One of our big issues right now on our campus is getting the names of contingent faculty in the campus catalog. I remember as a student looking over the list at the back of the catalog and seeing where my professors got their degrees and the range of backgrounds presented. But here, only "faculty" are listed and we are not considered faculty. After 10, 15, 20 years teaching at the same school, this gets to be annoying. Plus, when some 40 percent of the classroom instructors are not on tenure track, one wonders just what is going on. Interestingly, many administrators are also not listed.

The situation makes me think of the practice in Russia of altering historical photographs when there was a desire to remove some out of favor politician from history.  I wonder if there is any  public record that I taught here or what I taught. It is a bit unnerving actually.

Actually, I would like everyone to be listed--all instructors, staff, administrators, and exempt-- especially in public institutions just as part of the public record.

Craig Smith's comments about the need to avoid in-fighting stayed on my mind for some days. Yesterday, I received my copy of Marc Bousquet's How the University Works and turned to the epitaph from Albert Einstein in the front, the one frequently quoted in union material--but here was more of that quotation with the words: "...we can learn from them [the working class] what is our gravest danger, which we ourselves must seek to avoid: the weakening through inner dissensions, which, when things reach that point, make cooperation difficult and result in quarrels between the constituent groups."

Working for common goals seems to be a lesson that we need to teach ourselves and remind ourselves of each day. No matter what our position might be, professional jealousy in some form is a struggle. I was shocked at some comments (okay, one comment) made to Terry Caesar's posting Composition and Cookies in Inside Higher Ed when Caesar tried to bring some light to the history of the use of faculty wives in the teaching of composition classes and how those sexist behaviors extended into today's handling of writing classes by masses of underpaid contingent workers. This, by the way, is a behavior I saw in action as late as 1989 in one English department.

It was apparent that personal annoyance about particular individuals on particular campuses were being over generalized. I got into organizing in my department in an effort to control the poisonous atmosphere created by the backstabbing that went on when only a few classes were made available to a large adjunct pool. As I was for sometime the only PhD among the adjuncts in my department, I was the target of a fair amount of professional jealousy myself (and may still be). However, this behavior must be seen as an outgrowth of our working conditions and the only way to improve those conditions is by defining common goals and working toward them. Bousquet, Joe Berry, and other writers reporting on campus working conditions allow us to put our energies where they do the most good--making us visible and bringing change through legislation.

The Mirror News, the student newspaper at Henry Ford Community College is calling on students to support the Adjunct Faculty Organization at HFCC as the administration continues to drag out the "unit determination" process.  The last paragraph of the story says it all from a student perspective.

The AFO is currently meeting with the college's administration to determine the scope of their bargaining unit. If an agreement is not reached by February 15th, the AFO and the administration will present their case to the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) in a hearing, that is similar to a court proceeding. In the hearing a MERC referee, similar to a judge in a court case, will make a decision. That is something that the AFO would like to avoid for numerous reasons. The AFO needs to be supported because the outcome ultimately affects you as a student. In the coming days and weeks the AFO will be passing out their open letter to the students and will ask students to sign a petition saying that they support their adjunct teachers. The Mirror News not only supports the AFO, but asks that all students support their adjunct teachers and support the AFO's cause.

As we have promoted FACE in Washington, we have received some criticism for “blaming” part-time faculty for the problems in higher education, but we have been very firm in our assertion that the issue is not with poor performance of the teachers. Rather, we say that poor retention and graduation rates, as well as grade inflation, are the result of a system that relies too heavily on faculty who are treated poorly and not provided the resources they need.

Several studies have been conducted that show a direct correlation between the decrease in graduation rates and the increase in the proportion of part-time faculty employed in community colleges. Perhaps the best is Dr. Dan Jacoby’s “Effects of Part-Time Faculty Employment on Community College Graduation Rates,” which was published in The Journal of Higher Education.

Jacoby, who is the Harry Bridges Chair in Labor Studies at the University of Washington, was among those testifying in the Washington State Senate hearing on FACE last Monday. As he was sharing statistics with the senators who sit on the Committee on Higher Education, Jacoby explained, “This should not be taken to mean that part-time faculty offer less quality, but it would be absurd to believe that working under the deplorable conditions they work under does not have an impact on the system.”

The conditions that Jacoby referred to include a lack of job security, low pay, inadequate resources like offices and work stations, the need to rush from one campus to another or to another job, and being hired without sufficient notice to prepare for class. He praised part-time faculty for what we are able to accomplish under these conditions, then added, “Imagine what they could do if they had the resources and security they need.”

Part-time faculty often suffer from low morale caused by these conditions, as well as feeling like “second-class citizens” because of snubs received from administrators and some of our full-time, tenure-track colleagues.

Jacoby’s study can be found in the November/December 2006 issue of The Journal of Higher Education.

Okay, so David keeps posting about all the good things going on up north of the border and truth be told, there are a lot of good things going on up there.  But everything isn't perfect either, particularly when it comes to contingent faculty.  Check out this amazing story from Calgary (okay, I confess, David sent me this too!).

Allison Dube, who has been a lecturer at University of Calgary for 14 years, is leaving because he simply cannot afford to continue.  But students aren't happy.  According to the Calgary Herald

hundreds of students have signed an online petition to coax the university into offering a full-time position to their favourite instructor.

"He is one of the most influential professors we've ever had. How can it be that the most amazing teacher could be leaving the institution and (the university) won't do anything to prevent it," said fifth-year U of C student Dean Horsfield, who helped launch the website savedube.com.

That is http://www.savedube.com/ for those who are interested in checking it out.

Obviously this is a situation that surely happens in the States as well.  In fact, it is probably more prevalent given the lack of any national health care plan here in the U.S.  Of course, we rarely hear these stories or see this kind of student response.  More often a contingent faculty member just leaves.

Perhaps we ought to start telling more stories about who is leaving so we get a real sense of the talent and commitment our system of higher education looses given the way we treat so many faculty members.  Anyone have a story to tell?

The largest union drive in Canada is stepping into high gear as the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) continues to sign up contingent faculty in the province’s 24 community colleges.

The drive was made possible when the Supreme Court of Canada, in a remarkable decision last year, ruled that collective bargaining is a right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Specifically, the Court ruled that “the right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work.” (Okay, I can already hear the howls of jealousy echoing from south of the border).

How did this decision affect contingent college faculty? Well, under a curious and unexplained clause in Ontario’s Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, contingent faculty had been prevented from joining a union. However, the Supreme Court ruling made that exclusion illegal, and the provincial Liberal government agreed to recognize contingent bargaining rights.

OPSEU launched its campaign last year and says it’s on target for wrapping things up within the next 10 to 12 weeks. Organizers recently received a surprise boost when the administration at Durham College in Oshawa backed the organizing drive. It seems some forward thinking managers know that unionization will build a more stable work force - and that is in the best long-term interest of the college.

For many women working as contingent faculty in Canada, having or adopting a baby often means passing up on a pay check for the foreseeable future. Maternity benefits, beyond the very minimum required by law, are virtually non-existent. But now, thanks to a recent settlement between the Vancouver Community College Faculty Association and the administration, more women faculty who are employed on a contingent basis will get to enjoy the same maternity leave as their full-time colleagues.

Under the ground-breaking agreement, contingent faculty at VCC are now eligible for up to 52 weeks of paid maternity leave for work they would have had during the term of their leave. While on maternity leave, they continue to accrue seniority and receive extended health benefits for up to six months. Any term employee who has had at least 6 months of cumulative work – note this is cumulative and not consecutive – is eligible. It’s a big gain for contingent rights and women’s rights.

So this thread starts over at Narratives where Adjunct Whore foolishly celebrated getting a tenure-track position at the same institution where her partner works after a policy shift regarding partner hiring.  Then Marc Bousquet made the mistake of suggesting this was a good thing, which resulted in a thread of comments where AW's hiring as a partner became symbolic for a whole number of other things. Consequently, AW rightly pointed out that the overlaying sentiment of the comments were, well, hard to swallow for someone who has worked as hard as she has to achieve her goals.  And MB weighed back in with a couple of good suggestions about how to think about the whole thing.

My reaction to this whole dust-up discussion, if you can't guess already, is that it would be nice if we spent more time focusing our energy as enthusiastically where real change is needed rather than spending our time tearing at each other internally (and yes, I have read my Nietzsche, Foucault, etc. and know the value of institutional critique).  The bottom line for me is that a situation such as AW describes where an apparently qualified and talented person (I don't know AW) gets a tenure track position is a good thing.  Does that mean that all is well in the world with a host of other things--faculty diversity, far-reaching domestic partner benefits, the treatment of contingent faculty by BOTH administrators and full-time faculty?  Of course not.  And goodness knows that I am not just saying we should all just get along. 

But I am saying that it seems we spend endless amounts of energy on attacking each other's good fortune, or sincere attempts at incremental change, all in the name of ___fill in "pure" cause___ that we shoot ourselves in the collective foot.  Seems like there might, just might, be a more productive path.

Cue Bobby McFerrin music.

The Constructivist recently made a couple of suggestions for how hiring in the field of English might be improved. He suggested (only half-jokingly I think), the Reality TV Option and the Q-School Option. It is tempting to envision 30-second trailers where an announcer excitedly poses the question, “Who will be America’s next great lecturer?” However, and I think this was really The Constructivist’s point, the hiring system in most disciplines, well, leaves a bit to be desired and needs some serious attention.

Of course, from our standpoint, one big reason for that is that there are too few positions creating a situation where applicants must claw their way to the top of the pile face unbelievable odds in finding a job given their commitment to their field, and ultimately, IMHO, makes hiring committees a bit conservative (small “c”) in their choices.  But there is another problem in the hiring system that has little to do with the cattle calls of applicants and disciplinary association meetings. And that is the inconsistent hiring practices at the institutional level when it comes to hiring contingent faculty.I'm just thinking outloud here, so stay with me through the jump.

Several bills introduced in legislatures across the country ask that the “ceiling” on what part-time faculty can teach be lifted, and several wonder why the unions stand in the way.

Actually, we are all in favor of faculty being able to teach a full-time load. We simply insist that we receive full compensation and security for doing so.

This is the one argument that I honestly fail to understand. Of course colleges would love to have faculty teach full-time as part-timers. They can cover the same number of classes at less than half the cost. Those of you who work in states where you don’t have health care or retirement benefits, do you really want to endure the insults the system heaps upon you?

Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies. We will meet with students outside of class even though we are not compensated for holding office hours. We will demand that we be abused and taken advantage of by insisting that we be allowed to teach full-time at half the cost. We volunteer to serve on committees, prepare presentations for state and national conferences, and accept a pat on the head and a sincere “Thank you” as payment.

We need to learn how to say, “No!” No, I will not take overloads so you can build your FTE numbers without having to pay another instructor. No, I will not serve on a committee and then listen to you insult me by saying that I only deserve a fraction of a full-timers salary because I don’t contribute as much to the campus. No, I will not give in when you ask me to lower my standards in return for job security.

We are trained professionals. No one knows better than we do what our students need or how to help them. All  we need to make a huge difference is the respect, resources, and security that our peers enjoy.

We don’t need artificial forms of tenure proposed by those who are willing to work full-time for half wages. We need full tenure.

We don’t need to work more hours at half price in order to survive. We need to be paid what we earn and to be treated with dignity and respect.

FACE may not be perfect, but it’s a lot closer than the alternatives I’ve seen. Give us a reasonable opportunity to prove ourselves and we will do so. Give us job security and full compensation, and then stand back and see what we can do.