next »

[snarls]

Adjunct (from the AHD 2nd college edition) n.:

"1. Something ... in a dependent or subordinate position;
"2. A person ... in a dependent or auxillary capacity;
...
"4. Logic. A nonessential attribute of a thing"

As a noun, "adjunct" is a consistent pejorative, a demeaning term that diminishes the person to whom it refers. It is Don Imus talk. It has a strong family resemblance to "ho," "b*tch," "lackey," and "toady." Denotatively, it is used by many in academia to mean "loser."

(Its use in academic settings, if I correctly read the etymology of the word, has to do with situations in which colleges once upon a time hired instructors that had no academic credentials -- accountants, musicians, etc. -- to teach courses.)

Use of the term deserves a fate not unlike that enjoyed by Don Imus.

I suspect that most people use it unthinkingly. Some use it because by diminishing others they elevate their own sense of self worth.

In either case, it should be cast out, not because of 'political correctness,' although that would be reason enough, but rather because by diminishing those who teach in academic settings, one diminishes academia.

I'm sure there will be those who will not agree.

ML Hineline

[snarls]

Where I wrote, above, "Denotatively, it is used by many in academia to mean 'loser,'" I meant to write: Connotatively, it is used by many in academia to mean "loser."

[spork]

I thought adjunct meant appendage.

[larryc]

"Blue" is a demeaning slur, a swear word if you will. It is Don Imus talk, a pejorative that people use to insult and belittle the objects that they label as "blue."

These things are true because I say so. Discuss.

[snarls]

Yes, Spork, appendage also means "something in a dependent or subordinate position."

Good for you! You understand synonymy! (I'm mildly surprised.)

[spork]

Actually I don't understand synonymy.  It has too many syllables.

[snarls]

Somewhere in your comment about "blue," larryc, I suspect you intended to make some kind of an argument. What that argument could possibly be escapes me. I'm sure you're prepared to explain how the authority of the craft of lexicography, in a matter of linguistic denotation, equates with your authority of "because I say so"?

[larryc]

My point is that you attach a set of bizarre definitions to the harmless word "adjunct."

[snarls]

I attach the definitions of the word, given by a dictionary. Any bizarreness appropriately accrues to those who know the etymology of the word and continue to use it to refer to college and university instructors -- not to me.

[americanist]

Well, if adjunct means auxiliary, and we have auxiliary faculty, what should we call them? Auxiliaries? Then you'll be back here saying that auxiliary is being used to demean people.

Here's the thing: the term seems demeaning because so often the position it describes is demeaning. I've found that when I've been an adjunct at great places, I never minded being called an adjunct; when I adjuncted at crappy places, well, it made me feel crappy.

But if you prefer, I can start referring to our adjuncts as something else, while of course doing absolute jack s*** to change their actual working conditions. That'll solve the problem.

[snarls]

Moreover ...

The word "adjunct" is far from harmless. It is used precisely to legitimate exploitation. It is used rather in the way that the enemy, in times of war, is dehumanized. In that case, it makes killing easier on the conscience. Similarly, calling a woman a 'ho' seems to legitimize treating her as an object.

This is how "adjunct" is used. Got a course no one wants to teach? "Oh, get an adjunct to do it."

Why does one person earn $20,000 to teach a course, while the next person earns $2,000 to teach the same course? Because the latter is an "adjunct."

Have you ever heard anyone mutter the phrase "Oh, he's just a full professor"? I thought not. How about "Oh, she's just an adjunct"?

It's bad enough that some instructors are exploited. Is it necessary to insult them at the same time?

[larryc]

As a noun, "adjunct" is a consistent pejorative, a demeaning term that diminishes the person to whom it refers. It is Don Imus talk. It has a strong family resemblance to "ho," "b*tch," "lackey," and "toady." Denotatively, it is used by many in academia to mean "loser."

Not a single one of the above statements follows from the definitions you posted. Really, your definition of "adjunct" is yours alone. The world simply means a person hired to teach a class on a temporary basis. It has no pejorative connotation.

[voxprincipalis]

Hey, sporky, got any of that popcorn left?

VP

[snarls]

Americanist: why, precisely, is it necessary to qualify "faculty"? What's wrong with just faculty.

I understand that for ladder faculty, the distinctions between assistant, associate, and full mean something with respect to departmental matters.

Adjunct means exploitable, and that's about all. It might be a worthwhile distinction if students' tuitions were discounted when they were taught by adjuncts.

Now the fact is that the first institution where I taught simply didn't use this "adjunct" language. If you were ABD, you were an instructor. If you had a doctorate, you were an assistant professor. This policy was explicitly intended to be inclusive -- and it worked. And mind you, this was one of the top ten private four-year colleges in the United States.

I think their policy is worthy of emulation.

[englitprof]

"Adjunct" has come to be synonymous with exploitation because of deeds, not words--you can call someone faculty and still screw them over royally, and to my ears, at least, any negative or pejorative sense to the word has accrued from the way adjuncts are treated.  The word "adjunct" did not call the lousy treatment of those called adjuncts into being, nor do the crappy attitudes of administration and ladder faculty stem from terminology.  Americanist is absolutely spot-on.