next »

[rattus domesticus]

... after reading a lot about "de facto tenure" and the AAUP's policy on the 7-year probationary period for non-tenured--after which the person must be offered tenure, I'm concerned that academia has unwittingly encouraged a rolling staff of transient, unsupported full-timers. Yes, we live in a country of at-will employment, but these particular instructors are NOT informed of this rule when they are hired.

A friend of mine (not a Ph.D.) had this experience; they simply did not renew her contract after 6 years because she was not qualified for tenure (no Ph.D.). Seven other friends have experienced this at this particular university in the Midwest over the last three years. I'm upset that my friend did NOT review the university's faculty handbook, which quoted the AAUP's policy exactly... but the end result is pretty frightening, if you think about it. These sort of extended-adjuncts are used to teach the nuts and bolts at the universities, yet even after years of service and fabulous reviews, are literally put out in the street. When my friend re-applyied to a position a year later, the dean actually said to her, "I don't stick my neck out for anyone." Sad, but true.

I'm interested in hearing from others who put in the time at a university and then were let go because of the "six-year rule." I'm actually writing an article for Inside Higher Education, an online publication, and would love to hear any firsthand accounts. Thanks!

[%sig%]

[Senior Scholar]

I have to point out that this happened to friends of mine at a midwestern university almost 40 years ago . . . and that they, too, were upset when they found out the information was in the faculty handbook. The moral of this story is: it is really dumb to take a job of any kind without reading the contract and the faculty handbook, and it's also dumb not to ask the chair about matters as important as your continued employment. (What, after all, do we say to students who fail to read the instructions on the syllabus about late papers, missed exams, and so forth>)

At my current university the chair always tells newly hired visiting assistant professors that their contracts will be renewed for a maximum of six years, and all of us TRY to encourage these folks to publish, urge them to read the job ads every year, offer to write references for them, and remind them of the expiration date on their employment. I have to say that maybe one-fourth of them actually take any action towards moving on. I'm sure that some of them expect that they're such super and valuable teachers that of course they'll be renewed. They won't be. This is a research university; people who do not publish will not be tenured; and a national search will be done for every tenure-track opening.

The capacity of intelligent people to delude themselves has, evidently, not changed over the past 40 years.

[Corinne]

I was hired some 30 years ago as an adjunct in English. The dept. chair told us up front that my adjunct colleagues and I, who were teaching full 4/4 loads, could be instructors for 3 years and no more.

The dept. chair said bluntly that he was taking advantage of the huge numbers of talented people in English to hire some great ones for a few years.

He said he trusted that we would publish and move on. I hustled, published, went to conferences, and landed a tenure-track job after the first year. Many others never did, and are doing other kinds of work, including journalism, house painting, translations, and non-profit organizations.

I agree with Senior Scholar that anyone who doesn't read the faculty handbook and know his/her rights is a fool.

[%sig%]

[ear to ground]

Rattus, a friend of mine works at LSU where two years ago, in the wake of a new "Flagship Agenda" (they are the state's flagship R1), a lot of---I think 80? or 100?---full time instructors in Math and English, and perhaps other depts, were let go. AS in fired. As in with end-of-semester notice. Some of these people were nearing retirement. Most had had full time contracts with benefits, the equivalent of tenure ("career instructor"), and so on. Some were allowed to stay---guess what, those married to Deans, who got "administrative" titles like running service learning, etc. Huge curricular fallout, there were protests, student meetings, local newspaper coverage, etc. And the chancellor who did it all then left for another job after declaring it a success.   I am not exactly clear on the details, but I recall that while my friend, on the tenure track there, was going through it, he was very, VERY upset. So maybe I was only hearing one side---apparently there were some people who did support it, making sure that more classes were taught by PhDs, not MS or MA instructors.  You should contact someone in Math or English there and get the whole story. But beware because apparently some of the people who made this happen are now running things (a math prof Dean or something). Your article could show the fallout and followup from such a radical change.

However, I agree with SS & Corinne: read the fine print. Institutions are not our friends, though we need them to survive.

[rattus d.]

Appreciate the comments. After I found out what happened to my friend, of course I found the faculty handbook online, downloaded it and read what she should have read before she bought a house. The surprising thing was that even though both the dean and chair said, "You made the right choice" by accepting their offer, NEITHER said anything about a limit to my length of service--which bums me out. And of course, I would have been given a faculty handbook at my training (a week before school starts)--but that would have been far too late to do anything about my choice.

I've made the decision to work for them, but I did have 13 other offers to interview--most t/t jobs with cc... so it's a lesson for me. The benefits of staying with my first offer is that 1) It's good for my resume; 2) otherwise they treated me very well during interview times; 3) It gets me to an area I do want to live  4) it puts me closer to places that I would want to work at in the midwest--so it may help my chances of interviewing with other campuses 5) I don't renig on contracts. I also have a general sense that the universe has a plan for me (I sound like dubliners09 here!), and I have already made friends there. Plus I am going in with *knowledge* of who is who and what they all believe and do because of my friend (who used to work there)-- so I can be cautious with politics and not get in badly with anyone. I get a sort of cheat sheet on who to trust... which is more than I would have gotten anywhere else.

I think as long as non t/t applicants know, it's no disservice... otherwise it constitutes abuse as far as I'm concerned.  Just my opinion here.

[%sig%]

[LSUer]

Ear to ground's description of what happened at LSU is a bit exaggerated, but not entirely.

The university had never signed off on the "career instructor" track which the English Dept. had used for years to retain excellent teachers. There were steps--Career Instructor I, II, III--with III being de facto tenure. The English Dept. knew this was an end run around the AAUP 6-years-or-out policy, and did so in order to keep the excellent teachers.

It was a new provost who, within 3 weeks of arrival, decided that the instructors in English and math should go. English protested. Math did not. The head of the Math Dept. has since been elevated to being Dean. The head of English was in his last year and chose not to run again, though he was popular with the dept. and would have been re-elected.

The newspaper coverage in the Baton Rouge Advocate and the LSU Reveille (student newspaper) is somewhat inaccurate, because the reporters don't understand tenure. But check them out for your article.

[%sig%]

[EC]

To rattus domesticus: Just wondering given your friend does not have a Ph.D., what is her expectation? I gathered that you are teachuing at the same place. What is your expectation? I am not going to say "well, it is in the faculty handbook" as everyone missed a thing or not. I don't find it surprising at all that the dan and the chair said she made a right choice. What I am wondering
is expectation. Given that she does not have a Ph.D., it is quite clear that it will not turn into a tenure track position assuing this is an university and not a cc? Did she think that it will just be renewed every three years forever? (I am not judging, just wondering.)

[rattus domesticus]

I'm not sure what she was thinking. With a few more conversations I may find out. What I do know is that it was her *first* job in education... perhaps she really did think that she would be renewed forever... or somehow would get some sort of security.

I will say that as an adjunct with experience at two universities and five community colleges, I had no idea. In fact, when I signed my three-year contract with this university, I was told that there would be an orientation--and given absolutely no further information about the job. I found out the faculty handbook was online by mistake. It was only when I heard about this mysterious "six-year role" and posted here on the Chronicle forum that I found out about the AAUP. Believe me, they keep us adjuncts out of the loop for a reason... one is to get some good committed teaching while said adjunct gives their all to a job that is on a timer. It's pretty unfair, I think. What's worse is that I turned down 13 offers for interviews after I signed this contract. Now that I have found out about the six-year rule, I can't bail because there are literally no jobs left--and I know that they could black ball me in the industry (and I hear that there are many connections in certain areas... never underestimate the power of mentor/mentee relationships even on different campuses). I'm trying to keep my positive attitude about this--and think of it as a stepping stone. It's just a bummer that I turned down interviews for t/t jobs to go there. Oh well, what's done is done.

Appreciate your comments. We're not idiots. Just inexperienced with f/timer rules.

[%sig%]

[Slammer]

I've never understood why people sign anything without knowing what they've agreed to.

That applies to legal contracts, buying cars, buying houses, and any other major decision.

I'm genuinely shocked that someone could be teaching for years and never check into the rules for employment.

I don't think it's the employer's fault. As adults, we're responsible for our own lives. We should be our own guiding hands, and our own shields.

[%sig%]

[mattie]

As I mentioned in the earlier forum, my university has basically created two tracks of people, fixed term forever and tenure track. In my department, 80% of the people are "fixed term" most of them have phd's, publish, and do most of the service for running the department. Some of them have been with the university for 20 years. The university fires them every year and rehires in the fall, as they say, in order to give due notice as per AAUP requirements.
It is in an ideal location, which is why I think people put up with it. But what I actually find most galling is the "prestige factor". Tenure track people make slightly more money and teach slightly fewer courses, but everyone has the same expectations for publishing, etc, in the annual reviews. Nonetheless, at every faculty gathering during introductions, people are asked, "so are you fixed term or tenure track"? Since the distinction is something that is made at the time of hiring and doesn't seem to bear any relationship to the contribution of faculty to the university or to the profession, it is a weird kind of insistence on an older hierarchy that doesn't connect to the present situation, especially for people in the humanities.
Finally, many senior faculty ask 'fixed term' faculty to serve on controversial or time consuming committees in order to 'protect' tenure track faculty. hmmm
I thought tenure was, in an ideal world, about academic freedom, not about reinforcing byzanntine hierarchies. If most jobs today are fixed term than I think we ought to consider what the professional implications are...

[%sig%]

[mattie]

So being curious, I just reviewed our contract, after 6 years of continuous service, fixed term faculty can apply for 'seniority' (not tenure), which entitles them to two year contracts rather than one year contracts. So you really can, I suppose, stay indefinitely, but it does strike me as odd in that it again creates these two classes of professiorate (you can even be promoted to associate and full professor (fixed term track) without ever jumping over to 'tenure track'. So honestly, I really am curious, what is tenure track at that level, is it governed by a different budgeting system? Is this a question of semantics? (obviously it seems like more is at stake), is it that administration really does feel that it needs more flexibility and the very idea of tenure carries with it so many legal constraints that it is a term that must be shied away from. (I hope I don't sound too bitter or something, I actually really enjoy my job and see it as a good stepping stone, it has afforded me tremendous opportunities. This whole two-tiered thing, and its attendant bureacracies and hierarchies has surprised me as someone coming from a more traditional ivy-graduate school program).

[%sig%]

[moom]

It sounds like this 6 year thing is meant to get more people tenure, but perversely ends up with people being fired before they would be eligible for tenure... Kind of like the landowner who bulldozes some natural area on their land so it won't be listed as endangered species habitat :)

[moom]

Here we have "clinical faculty" (we have no health sciences at all!) on three year appointments forever. They teach more and are not expected to do research.

[Mahoo]

moom wrote:

> Here we have "clinical faculty" (we have no health sciences
> at all!) on three year appointments forever. They teach more
> and are not expected to do research.

Some schools began to use "professors of the practice of INSERT YOUR SUBJECT" since they also feel clinical should be only researved for the real clinical people. It is essentially the same thing.

I was wondering what people think about this practice. Many research universities need to have people on teach and run programs. These people will have a hard time to meet the research expectation. And the tenure track people cannot have enough time to do more teaching and services. I personally think it is a good idea. These people do feel that they are second class citizen but not by a lot. They also tend not to have the research credentials to be hired in these places. This way, they can teach better students for a decent load (typically 3-3 when tenure track is either 2-2 or 2-1) and make decent money. Beats some of the tenfure track jobs, I think.

[rattus domesticus]

Slammer,
I'm not sure what my friend's situation was, but I had only worked part-time at several colleges and was never given more information than I needed to slam out a syllabus in time for class. We are either not given faculty handbooks OR given adjunct handbooks which give out useful information such as where the copy machines are... With this offer, I signed a contract and 1) was not told there was a rule; 2) was told that I would be given a university faculty handbook at the orientation [1 week before class started]. This would have been far, far too late to bail. Especially considering that I'm moving 2,300 miles away to this job. After I signed this contract, of course, I received 13 other calls to interview (many of them t/t at community colleges) and turned them down. At that time, of course, I didn't know about this rule. Now it's too late. I'll also mention that my colleague and I are FIRST-TIME FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES at the university level.

We're not idiots. We simply had no idea that this rule existed. You can see why the campus does not tell people about it--most new-to-university full-timers would NOT sign up for a short-term gig.

Also, thanks "Mattie" for pointing out that some universities get around this by firing and rehiring Ph.Ds. I find this "fixed-term" contract pretty interesting. It, of course, separates the wheat from the chaff (Ph.D.s from the M.A.s or M.S.s) though the university gets a lot of mileage from us in the meantime. I'm actually thinking about pursuing my Ph.D.--but it will have to happen after I get a t/t job at a community college--and I will be sure to move to a city that has a Ph.D.- offering institution. Common sense kind of stuff.

Appreciate the comments, though I will say Slammer, that you cannot assume that part-time workers will be given access to this information--certainly not in time to make an informed decision. By the way, Inside Higher Education has asked me to write an article about this "six-year rule." I also write a column for another teaching magazine, so although you may think I'm an idiot for being uninformed, a few others don't agree.

[%sig%]