JUMP CUT
|
|
“The End of Tenure? When Colleges Turn to Migrant Labor” -- New York Times editorial Degrees of Shame compares adjunct faculty to migrant farmlaborers. Mark Lehman: “If anybody finds out about it, they're shocked.” Sarah Heath on the comparisons with migrant farm workers: “We're very poorly paid as adjunct professors. We do not, by and large, have access to health care. We tend to drive great distances, and work very, very long hours.” |
by
Mike Budd
While
careful to emphasize that these migrant faculty, often called freeway
flyers because of their extensive commuting, are not as exploited
as migrant manual laborers were and still are, Wolf and her faculty
collaborators point to revealing parallels between the working poor
and barely middle-class professors: they have low pay, no health or
other benefits, no job security, inadequate or nonexistent office space,
and they do piece work. Though
in thirty minutes Degrees of Shame has little time to probe the
complex causes and implications of this situation, its comparison of
those at the bottom of the economic ladder with supposedly elite professors
powerfully demystifies academic labor and suggests the larger structural
forces at work at all levels of a globalizing capitalist economy. The
videos strength lies in giving voice to exploited faculty workers,
in evoking the experience of being a marginalized adjunct faculty member,
and in articulating part-timers anger, frustration, and determination
to change their situation. Dimensions
of a growing problem Full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty include lecturers, instructors, and visiting
professors. Significantly, their working conditions often resemble those
of part-time faculty. In fact, the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) suggests that many of them are the same people: Their
appointments may vary from full-time to part-time from semester to semester
or year to year, depending on fluctuations in funding and enrollment.3
To
assess the working conditions of U.S. faculty and graduate assistants,
we must combine the categories of part-time and full-time non-tenure-track
faculty, who now constitute over 500,000 in number, at least 47% of
the total.4 This
percentage has been growing since the 60s. If we combine non-tenure-track
faculty with graduate assistants, it becomes apparent that at more and
more U.S. colleges and universities, at least half the courses
and often virtually all of the lower-division courses are taught
by these contingent faculty. Now adjuncts,
lecturers, and graduate teaching assistants often teach as well as tenured
or tenure-track faculty.5
But the point is that tenured and tenure-track professors, the only
faculty with (mostly) adequate pay, research support, health and other
benefits, some job security, and accompanying academic freedom, are
being steadily replaced by faculty who have far worse working conditions.
A final
statistic make this clear. Despite the increases in all categories cited
above, and a 43% increase in the total number of faculty and graduate
assistants, untenured tenure-track faculty actually decreased by 9%,
to 114,278, from 1975 to 1993.6
In this 18-year period, in a growing higher-education system, about
12,000 job opportunities for new, untenured faculty disappeared. At
the same time, the system generated approximately 182,000 new part-time
positions and 71,000 new full-time non-tenure-track positions, for a
total of more than 253,000 new non-tenure-track positions.7
These numbers suggest that tenured faculty not only
comprise a dwindling percentage of the instructional staff, but this
group will likely begin soon to dwindle in absolute numbers as well.
The situation has certainly not improved during the 90s, with an overproduction
of PhDs and other factors leading to a desperate faculty job market
in many fields, but especially in the humanities. In 1996-97, according
to a Modern Languages Association survey, 33.7% of new PhDs in English
found tenure-track positions, compared to 45.9% in 1993-94.8
We see
a clear and pervasive pattern: Administrators hire part-time faculty
at the last minute to cover enrollment increases with added courses;
they also, under short- or long-term financial pressures, effectively
convert relatively expensive tenure-track positions into cheap, fungible,
and exploitable non-tenure-track positions in the name of flexibility.
Adjunct positions pay much less than a tenure-track faculty member would
receive for teaching the same course. The amount per 3-credit course
varies from less than $1000 to more than $5000, but the norm seems to
be around $1500 to $2000.9 So
by hiring several part-time faculty for the salary and benefits cost
of one tenure-track faculty member, chairs and deans multiply the number
of courses and student credit hours generated, thereby keeping their
bosses happy and responding to student demand. The incentives are so
great and the logic so inescapable that even administrators who object
to the practice find themselves forced into it. In many
cases these non-tenure-track jobs, mostly part-time, and the people
in them continue indefinitely, becoming part of the institutional employment
structure.10
Thus grows an invisible faculty of second- and third-class
academic citizens, many seeking tenure-track jobs but unable to find
them, teaching as many as 18 courses in a year at different schools.11
This burgeoning faculty underclass is composed disproportionately of
women, who constitute about 42% of the part-time faculty compared
to 27% of full-time faculty.12
In addition to the exploitation of non-tenure-track
faculty, the declining percentage of tenure-track faculty creates other
problems. Some tenure-track faculty ignore, are embarrassed by, or look
down on underemployed colleagues, identifying the part-timers with those
many unsuccessful candidates they beat out in the tough competition
for a tenure-track job. Although theres a constant temptation to avoid working hard because youre simply participating in your own exploitation, according to New York part-timer Patrick Young,13 even the most overworked adjuncts usually demonstrate professionalism and high standards. Its not the victims we should blame here, but a complex of social and economic forces. Its seldom the direct quality of classroom teaching that suffers when tenure-track faculty are replaced with part-timers. Its the fragile and all-important institutional continuity and identity emerging from the everyday matrix of teaching, research, advising, office conferences, and shared governance. All these can only be constituted by the working practices of secure and independent faculty as academic citizens. Advising,
governance, and service loads increase for tenure-track faculty as the
work becomes divided among a smaller number of people. Excessive reliance
on part-time faculty produces more isolated and atomized faculty and
students. A dynamic, cohesive college or university requires faculty
with the time and resources to keep their teaching and research current,
to generate as well as disseminate knowledge, to create an institutional
whole greater than the sum of its parts. The first
big wave of part-time hiring took place between 1972 and 1977 during
the first major budget crisis for the contemporary higher-education
system. When the 60s sellers market became the 70s buyers
market, a reserve army of un- and underemployed professors began to
form. At the same time, performance expectations for tenure-track hiring,
promotion, and tenure started to rise. Administrators and faculty committees
had always paid lip service to good teaching, but now quantified student
evaluations became mandatory, and good teaching as defined by student
evaluations became more often necessary for success. More important,
second- and third-rank colleges and universities began to expect junior
faculty to publish, sometimes while teaching 6 or 8 courses a year.14
While these higher expectations have, on balance,
probably improved both teaching and research, they have, especially
in combination with the rise in part-time and non-tenure-track faculty,
helped erode faculty participation in institutional governance. The professionalization
of both faculty and administrators since the 70s and the greater separation
of their roles have put more and more decision-making power in the hands
of administrators unaccountable to faculty, often by default. Incentives
for tenured and tenure-track faculty to publish and not to do committee
work (service) tend to diminish their commitment to a democratic workplace;
at the same time that such service and committee work is shared among
a diminishing proportion of all faculty. It is not only part-time faculty
who are increasingly treated as employees rather than stakeholders in
the institution; and when faculty complain about committees and meetings,
they might consider the potential for workplace democracy in faculty
governance, to be lost if it isnt used. Beyond the quality of
the participation of tenure-track faculty, though, the basic conditions
for faculty governance become impossible when half the faculty cannot
participate because they are casualized, semester-to-semester employees.
And the health of faculty governance is not a high priority among top
administrators, to whom assertive or inquisitive faculty committees
often seem an annoyance. Finally, the overuse of non-tenure-track faculty erodes the tenure system and thus academic freedom. Those who attack tenure directly, prompted by neoliberal economics and conservative attacks on tenured radicals, have lost most of the battles, but as I have shown they are winning the war. Despite administrative assurances that tenure is redundant because employment law provides similar protections, without tenure you must fight to get your job back after youre fired. And non-tenure-track faculty essentially get fired and rehired every semester or year; their lack of even the possibility of tenure cannot help but generate timidity and conformity. But only by looking at the stratifications of the academic workforce can we understand tenures context and the faulty premises behind the attacks on it. Stratifications The problems
described above are not evenly distributed throughout U.S. higher education
today. They are concentrated in the lower strata of a system in which,
as elsewhere, the rich are getting richer and most of the poor, working
and middle classes are getting poorer or just holding on. In addition,
part-time and full-time non-tenure-track faculty are themselves quite
heterogeneous and subject to complex hierarchies. At the
bottom of the higher-education hierarchy are the community colleges
with some 40% of the students and 32% of the faculty.15
The biggest growth in higher education has come
here, mostly in vocational programs. Significantly, most of these institutions
are built on part-time appointments, which constituted some 65% of their
faculty jobs in 1993.16
Some community colleges in Vermont have 100% part-timers, and several
in California come close; here, a core of administrators and sometimes
a few faculty as managers function as the only full-time academic staff.
The ratio of students to full-time faculty at two-year colleges is 52:1
while the overall student-faculty ratio is 19:1.17
Although community-college faculty have become
perhaps the best-organized of the faculty workforce, as with most four-year
schools their bargaining units seldom include part-time faculty. For four-year
schools, the more important research becomes to the schools mission,
the less it depends on part-time faculty. The schools research
emphasis comes with doctoral programs employing large numbers of graduate
assistants. Part-time faculty comprise 30% at comprehensive universities,
24% at doctoral granting institutions, and 16% at research universities.18
(Graduate assistants often face exploitation, too, and I will return
to them.) The public four-year schools, mostly large state colleges
and universities, enroll 42% of all students. Their ratio of students
to full-time faculty is 21:1 while their overall student-faculty ratio
16:1. Of the private colleges and universities that enroll the remaining
18% of students, only the elite liberal arts colleges and research universities
have small numbers of part-time faculty.19
So the excessive use of part-time and non-tenure-track
faculty, concentrated largely in community colleges and non-elite public
colleges and universities, contributes to a widening class divide in
educational opportunities and a negative redistribution of academic
resources. This occurs not because of any deficiencies among the faculty
themselves, but because of the degradation of the work environment accompanying
the casualization and fragmentation of the faculty work force. But what
is excessive use of part-time and non-tenure-track faculty? Such faculty
teach for a variety of reasons. Many are not seeking tenure-track jobs.
Judith M. Gappa and David W. Leslie, who adopt a largely administrative-managerial
approach, find four types of part-time faculty. Specialists, experts
and professionals are the group for whom the category of adjunct
professor was legitimately invented, since they usually bring specialized
and applied knowledge to the classroom; universities cannot ordinarily
afford to hire a full-time faculty member in such fields. They generally
maintain full-time careers elsewhere and teach because they enjoy it.
Likewise career-enders are at or near retirement, not usually
from faculty jobs, and freelancers combine several kinds
of jobs, only one of which is part-time teaching. Aspiring academics,
on the other hand, mostly seek tenure-track positions but cannot find
them.20 While
Gappa and Leslie minimize the problem, estimating that the latter category
includes only a small proportion of part-time faculty, their own and
other studies show that almost 50% of part-timers seek full-time faculty
employment.21 Considering that part-time faculty now total around 400,000, we can estimate the number of underemployed part-timers at around 200,000. This fastest-growing category of faculty, though it includes some without terminal degrees, does not include others with doctorates who have given up looking for academic jobs. Thus it indicates a rising un- and underemployment rate of at least 10 to 20%. Since this situation has worsened steadily for nearly 30 years, it is no longer temporary but structural; it is at least a semi-permanent part of the institutional system. Go to page 1 2 3 of this essay.
|