Given all the bad news we regularly hear about the use and abuse of non-tenure-track faculty members, perhaps some modest good news concerning teachers not in line for tenure might be welcome.
Nearly 10 years ago, nontenured faculty members at Ohio University, where I teach, gained representation in the Faculty Senate. The university divides its faculty members into two groups: "Group I" covers tenured and tenure-track professors. "Group II" includes all those faculty members employed at various levels of full-time equivalency who receive yearly renewable contracts and benefits.
As a non-tenure-track professor who actively worked for representation in the senate, I'd like to offer some advice to those seeking similar recognition at their institutions.
The first and most important step you can take is to actively seek the good will, advice, and cooperation of tenured and tenure-track professors on your campus. As with any legislative body, most of the significant work done by faculty senates happens in committees. Try to enlist sympathetic committee members in your cause, or, better yet, the heads of important committees.
Any faculty member on the tenure track is a potential ally. You might be surprised to find how many professors are former non-tenure-track faculty members themselves. You want any and all of their support because they can help persuade their colleagues about the rightness of your cause.
When we were struggling for representation on the senate at Ohio University, one of our most effective advocates was the late John Hollow, who was then chairman of the English department. He often pointed out to his tenured colleagues that nontenured positions had become a reality in the modern university and a career path for many competent and dedicated teachers. John had to alert some of the older, dozing professors that these positions were not part of a "temporary" condition that had somehow lasted for 25 years. Arguments are more effective when made by an informed person who is on the same "level" as his or her audience.
Be prepared for things to get personal. We academics like to portray ourselves as people who are above being swayed by personal attacks when judging the equity of an argument. If you've been in the academy for more than a few months, you probably know that this image differs somewhat from reality. It's quite natural for certain professors who are upset by change to start asking personal questions about the people making noise in the back row. Get used to hearing your name with the words "disgruntled" and "whiner" attached to it.
Questions may arise about your legitmacy in making the case for representation. A great delaying tactic used by professors opposed to including nontenured faculty members on the senate was to suggest that the "leaders" of the reform movement didn't really represent all of the non-tenure-track faculty members.
We had to endure frequent comments from tenured professors convinced that our cause was being pushed by a very small number of rebels with longstanding personal grievances. Those same tenured critics also repeatedly raised the fear that the senate would become the sounding board for endless whining about the plight of the nontenured.
We were often successful at blunting those attacks by sticking to the issue. What had prompted our push to be included on the senate was a suggestion from the administration that some of the benefits for "Group II" faculty members be cut back or eliminated.
We kept making the point that the tenured faculty members should not have the only say on the question of benefits for the nontenured (a variation on the taxation without representation argument). We also argued that the weakening of benefits for any one group of faculty members might bode ill for the entire faculty in the future.
Another obstacle to your goal might reside in the membership of the senate itself. Some faculty senates award seats to current and former department heads. Those of you who have taught off the tenure track for any length of time know that department heads and directors wield considerable power over nontenured positions. Who else within the university structure is more vulnerable to being pushed around without much consequence than "untenurable" faculty members?
In addition, some chairs have their eyes fixed on moving into the central administration, which means, at the very least, that they may exhibit a severe case of divided loyalty when it comes to weighing faculty and administrative interests.
At Ohio University we had significant complications to overcome when it came to the membership of the senate. Policies affecting non-tenure-track faculty members varied widely from department to department -- if there were policies at all. Some department heads had a habit of drafting "policy" on the spot during a 10-minute meeting with an untenured underling. Others passed off the dirty work to administrative assistants, which sent a pretty clear message to non-tenure-track faculty members about how important their interests were.
So it's easy to see why certain senators might not want non-tenure-track faculty members to be members of the senate, and thus, have access to its grievance procedures.
Again, the best way around such attitudes is to emphasize the need for fair and equal treatment of all faculty members. Granted, there are privileges to having tenure, but they shouldn't include the power to treat any faculty member arbitrarily or without professional decency.
If you become involved in a movement to gain representation for non-tenure-track faculty members, don't be surprised at the various forms of paternalism you can encounter. In my case, I had several opponents who suggested that tenured professors were fully capable of representing the best interests of the untenured. Some colleagues were "insulted" by the suggestion that they would ever do otherwise -- even if that meant voting against their own interests.
You may also find yourself up against professors who, in their academic work at least, call for the equal treatment of "marginalized" groups in society at large, yet condone the exploitation of their teaching colleagues. I've witnessed many young assistant professors denounce the outdated hierarchy of the university, only to endorse it wholeheartedly once they earn tenure. Fortunately, that metamorphosis doesn't happen to everyone, and it's essential to recruit as many tenured professors who share your views as possible.
At this point, you might be asking yourself what's to be gained by all of this lobbying? At Ohio University, a divided senate committee eventually recommended granting two voting seats in the senate to non-tenure-track faculty members. The issue was hotly debated on the floor, but the measure passed, despite forceful opposition. Both the administration and trustees accepted the resolution.
Here's a brief overview of what has and has not happened since we achieved representation on the senate. Few of the initial fears expressed by the naysayers have come to pass: Senate meetings have not been disrupted by endless petitions from nontenured faculty members. To my knowledge, only one grievance has been filed so far by a non-tenure-track faculty member.
Through a remarkable cooperative effort, the senate has achieved significant improvements in the professional lives of non-tenure-track faculty members. In addition to participating in the university's benefits program, faculty members employed at, or above, two-thirds of a full-time schedule receive full tuition waivers for themselves and their families. We are eligible for professional development money from the university, certain teaching awards, and travel money.
The university has recently completed a study of current practices used to evaluate non-tenure-track faculty members. In compliance with a resolution passed by the senate last year, the administration has agreed to increase the salaries of many long-term "Group II" professors.
Such measures don't deal with all of the problems faced by non-tenure-track professors at Ohio University, but they're a good start. I'm convinced that that much would not have been accomplished without the participation of non-tenure-track faculty members in shared governance.
It's possible for shared governance between the tenured and nontenured to work, but sharing the burden of achieving that governance has to happen first.
