Earlier this week, we reported on a forum at Western Oregon University and shared the comments of contingent faculty member, Jeremy Tanzer.  For Part Two, we offer you the comments of contingent faculty member Staci Simmelink-Johnson.

______________________________________________________________

I’d like to preface this statement by telling you that I love teaching.  I have found no other outlet professionally where I feel so energized and enthusiastic, and I do not doubt my vocation or professional choice.  Teaching college students is exactly what I want to be doing, and I am willing to deal with a few years of “working my way up” to get to a permanent job.

With that said, however, it is NOT an easy process.  I have a Ph.D. in my field, and get paid less than the salaries advertised for receptionists.

Currently, I am only teaching at two schools, and both are on the same schedule system. 

I drive up to an hour to each workplace, and sometimes spend more time on the road than I do in class, only to drive back to another college to teach there. 

At one point, I was teaching in quarter-system and semester-system schools simultaneously, which greatly impacted vacation time and family scheduling.  Nothing coincided! 

At any given time, I have up to four email addresses (not to mention Banner accounts, WebCT and Blackboard accounts, voice mail accounts and so forth) for which I must remember a variety of logins and passwords.  Of course, each has different requirements, so I cannot just use a “one size fits all” combination. 

Over the past four years, I have been on three different insurance plans…but changed insurances 4-5 times depending on which employer was primary, or whether insurance from my jobs was even offered.  I am lucky that my spouse does have an insurance plan through his work, but it is not GOOD insurance, so when my employment offers it, we need to switch.  I have been lucky that two of my employers offer insurance.  I know several adjuncts who have no insurance through work at all.

Perhaps the worst aspect of being Non Tenure Track is the uncertainty…and dare I mention the begging?  Every 10 weeks, I am left to wonder if I will have a paycheck for the next term.  If I lose just one class due to low enrollment, I will lose my insurance.  If there is low enrollment in a specialized or upper division class that a tenure-track faculty member is assigned to teach, my classes are taken to give to them to ensure a full load for tenure track faculty.  I spend much of my time calling and emailing the scheduling coordinator at one college where I work, because one term, due to a staffing change, they LOST my name and forgot to offer me any classes.   

Again, I want to emphasize that I know there are steps to climb and challenges to face as one enters any profession…but seven years of school beyond college really should prepare us for a career that is somewhat stable.  Having this uncertainty about paying the mortgage, feeding my children and paying for childcare, as well as the basic monthly expenses that a family has creates an incredible and unnecessary amount of stress.

I love teaching, but this term I have put out feelers to the nonacademic world.  It seems wrong that people who are well trained, passionate about their jobs, and the recipients of feedback from students and other faculty indicating that we are doing our jobs well, should think of leaving academia.  However, in reality, given the circumstances, it may be inevitable.

Just read this editorial in the The Olympian from Olympic College in Washington State in which a student reacts to the college's reliance on part-time faculty members.  He starts by telling a familiar story:

I sought out one of my professors for advising and could not track him down anywhere. I could not find an office or even a phone number in the Olympic College directory.

When I was able to confer with him, it was on Ohio Street leaning against his car parked at the curb. A file-mate box containing his course materials and graded assignments served as his desk, his back seat his office.

He goes on to quickly recognize that something has gone wrong with the system.

It seems this system, originally invented to enhance an institution's offerings to its students by providing niche-class instruction and part-time instruction from local business leaders, has been exploited and perverted over the last several decades.

A trend is developing across Washington state with at least two out of every three faculty members teaching at community colleges being adjunct.

At OC, 69 percent of instructors are part-time faculty rather than full-time professors according to the OC 2006-2007 Annual Report.

Unfortunately, while the writer sees a systematic problem, he turns his analysis in a way that sounds a bit too much like blaming the victim.

Adjunct faculty at Lincoln Land Community College in Springfield, Ill. are the latest educators to slow their treadmill lives, consider what the union could do for them and vote for representation by the Lincoln Land Community College Faculty Association/AFT. The vote, counted on Feb. 22, was 66 to join the pre-existing full-time faculty Illinois Federation of Teachers local, 43 for the Illinois Education Association and 14 for no representation.

Bob Fletcher is an adjunct in the film, humanities and composition sequence who holds a doctorate in British literature and has been teaching at LLCC for 24 years. He describes the uncertainty that punctuates adjuncts’ lives: "Every semester is a brand new experience for discovering whether or not you will receive a class. You have no standing or seniority; class assignments are made arbitrarily. You’re not assured from semester to semester how much you’ll teach, where or whether you’ll have a more, or less, desirable class."

What’s more, the adjuncts lack the usual "amenities"—office space, phones and teaching support. Their pay ranges from $500 to $540 per credit hour. During the campaign, they learned that the college was paying a different rate to full-time faculty teaching overload and full-time, non-faculty college employees--$700 per hour. "You think, ‘Holy Cats!’" says Fletcher. "And in many cases the adjunct has a superior academic degree and better [professional] experience!"

The campaign crystallized some important values in the minds of both full-time and adjunct faculty. When Fletcher first reached out to explore union options, the IEA was quick to respond. This prompted Ron Seney, then-president of the LLCCFA full-time unit of over 100 faculty, to push his executive board to examine their views of how the full-timers relate to their adjunct colleagues. They recognized, says current president Dick Rogers, "that one unified group strengthens our mission of providing quality education to students." Thus, the theme for the campaign became "One Vision, One Voice."

"Lincoln Land is an outstanding community college," says Shelton. "We have a united vision of delivering terrific educational services to the community."

Because the estimated 260 adjuncts teach at the main campus and eight satellite locations spread out over a 3,600 square-mile area, says Fletcher, logistical, face-to-face organizing assistance by the full-time faculty was essential to the win. He adds that the Illinois Federation of Teachers did an "outstanding job organizing," which impressed the adjuncts as well.

The LLCCFA full-time contract does not expire for a year, so Rogers expects the expanded union to begin work on an adjunct memorandum of agreement this fall. The union will give the adjuncts a say in the college and improve their working conditions. "I’m anticipating a changed environment," says Fletcher.

There has been plenty of talk over the years about how part-time faculty and full-time faculty work together (or don't), both professionally and in terms of how to work toward a more fair and equitable staffing structure.  And, of course, that discussion keeps going on as most people seem to realize it is a critical issue to address in the whole discussion over how to move forward on these issues.  But Gregory Zobel explores a different division/hierarchy that he sees as problematic over at Adjunct Advice.

Zobel sees potential rifts within the contingent faculty ranks between more secure full-time nontenure track faculty and traditional part-time faculty.  He offers up seven test questions to help someone start thinking about whether or not they are a contingent faculty member and calls for some solidarity among the ranks.  I am sure he would love to hear from you if you have other suggestions.

Last Friday, only 6 students of my students made it to my composition class out of an enrollment of 23. (We started with 25.) Sure, it was a Friday afternoon, but at least 4 students were emailing me saying they were ill, plus those who escaped the virus and got into class gave eyewitness testimony. So I believe them. We also had a rough start the first two weeks of class with at least 6 students out for a variety of reasons. In a 10-week quarter, I have some students who have only made class for 5 weeks of material. Our campus has increased its student population some 20 percent and we seem to have reached some tipping point now; viruses spread quickly among freshmen in dorms and adjuncts teach about 70 percent of the general education classes. So we get exposed. Sometimes I think we should get combat pay.

In contrast, my even later afternoon technical writing students were all there, hale and hardy, and rambunctious as ever—much to my relief. The difference? The tech. writing crew were juniors and seniors and did not have roommates in the dorms. Plus, our classroom is in another building than that inhabited by the ill general education class.

I have made a mental note to open the classroom windows in the beginning of class and to handle the composition essay with gloves on, but there is not much I can do for myself. One colleague has taken to wearing a surgical mask to class, but I am not brave enough to risk the impact on my SEOIs (Student Evaluation of Instruction). Like all teachers, I have been exposed to a wide range of common student illnesses over the years, but this year, I caught a cold twice, which is unusual for me.

And, yes, I kept teaching, only canceling one office hour to save my voice. There really isn’t any other choice. There are no substitutes. We cover each other, but we are all overloaded as it is and I am reluctant to ask a colleague unless I am flat on my back. Fortunately, we do have health coverage after the second quarter of half time or more of teaching. And once we were able to reduce the size of the adjunct pool so we all got full loads through the year, most got medical. No sick days of course. And forget family leave. We are not permanent employees. The university assumes I will be there and be healthy. Heaven help me if that ever changes.

Editor's Note: Please welcome Jennie Smith from Philadelphia Community College to FACE Talk as our newest contributor. As you can see from her first post, she is a committed contingent faculty member activist who is working hard on staffing issues and we are glad to have her perspective and contributions.

____________________________________

At a time in PA when we have FACE bills introduced in the House and Senate and are hopefully poised to get some legislation passed, I am dismayed at the lack of solidarity among higher education’s part-time and full-time faculty. We are ready to make some real progress with this legislation, and in-fighting is not going to help our cause. We need to be the “union” that we profess to be. Part-time faculty deserve parity, but we also need to demand that more full-time faculty positions be created. Let’s not advocate giving up an obvious gain to our faculty; that’s the administration’s usual stance—not the union’s.

I am a part-time faculty member and have been involved in the parity movement from its inception in PA. I was an organizer of the part-time faculty at Bucks County Community College, negotiated the first contract for part-time faculty at Bucks, and served there as a union leader.  Currently, I am Secretary of the Faculty and Staff Federation of Community College of Philadelphia and a part-time faculty member at that college. I worked on the parity issue with leaders from Bucks County Community College, Montgomery County Community College, Community College of Philadelphia and Temple University. I was a speaker at AFT PA conferences and was the 1998 AFL-CIO Labor Day speaker to promote the issue of parity. Throughout my career as a union leader, the full-time faculty with whom I worked was instrumental in helping the part-time leaders at critical junctions.

When we organized the part-time faculty at Bucks, the advice of the full-time faculty who helped us was indispensable and the risks they took to help us were commendable.  When we negotiated our first contract, we needed their guidance and experience. They spent many hours at the bargaining table with us fighting for a contract that was not theirs. When writing the parity legislation, full-time faculty from all of those colleges met repeatedly with and advised the part-time leaders at a point when the only issue on the table was parity for part-timers.  I was amazed at their commitment on an issue which did not involve them directly.  Through these full-time faculty members, I learned what it was to be in a union.  Solidarity and concern for the working conditions of all is essential to that union's progress.  Anyone who does not think that way is not worthy of being in a union and is a liability to that union.

The part-time faculty needs the support of the full-time faculty, and they need ours to accomplish our joint goals. The FACE legislation should help both groups equally. The AFT has done its job to advance the needs of all its higher education faculty members with this legislation. I would expect nothing less from such a democratic, fair organization. The bill is a comprehensive remedy to the abuses and cost-saving measures that have been taken in higher education to the detriment of all faculty. The issues that face full-time and part-time faculty are inseparable, and the legislation is essential for students to be served by a faculty who are a well-paid and stable workforce, and who are invested in the college where they teach.

This tactic of divide and conquer is what administrators use to cause faculty to be their own worst enemy.  It causes dissension and loss of momentum.  Legislation that includes all faculty is only fair because this is a two-sided issue.

It is puzzling that those with a long record of advocating for those of us on contingent labor contracts would accuse the only organizations that have successfully improved our working conditions of not acting in good faith. The arguments are so confused that I worried over them for some time, not knowing exactly how to respond. I think AFT has shown the money time and time again. I also fail to understand why anyone would think they did not have a major impact on our salaries and working conditions.

Ideally, institutions of higher education should be limiting the number of contingent contracts. It is their responsibility, not that of the unions. And colleges have failed that responsibility. The use of adjuncts is too profitable. Along with the number of adjuncts, the number of administrative positions keeps increasing with higher and higher salaries. One former vice president who made it into the news made over $90,000 with no graduate degree. I have a sickening feeling that our low pay has made that possible.

What my colleagues and I realized many years ago (before we ever contacted a union and when we were just getting together to find common goals) were two basic realities of our working life: the adjunct system was undermining American higher education and universities were more interested in hiring the cheapest workforce than the most experienced or the best qualified people. We decided, in the words of one of my colleagues, that our goal was “to make sure there were fewer of us.” That is the need that FACE recognizes.

We have to put the brakes on the increasing number of people who are on contingent contracts. Some of my colleagues, however, became frightened that any move toward more tenure track positions meant they would be replaced by someone newer or with a higher degree. Some also worried that if they were paid more, they would be fired because they were too expensive. In other words, they had survived in this system and any change was threatening. Of course, these were the very worries that administration kept encouraging.

Meanwhile, administrators are hired with tenure and use tenure as a golden parachute when they are fired. Fewer national searches are done, searches fail, and faculty leave. FACE is not going to fix everything, but it is a move in the right direction. And that, right now, is what we need.

So I hadn't moseyed over to the ole Chronicle Forums page in a while and decided to see what folks were talking about on The Nontenure Track thread and started reading through a discussion started by a contingent faculty member wrestling with an unfortunate, but typical, problem:  what to do with out an office.  This faculty member states:

My university does not have space for an office for me. Has anyone ever had to improvise an office? It seems that group study rooms in the library are not reservable in advance. I'd love some helpful advice on what is the next best alternative. I'd rather avoid sitting in a crowded food court all afternoon.

Some folks tried to give honest advice, others offered advice with an edge--my favorite was: "Hold your office hours right outside the chair's office."  But what surprised me the most in this thread were the number of folks who seemed surprised by the situation or offered ideas as if this was some new problem that just popped up.  I suppose I am being too harsh, but where have these people been?

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am a fan of working together and have advocated more than once that we focus on common goals rather than in-fighting.  However, I don't think that means we shouldn't have discourse and disagreement.  I also don't think that means that inaccurate assertions should stand without comment.  And to that end, a recent op-ed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer lists a litany of charges against the faculty unions in Washington State that require some comment and correction.

First, the author of the article accuses the unions not only of not fairly representing their part-time faculty members, but even worse, targeting them for discrimination.  Furthermore, the unions have apparently colluded to keep part-time faculty in unions with the full-time faculty so they can control them as their supervisors.  To ensure that part-time faculty remain powerless, unions have failed to bargain job security and other protections for part-time faculty.  Finally, unions, specifically AFT Washington, have introduced legislation that does not help part-time faculty but rather focuses on creating new full-time faculty lines without consideration for ensuring part-time faculty move into full-time positions or protecting against loss of part-time positions.

These are very, very serious charges--some of which would have legal implications if true.  They are particularly significant since they were made in a major media outlet, which will have an impact on not only how unions are perceived with particular regard to their positions on part-time faculty, but also on the ability of those unions to advocate on behalf of part-time faculty.  This is unfortunate since the charges are, in fact, not true.  Let's take a close look at the claims.

Another contingent faculty member documents the glamor of college-level teaching on video (via Gregory Zobel over at Adjunct Advice).