaching. As several commenters have pointed out, there was the hope that at some point our unique blends of classes, campuses, course designs, and relevant non-academic experience would be viewed as desirable. Having made it to finalist a few times in searches, I honestly did not anticipate that my advancing age and burgeoning professional experience might be viewed negatively. Was I naive? The meaningful relationships forged in the classroom and the creation of new work have been truly energizing. I know I have helped thousands of students gain confidence in their use of language and become better, deeper readers. Like an actor, though,I feel I may be typecast by those who do not fully grasp the work I have done qualitatively or quantitatively and who just have a stereotype of "adjunct" in their minds. I was a successful student and was once shocked when I encountered a former professor/boss from when I was an undergrad. I mentioned that I was teaching at multiple institutions and thought he'd say: "Wow." or "Great job." or "I'm glad that you came out of your shell." His response was: "Oh no."

  • My "clicks"
  • Posted by John Pepple on September 23, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Mario Maisto talks about the clicks she experienced that helped her recognize the situation that adjuncts are in. Mine were quite different.

    Click number one was when I realized that the vast majority of people in academia are liberals and leftists. Liberals and leftists dominate in academia, and they are generally in charge. Accordingly, it's pointless to blame this situation on (1) the taxpayers, (2) corporations, or (3) top administrators under the assumption that they are conservative. This is happening on the watch of liberals and leftists. They are to blame for this situation. This is basically a situation of distribution among liberals and leftists, who are handling it very poorly. As further evidence for this "click," I couldn't help but notice that liberal and leftist organs like the NY Times, The Nation, and In These Times had little or no interest in our plight (though I stopped reading them a decade ago). No, this is a problem for liberals and leftists to solve.

    And it's not as though they can't do anything about it. Plenty of these people believe in a redistribution of wealth. In this situation they are the wealthy ones and we are the poor ones. Why not, then, ask them to contribute to a voluntary fund that would redistribute that money to adjuncts (and the unemployed)? This wouldn't necessarily solve the problem, but it would help to some extent. So how many tenured faculty would actually contribute? My guess is, almost none. Sorry, but I've gotten awfully cynical about the left in recent years.

    Click number two was noticing how many people with great jobs in academia come from wealthy backgrounds. Someone above tried to turn this into an issue about gender and race, but I suspect it's really a class issue.

    So just out of curiosity, how many of you come from modest backgrounds, as I do?

  • Elitists if you can afford it
  • Posted by Hannah , Ex-Exploitee at Several CC's on September 23, 2009 at 9:15pm EDT
  • Odd that you mention political orienatation and backgound income as factors linked to adjunct exploitation. When I was in grad school several of my student peers were trust fund liberals, but there were those who had to struggle very hard, whose belief in their path of study was so passionate, so absolute, that I knew they would eventually land a full-time job somewhere, sometime, at a university.
    I always wanted to teach at a community college, even though I knew the Fouccout, Iser, Elbow, and Eagleton I intellectually turned over in my classes would never make it into my English 100 class, at least not directly.
    I ddd notice a type of dictatorial liberalism, or at the time, feminism while in the intellectual halls. I've always been pro-choice and "feminist," so I happend to fit right in. I became aware, though, that if anyone happened to be pro-life or pro housewife, no professor would ever chair their dissertation or even their oral or written exams.
    After several years of adjunctdom I would attend higher education conferences on how to get more "minorities" to get on the graduate school train in the humanities. I couldn't help but laugh, bitterly. What struggling, minority would pursue an esoteric, intellectal, mostly vaporous line of study, get the PH.D., and end up 80K in debt while earning 25K a year as an adjunct??? With my Ph.D. in Compositon and Rhetoric, I couldn't have felt any more dumb.
    It is both liberal and conservative elitists who 'made it" into tenuredom that are the worst perpetuators of adjunct exploitation. If all potential grad students wanting to teach we warned of the odds of getting paid decently after getting that doctorate, there might be a) fewer grad students, b) a resulting shortage of higher ed instructors, and c) eventual higher pay for adjuncts.
    In this econcomy, a shortage of adjuncts who will teach a Sunday evening class on ten minutes' notice for peanut pay and professional abuse will never happen. It is good old conservative capitalism, the principle of supply and demand, that will keep adjuncts the perpetual underclass, no matter how wonderful their contribution to their students.

  • Posted by John Pepple on September 24, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • To clarify my previous remarks, I never expected that tenured conservatives would do anything about the adjunct problem other than declare that the magic of the marketplace would sort it all out. However, I expected that tenured liberals and leftists would do a lot to alleviate the sufferings of those at the bottom. Instead, they seem to have done almost nothing. And of course, thwarting the TA union back at Yale in 1995 is the exact opposite of what I expected. (I assume everyone here knows about this infamous incident.) I expected a lot of discussion on how to deal with the problem. I expected papers to be delivered at conferences about this. I expected entire sessions of conferences to be about this. I expected that entire conferences would be devoted to looking at this problem and deciding the fair and just way of resolving the issue. Instead, no one wants to talk about it. Bashing Bush is so much more fun, after all.

    As far as expecting taxpayers to help us out, there is in fact plenty of money sloshing around in academia. It is simply badly distributed. And corporations do not prevent liberals and leftists in academia from basically running things. They certainly don't prevent liberals and leftists from talking about things. Finally, since most tenured faculty are liberals and leftists, and since most administrators come from the faculty ranks, then most administrators are liberals and leftists.

    All this is why I said it was pointless to blame others for the plight of adjuncts.

  • Hannah
  • Posted by DFS on September 24, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • I follow your comments here and elsewhere in anticipation of your flawless wisdom.

    Here, though, I gently point out that your comment, "It is good old conservative capitalism, the principle of supply and demand, that will keep adjuncts the perpetual underclass, no matter how wonderful their contribution to their students," is not right.

    'Old conservative capitalism' would have never tolerated the existence of tenure. It is from this that all abuse is possible.

  • Solutions?
  • Posted by Anonymous, Please on September 27, 2009 at 12:00am EDT
  • Regardless of the causes, are there collective solutions? Regardless of the cause of my own immersion in this lifestyle and calling, are there individual solutions? If only openness was a possibility. I'm anonymous here because I, too, fear being labeled "disgruntled" when I love my work, desperately need it, and am facing a divorce in which I cannot support myself doing this.

  • A solution too few want to do
  • Posted by Hannah , Ex-Adjunct at Several CC's on September 27, 2009 at 11:45pm EDT
  • Early in my adjunct equity campaigns I used to fear not getting a class because of my speaking out. But I thought, I'm earning so little that if I lost my classes, I"d cashier at Target or get some other kind of work while being active in the adjunct movement. I would be losing too little money to make quitting the movement an option. This fear is what management loves to take advantage of, and what keeps this unconscionably unjust system going.

    I am totally serious when I say that the loudest, most active adjunct protestors are ones who eventually got full-time jobs. My colleagues often waxed nostalgic over the "old time" activists for social justice--Rosa Parks, Mother Jones, Margaret Sanger, those willing to risk their lives to help southern blacks to vote, etc. etc. What distinguishes these revolutionaries from many protesting adjuncts is willingness to SACRIFICE tenuous and counterproductive "security" for potential absolute poverty. The harsh reality is that adjuncts will NEVER get anything near social and economic justice until they are willing to stop, at possible personal cost, fueling the inequity. Period.

    Often, it's much easier to feed into the abuse--smile at the chair, don't complain, and you might get that class or maybe two. The problem is that in CA at least, being friendly with the chair is not enough to win the opportunity to hang by one's fingernails, financially, and many adjuncts who have performed sterlingly for many years are suddenly without work. I"d say this is the perfect opportunity to move towards a REAL solution and find other work. If and when a shortage of "willing" exploitees happens, the REAL reward of laws mandating equitable pay will happen.

    My fellow activists often

  • Hannah, you're right.
  • Posted by DFS on September 28, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • So let's destoy the plantation. Let's somehow make it impossible for the tenure to remain.

    Let's all join the New Faculty Majority. If we don't want to make it an official union, then we are only left with the collective refusal to participate.

    Witness the explosion of the Taxed Enough Already movement which, everyone may feel free to quote me later, will cost the Democrats their tenuous majority in the Congress, but will not necessarily default to the opposition Republican Party.

    There will be some permanent basis for another party out of this crap.

    If there is a stong enough voice . . .