The Chronicle: Colloquy Live Transcript

September 21, 2000

Can Faculty Unions Organize to Limit the Use of Lecturers?

Thursday, September 21, at noon, U.S. Eastern time

Can faculty unions use collective bargaining and the threat of strikes to limit the hiring of lecturers and to create more full-time faculty slots?

This is a transcript of a live discussion on Friday, September 21.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Courtney Leatherman (Moderator):
Hi, I'm Courtney Leatherman, a reporter at The Chronicle, and I'd like to welcome you to our online discussion with Mary A. Burgan.

Today we'll be talking about whether collective bargaining, and the threat of strikes, can preserve tenure-track lines and limit the hiring of part-time faculty members. In addition, we'll look at the implications of such labor actions and talk about what other steps full-timers can take to preserve the core faculty.

I'll be moderating the conversation and Ms. Burgan, General Secretary of the American Association of University Professors, will be fielding your questions. Ms. Burgan is a strong proponent of efforts to maintain full-time faculty slots and she backed the efforts of the faculty union at Eastern Michigan, which is a chapter of the A.A.U.P.

I have a question of my own to start off with, so, as I thank Ms. Burgan for joining us, I invite you to submit questions of your own. Let's begin.

Mary A. Burgan:
I'm very happy to be involved in this online chat because I believe that the erosion of the faculty in American higher education is the gravest threat to academic freedom in the past 25 years. That threat has become more intense because the erosion has accelerated over the past decade.

What it means is not only the loss of a generation of talent but also an undermining of the capacity of this country to support free intellectual exploration across a variety of disciplines. It also threatens to turn the governance of our institutions to a managerial class of individuals who may not have academic experience in the classroom or in research. That means that the values of teaching and research may be at risk.

Question from Courtney Leatherman:
Do you think the AAUP won anything real at Eastern Michigan?

Aside from some assurances, is there really anything to prevent the university from continuing to move in the direction of hiring more part-timers?

Mary A. Burgan:
Well, of course, it won something real. It won a contract. From what I understand from leaders there, also, it won a commitment by the new president to work closely with the faculty on areas of their concern. Beyond that it put on the table in very clear terms the issue of part-time and non-tenure-track faculty as replacements for full-time tenure-track faculty. I believe that the chapter and the national AAUP and other unions will be returning to this issue.

Question from Marguerite Capone, Ph.D, UCONN Adjunct 13 yrs.:
I agree that MORE full-time professors should be hired. But if this occurs what happens to all those adjuncts who are now employed? For some part-timers, it's all they have. We need to think this through very carefully.

Mary A. Burgan:
This is a key problem. And the A.A.U.P. advocates every effort to reward the good work of part-time professors by moving them on to full-time and tenure-track lines. We believe that it's extremely important for colleges and universities, and especially for departments and faculty in departments, to understand that it's a matter of fairness and equity for them to give priority to those faculty already on the payroll who have proved themselves by excellent teaching. It may be that these faculty should have some special support to achieve full status but it will not be an acceptable situation if the solution to the part-time problem entails firing part-time faculty wholesale without discrimination as to quality and contribution.

Question from Don A. Campbell College of Southern Maryland.:
Isn't one path of attack the simple demand of equal pay at rank for equal work? And the demand that ranks be determined for lecturers on the same basis as for full time faculty?

Mary A. Burgan:
Yes. While we're waiting for equity in terms of the creation of more full-time jobs, we need to make sure that part-time faculty receive parity in wages and benefits. I believe that parity in promotion is an interesting proposition but, of course, I believe that the best promotion is movement into the full-time tenured faculty ranks. I would not want a promotion system for adjuncts or lecturers to replace the possibility of tenure-track appointments.

Question from Maria Vita Calkins, UMass/Amherst:
It seems to me that full- and part-time faculty need to work together on this issue, to their mutual benefit. Unfortunately, too often they see themselves as enemies and not collaborators. Do you see a growing trend toward part- and full-timers' working together to create more full-time faculty slots?

Mary A. Burgan:
I think it's very important for full-time faculty to understand that the use and exploitation of part-time faculty affects their interest because it affects the integrity of the profession, the credibility of the full-time faculty, and the future employment of talented students in their fields or disciplines. Therefore, the A.A.U.P. has for the past eight years made as a major feature of its thinking about part-time, that it's a full-time question.

In terms of unionization, it may be that part-time faculty might be represented by a different union from the one that represents the full-time faculty but it's important to harmonize the interests of both and indeed we think that has happened at Eastern Michigan University. It certainly is our intention to work as harmoniously as we can to bring full-time and part-time faculty into consonance with one another.

Question from Jack Leahy, DePaul University:
What strategies do you suggest for non-union faculties? Have there been any tested practices that have worked?

Mary A. Burgan:
There are several modes of action. The most important thing is to make sure that at the departmental level the faculty insist on the need for continuing faculty to teach undergraduates and especially freshman. Granted, it is very difficult to make the argument for full-time faculty to teach freshman if the current full-time faculty are not in those classrooms. But this does not mean that the full-time faculty should teach on an overload. But they should be in solidarity with part-timers -- that's number 1.

Number 2, full-time faculty need to protect their lines -- especially upon retirement. We have advocated that full-time tenure-track faculty who are on the verge of retiring negotiate the preservation of their lines as part of a retirement package. I call this the "Hell, no, we won't go" resolution. We also urge departmental faculty and faculty senates to inventory full-time lines so they have the information necessary to combat the erosion of them.

Finally, we think the issue is an issue for alumni, admissions officers, and counselors. Parents do not want to send their children to a college where they are taught by a contingent faculty -- not because contingent faculty may not be qualified, indeed, many of them are. But it's a sign of quality and commitment to a student when a university has a predominance of full-time faculty.

Question from Rosemary Schmid, part timer at university & community college:
Many decision makers whose main concern is "the bottom line" argue that it's more cost-effective to have non-tenured and/or part time faculty. What arguments can be made to have more rather than fewer tenured or full-time faculty?

Mary A. Burgan:
First of all, the bottom line should be seen as a long-term bottom line rather than what the sum tells you from one day to the next. Education is a long-term process. Full-time faculty are there for the long term. Thus, they are able to serve students over the time of the students' relationships with an institution. Part-time faculty, because they are unable to continue from one semester to the next, will not be there to write students' recommendations, to advise students about their total careers, or to welcome students back as alumni. These are all long-term features of higher education.

Furthermore, part-time faculty do not have the continuity to be able to engage in decision-making about the curriculum, about courses, about quality control over particular syllabi. This is especially bad for the introductory courses in which part-time faculty tend to teach.

Finally, there's a significant problem in the lack of freedom that part-time and non-tenure-track faculty experience. They are unable to be as forceful with students, for example, in giving grades, for fear possibly of not being appointed in the next term. All of these are features of non-tenure-track appointments that bear on the quality of education in a particular institution and the effect is very negative.

Question from Jane Doe, small liberal arts college in Virginia:
Don't faculty at many colleges and universities have a conflict of interest regarding the hiring of adjuncts - that is, the problem with increasing reliance on adjuncts is outweighed by the benefits to the full-time faculty members? For example, at my school adjuncts are used to lighten regular faculty teaching loads. And the faculty members themselves take a vote each year to determine whether money from retirements will be used for A) a pay increase for full-time faculty or B) new positions. Guess which way they always vote?

Mary A. Burgan:
You're right. There can be a conflict of interests. And our association, which represents many full-time faculty has been calling upon our colleagues everywhere to understand that the situation of part-timers is a problem for the full-time faculty as well as the part-timers.

Indeed, it's not only a justice problem, it is an issue about the future of the profession. The conflict of interests that you describe in asking faculty to choose between pay-raises and new positions speaks to the failure of adequate support for higher education. This is a kind of dilemma which should not be posed for faculty. But the answer is not to consume our seed corn. In any case, I know of two or three other situations where the faculty choice has been to forego pay raises in order to hire new faculty. Finally, I recognize your choice to remain anonymous as a comment upon the danger that part-time faculty feel about speaking their minds freely.

Question from Lee Person, U of Cincinnati:
Do we have good data on the number of tenure-track positions that have been lost to either full-time, non-tenure-track positions or, even worse, to part-time hiring practices?

Mary A. Burgan:
The answer is "No." And that is very disturbing. It's disturbing from the faculty point of view because it means that the erosion can take silently. And it's disturbing from the administrative point of view because it means that when administrations are asked for real numbers, they have to confess that the employment practices are so vague and so disordered in terms of contingent faculty that they sometimes are not sure who's teaching. This is partly due to the last-minute practices in the hiring of many part-time faculty. The AAUP has called upon faculty senates, department chairs, and AAUP chapter leaders to begin taking inventory of tenure-track lines. Note that this inventory should be across the campus because we do understand that tenured lines may be lost in one area but they should be gained in another. We are not asking for a status quo for any particular specialization, but we are insisting that with the rise in enrollments, there should be no loss in tenured lines and indeed, there should be equivalent gains.

Question from Jackie A. Giuliano, Ph.D., various colleges:
While I don't approve of the abuse of part-time faculty (such as myself) nor do I appreciate the low pay, I see no threat to full-time faculty and think many are overreacting.

There may be a threat to tenure-track positions, but does tenure make any sense in today's world? If faculty members screw up, they can be terminated, tenure or not. But with federal anti-discrimination laws, academics no longer need to fear losing their jobs simply because they are voicing their opinions. Shouldn't anyone's job in any profession be based on performance rather than seniority?

Mary A. Burgan:
Well, first of all, faculty jobs are based upon performance rather than seniority. One of the things that the tenure system has done, and was intended to do, was to give faculty a probationary period during which they could prove their value to their institution. It is true that there have been some rigidities in that system, perhaps. But, it has made for the creation of a professorate that has been extremely productive over time. One of the problems with the hiring part time and temporary faculty is that it's frequently done without any review at all. Moreover, these faculty have very little mentoring or continuing review. That's not good. The question of the productivity of tenured faculty is one that is sure to raise a great deal of resentment . I worry that this resentment can be used to pit one group against the other.

Question from Courtney Leatherman:
What would you say to administrators who argue that tenure is the problem here?

College officials say that they have some departments where they have tenured faculty members, and little demand for enrollment, and that limits their ability to create more full-time positions. Without tenure, might colleges be willing to create more full-time positions?

Mary A. Burgan:
I think that tenure is a red herring. Though I do understand the need for faculty to be flexible in their ability to move from one area of specialization, especially in teaching, to another, most faculty have this ability and our policies on reassigning faculty in cases of programatic decline permit administrations to find other areas of the university in which tenured faculty may contribute. So there's a lot of flexibility in tenure. What tenure protects faculty from is administrative efforts to close down programs as an excuse to undermine tenure. Finally, it seems to me that an administration's failure to forsee areas of development over time is a real problem in higher education. So is the administrative tendency to lurch with the fads. I think that faculty advice is very important in discerning the future and planning for it.

Courtney Leatherman (Moderator):
If you're hanging back, waiting to ask your question, jump right in. Our time is about half over.

Question from Dr. Sue Tamminga, formerly with Suffolk Comm. Col.:
Do you think the erosion of tenured positions throughout the academic community is a deliberate effort to intimidate and weaken the academic community's courage in speaking out honestly about political topics and issues of the day?

Mary A. Burgan:
I would not use the word deliberate. I think that it's the easy way out. But I also recognize that a by-product can be a certain docility and unwillingness to criticize among faculty at risk. That's why we say that faculty need tenure to exercise academic freedom and professional autonomy.

Question from Courtney Leatherman:
Are there colleges out there that are handling these issues well? How can you tell if a college is using too many part-timers?

Mary A. Burgan:
I can't give a list right now. I do know some colleges are turning back the tide, so to speak, because of their concern about providing continuity for their students. You can tell if using too many part-timers by looking at the percentage of teaching done by part-time faculty. AAUP has tried to establish a percentage at roughly 15-25%. The lower number for the entire institution, but no more than 25% for any department. We know that this percentage is low given current circumstances, but it's an ideal that should be targeted. Finally, we do worry about the overuse, not only of part-time and full-time non-tenure-track faculty at research institutions and universities, but also their use of teaching assistants to teach inappropriately.

Question from Vicky Smallman, Canadian Assoc. of University Teachers:
Any faculty union grappling with the issue of restoring tenure-track faculty lines and addressing the overuse of contract faculty faces a tremendous challenge: how to ensure that existing contract faculty - some of whom have been teaching for years - do not lose out. How do you balance the needs of a much-marginalized and long-suffering group with the needs of the profession as a whole? Do unions stand a better chance of squaring this circle with everyone in the same bargaining unit, rather than divided?

Mary A. Burgan:
This is a question of conflict of interests, and since I believe that these interests are congruent, if not identical, I tend to go for the inclusion of all in the same unit. On the other hand, as at Eastern Michigan, when there is a difference in units as sometimes demanded by the law, that is, how a class of employees are designated by the labor law or even by the local labor ward, the full-time and part-time or non-tenure-track unions should make every effort to work together.

Question from Robert Jinkens, University of Hawaii:
I believe the real problem is that part-time faculty are only paid a small fraction of the amount that full-time faculty are paid, and that if schools had to pay the same prorata for all faculty, there would no longer be a cost savings of using part-time and/or lecturers, and the practice would stop. It should be a bargaining issue for strikers.

Mary A. Burgan:
You're absolutely right. And you've just articulated the policy that is at the center of AAUP principles for part-time faculty. We've been urging these principles for years and we do believe they should be part of the contractual negotiations.

Question from Tom Van Valey, Western Michigan University:
As a PhD program, we feel that experience teaching a regular class is critical for our doctoral students. Moreover, they need it to compete effectively in the job market. Under such circumstances, what impact would limiting the use of lecturers have (most of ours are indeed graduate students)?

Mary A. Burgan:
We have no problem with using TA's or graduate students to teach under supervision as a part of their training. The question is whether or not such a legitimate endeavor becomes a way to cover courses without hiring full-time faculty. There are several signs of abuse. One is the absence of mentoring, training, and reviewing supervision of such students. Another is the length of time in which they serve as "apprentices." Another is the level of courses which they teach. A graduate student teaching an upper-level course or even a graduate course cannot be said to be in training.

Question from Courtney Leatherman:
What about the issue of flexibility? Isn't it true, don't administrators need to be able to plan for the future and for changes in enrollment and academic programs? How can they do that, while maintaining tenured professors, without hiring part-timers?

Mary A. Burgan:
I think this is a question that I answered before, but let me give it another try. First of all, most faculty who were hired for the tenure track were hired for a range of abilities. We believe this is a good thing because we know that fads may come and go, but if the faculty go with them, the university becomes an entity that exists on the whim of the "latest thing out."

We think that universities should plan beyond such whims, and we think that faculty should train beyond such whims.

But let us take an example of an area that has suffered greatly from downsizing and changing priorities, and that is the area of foreign languages. It is true that English may be becoming the language of the Internet. But, there will still be needs for students to learn the languages that are actually spoken in other countries, and along with that, learning of other cultures. It is very short-sighted, for example, to stop teaching Russian because Russia is having so many problems and is no longer such a feared power. The dangers of not being able to speak to that vast Slavic society is seen in the recent tragedy and danger of the nuclear submarine.

We must maintain our ability to introduce students to foreign languages, and it may be a valuable thing that there are professors of Slavics who have tenure and, therefore, embody the commitment of their institutions to a broader notion of higher education.

Question from Fess Green, Radford University:
I understand that faculty salaries reported in each March-April issue of the AAUP's magazine "Academe" do not include adjunct compensation. Doesn't this give a misleading impression of true compensation now that adjuncts are a very significant proportion of faculty?

Mary A. Burgan:
This is a problem that we have worried about in AAUP. The fact is, that universities are not keeping track and cannot report to us the salary levels for part-time faculty. We believe that the salaries vary in extreme from something on the order of $1200/course to $3500/course. I'm thinking here of humanities courses. It may be that "clinical" faculty in fields like accounting earn a great deal more. In any case, the institutions who report salary levels for the Academe survey tend to be unable to report accurately either the number or salaries of part-time faculty. This fact tells us a lot about the nature of exploitation.

Question from Michael Dembrow, Portland Community College:
Have many colleges and universities been successful in securing clear and firm ratio targets (or other language guaranteeing an appropriate minimum level of full-time faculty) in their contracts? Any examples?

Mary A. Burgan:
I am not able to give you an authoritative answer here (for one thing, I'm participating in this discussion from a hotel room in L.A. and so have no materials at my fingertips). I do think that there has been success with the union that represents the Penn State faculty. On another front, some of the disciplinary associations are trying to get accrediting agencies to enforce ratios. I believe that this has been done in the past by professional associations like the Bar Association, but I can't be certain. You might send me an email at mburgan@AAUP.org and I'll try to get a better answer for you.

Question from Courtney Leatherman:
What are the implications for unionized full-time faculty as more part-timers and non-tenure-track faculty members form their own bargaining units? Both groups may share the same long-term goal -- more full-time, tenure-track jobs -- but have separate, mutually exclusive short-term needs.

Mary A. Burgan:
I think the implication has got to be better cooperation, more conscious good cooperation, among the bargaining groups. It seems clear to me that despite the erosion of tenure, full-time faculty in some kind of tenure system will remain at the core of higher education. If the full-time, part-time, adjunct/lecturer faculty group begin to diverge, they will become partners in the problem rather than agents of resolution.

Courtney Leatherman (Moderator):
We only have time for about two more questions.

Question from Melba C., A.B.D Doctoral Student:
As a fine arts graduate student about to enter a bleak job market, in terms of the declining number of tenure-track positions available, what can I do to help this cause?

Mary A. Burgan:
The first thing is to make sure that your training is broad enough and your expectations are wide enough to permit you to become an attractive candidate for work in higher education. There are many kinds of jobs in many kinds of institutions that graduate students are unaware of, but lead to satisfying careers as faculty. Don't limit yourself. The second thing is to know the problem. And since you're here, you must have a pretty good understanding of what we confront. A third thing is to ask your full-time professors what they're doing to help you. Not just to get a job, but to change the system. They may need to be challenged. Finally, of course, I urge you to join AAUP. If you're a graduate student, you can join for $10 and then give us your advice.

Question from Brendan McManus, Bemidji State U:
Would not higher pay for lecturers and part-timers just encourage MORE people to get onto that track so that the pool of people willing (having) to work cheap just increase, yet further exacerbating the Ph.D. glut?

Mary A. Burgan:
I don't believe that would happen. For one thing, most people want job security as well as a job. I think there would always be a preference for tenure-track positions. Then, also, the higher pay tends to accompany more stability. And by the time institutions have dealt with those issues, they confront the question, why not tenure? Finally, I question the glut of Ph.D's. The work is there. We have a tidal wave of new students who will be demanding higher education in the next ten years. We have understaffed classes in humanities courses like Composition, Spanish, etc. We also have a demand for a broad notion of education. These enrollments require faculty and we must insist that the response to them should not be the abandonment of training faculty. We know what's happened in the K-12 arena where there is now a shortage of highly trained teachers. That is a national disgrace.

Question from Jane Doe2, former EMU adjunct of 10 yrs:
While it may be ideal to think that proven adjuncts receive consideration for full-time positions, my experience is that it has little basis in reality. Why should an institution hire the local full-time when they can hire someone new from outside? Chances are the local adjunct is tied to the area and will continue to take the left over crumbs of full timers.

Mary A. Burgan:
One answer is of course that the local part-timer will need to make some choices. There are some conditions under which one shouldn't permit oneself to be used. More important, though -- and I do understand the dilemma -- part-time contracts should include provisions for application for full-time status. And the same with non-tenure contract. It's important for union representatives to look far ahead to provide steps through which faculty can become full-time and/or tenured. There have been some experiments in providing such steps which are contingent on the financial situation of an institution. In such arrangements, the initial appointment is "tenure-like" and is guaranteed to become tenure as soon as the line is available. It's important to recognize the practical usefulness of the "ideal." Without an ideal goal, we become even more subject to the contingencies of incidental needs. We believe that the ideal is so far away in this time that it is all the more important to assert its value.

Courtney Leatherman (Moderator):
That's all the time we have today. Thanks, Ms. Burgan, for your time and thank you all for joining in.

The full transcript of this conversation will be posted shortly.

Mary A. Burgan:
This is been a challenging discussion because the issues themselves are so difficult. I thank all of the respondents for writing and I assure you that my colleagues and I will continue to make this issue one of the top issues in our work for the faculty.