Sounds like scab labor to me. The University would just as likely lay off an equivalent number of paid faculty given this freebie.

Very fine and noble of these retired NC profs to volunteer their services for free but at a time when so many newly minted Ph.D's are scrounging for a foothold in academia, this is a very bad idea.
These good guys must be mostly long in the tooth and to reduce the supply of teachers and researchers for the future by taking up slots otherwise available - even if at some prevailing poor salaries and working conditions- does damage to NC and other institutions.

Unfortunately, the prior two comments overlook what might be a game of "chicken" being played by the UNC administration and their state government. If one accepts that there is no more state money forthcoming this year, then no young, unemployed professors could possibly be hired, and the offer of the retirees to teach for free is a gracious one and beneficial to the students. OTOH, if the university administration wants to try to pressure the legislature by withholding classes from their students in a ploy to get more funding, then the students are the ones being put at risk to suffer.

If the funding crisis is truly beyond solution, one would submit that the university administration is harming their students by denying their retirees the opportunity to come back and teach gratis. As to the argument that some of the retirees are "past it" and can't teach well anymore, are the students better off with no teachers or with some who might be a bit past their prime?

Bad idea. Retired faculty should be writing their memoirs, getting reacquainted with their spouses, handing out carts at WalMart, or whatever. Teaching for free was essentially what they did when they were employed. Doing it in a situation that robs some deserving adjunct of a job simply adds insult to injury.

Having been taught by some of those profs, I want to underscore how good most were, in teh day, but how misguided this idea is. North Carolina has a bad enough past of union-busting, so for well-paid, pensioned members of a privileged guild (nothing like a union) to make this offer reeks of out-of-touch elitism.

I am so disappointed and angry to see such ageist comments in this forum. (Just to make it clear, I am NOT a retired faculty member.) The comment by mrmars is particularly offensive. In my humble opinion, wisdom comes with age and the value of a long-term perspective on one's discipline is particularly beneficial to today's students. Why can't we simply inpret this offer as a gesture of commitment to UNC and its students, a reflection of altruism? I'm sure the retired profs realize this would be a short term solution and not a long-term employment contract. If there's truly no money to hire enough "young bucks" (as some of the other comments seem to prefer), this is an honorable solution. I was a former faculty union president by the way, so I'm saying this in full awareness of union busting attempts by administrators...

What a contrast to the non-retired faculty in California who don't seem to want to lift a finger to help the citizens of their state through a budget crisis. Whatever happened to working toward the greater good?

What a cynical group of comments. Sounds like typical faculty find-the-hidden-meaning in everything. Are these commenters decontructionist historians?

Dear cshe6339, for the record, I might be retired myself if the economy weren't in the toilet. I've been impersonating a faculty member (tenured -thank God) for over 25 years (with varying degrees of success). For that entire span of time the job market for faculty of all stripes has been and remains a disgrace. Retirees have had their shot and should not be taking another turn - for free - when doing so means fewer job opportunities for those who after years of schooling desperately await their turn (remember what it was like before you got your first job?).

Even in tough times like these, when state governments cut back on academic hiring they are making a choice. The decision to cut university budgets is all too often the most politically expedient among other alternatives. Those retirees who see working again - for free - as a means of helping out are also validating this choice and contributing to the problem. The abilities of those involved is not the issue.

Am I the only one who sees the slippery slope side of this? Retired faculty presumably are drawing pensions, making possible this kind of generous offer of their time and expertise. The action, however well meant, could easily translate into expectation for retirees less eager to participate, especially if it becomes the means for meeting otherwise unfulfilled institutional "needs" (which are always present regardless of economic times). I suggest it would be far better if these folks simply put themselves into the adjunct pool, rather than serve as a no-cost alternative that any administrator would be loathe to take s pass on.

Since administration appears to be the fastest growing personnel sector in higher education, perhaps what UNC needs is a free offer of services from retired highly-paid administrators rather than faculty.

After all, a quick tour of the lengthy personnel lists of the president's, provost's and deans' offices often does give one pause. And a comparison of the national averages of administration and faculty salaries at individual institutions often yields administrations at or above the national average in compensation while the faculty fall at or below the national averages for their fields. Adjunctification of the faculty does not help their averages, of course, and I have yet to meet an adjunct assistant dean/provost, etc. -- with or without the same percentage of diminution in compensation as faculty adjuncts.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

<Comment removed by moderator>

There are laws against age discrimination, and that's exactly what some of these comments sound like.

There is age discrimination against young people, new entrants into the system, who are not given an opportunity in academia. Most universities are controlled by the elder selfish boomer generation who do not care to include the up-and-coming generation. Selfish boomers received good tenured jobs early in their careers (say mid-twenties) and have been in the system throughout without any significant hardship (job loss, medical bankruptcy, poverty, etc.). They will receive their full pensions, full social security, and any other retirement savings they've accrued. They made out like gang busters from when they entered (mid-twenties) and when they leave (mide-seventies). Young people struggle to get any job. Adjunct teaching is equivalent to poverty level wages. Young people live in poverty, have very little savings, face few job opportunities and security yet are required to pay into a social security system that benefits current and new retirees. Selfish boomers need to move on so that new entrants can gain a foothold. I am approaching 40 years old and am still looking for a job. I have been adjuncting for the last 3 years. I am a single female, minority and the school is entirely dominated by whites and men in leadership positions. Where can young people find job opportunities? How long will the selfish boomers cling on and keep the young people down and deprived? Rather than take away jobs from young adjuncts who tend to be female and minorities, can they take away jobs from high-paying administrators who are typically white males?

Yes, there are laws against age discrimination. Age discrimination can work both ways. There is age discrimination against young people, new entrants into the system, who are not given an opportunity in academia. Most universities are controlled by the elder selfish boomer generation who do not care to include the up-and-coming generation. Selfish boomers received good tenured jobs early in their careers (say mid-twenties) and have been in the system throughout without any significant hardship (job loss, medical bankruptcy, poverty, etc.). They will receive their full pensions, full social security, and any other retirement savings they've accrued. They made out like gang busters from when they entered (mid-twenties) and when they leave (mide-seventies). They tend to live in middle-class suburbs and have their homes paid off. Young people, even those approaching 40 like myself, struggle to get any job. Adjunct teaching is equivalent to poverty level wages and the pay is less than graduate student stipends. They have very little savings, face few job opportunities and security yet are required to pay into a social security system that benefits current and oncoming retirees. From a prior job, I now have the choice between collecting full unemployment benefits or working poverty-level adjunct pay. I think I will choose the unemployment benefits and have the government pay to support me rather than work for poverty-level adjunct pay and have to support a selfish boomer through my social security deduction from my paycheck. I also have no health insurance so I expect the public to pay to support me if anything bad should happen. I can justify giving nothing back to society because I have very little. My current $1200/mo adjunct pay covers the basic living expenses and is slightly less than my graduate student stipend before I got my PhD. It was more lucrative to be a graduate student than it is to have a PhD and work as an adjunct. I'm also in no position to buy a home because I am priced out of affordable housing with low-income housing as my only viable option. What this means is that I won't be paying any property taxes. Too bad because education is a great investment. Not.

If elder boomers want to volunteer, why don't they volunteer for jobs that are occupied by high-paying administrators who tend to be white males? These white males have benfited financially from their lucrative positions. Most of my adjunct co-workers in the sweatshop teaching labor force are young females and minorities.

I don't have any problem with these professors working. We have this idea that we should all work full stream until age 65, then not do any work at all until we die. When people lived to be 68, this was a reasonable idea, but not now. If you want to forbid a retiree from teaching a class because a young person "needs the money" more, that is discrimination. It is exactly the argument some men used in the past to compain that working women were stealing their jobs. Don't fall into the "lump of labor" fallacy. The retirees have a lot of time and experience. Let's use them.

oops, "full steam until age 65"

Dear unusedusername, I see your point and it definitely has merit. Let retirees teach (remember we are taking about teaching for "free") because to not allow this would constitute discrimination. Better yet, lets make sure these folks have even more "opportunity;" lets let them teach for free by replacing someone who is already teaching for a salary! This will benefit the school and the students even more, will it not? Lets let them take my job, for example . . . and maybe yours too! Now the teach-for-free express is really rolling and we are all "helping out" big time. I'll give up my job on this basis the day after you do, assuming that you still think that discriminating against the retired is the main issue here.

I still remember what it was like to be searching for my first job. Certainly retirees still have much to offer, but are they still that desperate for self-validation that they would knowingly teach for free when it means potentially taking an opportunity away from some new Ph.D. looking for her first job? I know they don't see things in these terms. No money available means no money to hire new people. But if there were no alternatives, my guess is the funds would magically appear from somewhere.