next »

[americanist]

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

Because not all faculty are equal. Some are paid $2000 a course; others get full salaries and benefits. Some get offices; others don't. Some get their contracts cancelled on they day they're supposed to start teaching; others have tenure.

Changing the language to pretend that those differences don't exist will not make them go away.

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

As does adjunct. For example, in my department, it means they don't get to decide what textbook they use in their own classes.

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.

By calling you an instructor, though, they were delineating between you and "professors" of various ranks. How is that more inclusive? Is it because you were tenure-line? If so, I would argue that the position itself was more inclusive, not necessarily the language.

Again, being called an adjunct only sucks if being an adjunct sucks.

[snarls]

Thank you, Americanist, for helping me make my point.

I would never allow someone to choose the textbook I use for a course. I would never allow myself to be exploited to that extent. I know how to index books for book publishers, and I know how to grill sandwiches, and I would rather do either of those than surrender my integrity when I teach students.

So if that's what adjunct means to you, and to other people, then that's exactly why I will not permit myself to be so called.

[larryc]

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.

Yes! We have taken the off ramp into Crazytown! Here is where the thread gets good.

[snarls]

By calling you an instructor, though, they were delineating between you and "professors" of various ranks. How is that more inclusive? Is it because you were tenure-line? If so, I would argue that the position itself was more inclusive, not necessarily the language.

No, as I said -- go back and read it -- "instructor" meant that I was ABD. When I defended my dissertation, I earned the title "assistant professor." That's a distinction with a difference.

[infopri]

Snarls, I have to say that your posts signify much more about your own attitudes than those of academia. 

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"

You apparently seem to think "dependent" is pejorative.  A child is dependent on its parents.  Are we demeaning the child by referring to it as dependent?  Similarly, recognizing that someone is a "subordinate" is no more demeaning than calling that person an employee; in the workplace, we have employers and employees, managers and the managed, bosses and subordinates.  Are you arguing that we should eliminate all employment-based hierarchies?  "Auxiliary" is defined by my dictionary (Merriam-Webster) as "offering or providing help."  Someone who helps is, by definition, exploited?

You must live in a sad, sad world.  No wonder you sound so angry.  I'm very sorry for you.

(P.S.  As for the final definition you provide, note that it is qualified and applies to a specific context that has nothing to do with academia and its hierarchies.)

<infopri, sitting back and grabbing some popcorn>

[contemporary_]

Kill Studies 3 : Online seminar

Eliding Identity : The Language and Logic of Low Self-Esteem

[snarls]

Larryc, you are either not currently being called an adjunct, or you are extraordinarilly insensitive, or both.

However, if I am wrong about this, and (1) you call yourself an adjunct, (2) you do so proudly, and (3) you believe that I am going to take the title away from you, and therefore take away the thing of which you are proud, please say so.

[snarls]

Infopri: Yes, I love it when, by being called an "adjunct," I am comparable to a child. I've been wrong all along. <irony>

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

Snarls,
You seem awfully convinced that your perceived connotation of the word is the same is everyone else's. I moonlight for a CC where the contingent faculty are actually fighting to be recognized by the title of adjunct faculty. Currently, we're called part-time faculty, which is absurd because the majority of the contingent faculty have signed a waiver that allows them to teach full-time without benefits. They teach 5/5/5, yet are referred to as part-time, which creates all kinds of misconceptions amongst students and community.

Different settings; different connotations. You might consider a different battle.

[infopri]

Larryc, you are either not currently being called an adjunct, or you are extraordinarilly insensitive, or both.

However, if I am wrong about this, and (1) you call yourself an adjunct, (2) you do so proudly, and (3) you believe that I am going to take the title away from you, and therefore take away the thing of which you are proud, please say so.

I wouldn't presume to speak for larryc, but I can tell you that I am currently seeking employment as an adjunct, and if I'm successful, I will be a very happy academic.  Would I rather have a TT position at my favorite university in my favorite city, teaching only my favorite subjects to only the very best students?  Sure.  But I see adjuncting as perfectly respectable work that provides a service to the school and its students, and enables me to get back into the classroom and get paid (if pitifully) for it.

Yes, many adjuncts feel and probably are exploited.  That has to do with exploitive practices, not the existence per se of adjunct positions.  There are many adjuncts out there who like being an adjunct (for a variety of reasons) and do not feel exploited.  They are treated with respect and enjoy the flexibility that adjuncting provides.  If you consider yourself a true academic (in the best sense of the world), then you will take off your myopic glasses and see that there are many, many permutations to what it means to be an adjunct.

[snarls]

Infopri, the last paragraph of your last comment is very thoughtful. It does not give you, or anyone else, the right to refer to me as an adjunct unless that is actually my title.

See my answer to Americanist. I choose my own textbook, or I do not teach the course.

[englitprof]

What's with all the new members on crack?  I'm not usually snarky, but this is absurd.

[infopri]

Infopri: Yes, I love it when, by being called an "adjunct," I am comparable to a child. I've been wrong all along. <irony>

Thanks for pointing out the irony.  I might have missed it, otherwise.  <interthreaduality>

No one suggested you were comparable to a child.  I was making an analogy.  In case you missed it, I'll spell it out:  Just as no one would consider it pejorative to note that a child is dependent on its parents, no one (but you, apparently) would consider it pejorative to note that an adjunct faculty member's position is dependent on the semester-by-semester needs of the hiring institution. 

As I said, your posts are saying much more about you and your attitudes then about the world at large.

Infopri, the last paragraph of your last comment is very thoughtful. It does not give you, or anyone else, the right to refer to me as an adjunct unless that is actually my title.

See my answer to Americanist. I choose my own textbook, or I do not teach the course.

Well, see, that just proves my point about the wide variation in how adjuncting plays out.  At the schools where I've been, an adjunct gets to select his or her own textbook, although guidance is given to those who need or want it (and most, but not all, adjuncts do).  But they are not likely to be hired in the first place if they come in with a combative attitude.  Of course, the same is true of TT candidates.

And I'm quite certain that I didn't call you an adjunct.  I didn't call you anything.  That would be against fora rules.

[scheherazade]

Infopri: Yes, I love it when, by being called an "adjunct," I am comparable to a child. I've been wrong all along. <irony>

Thank goodness we got an irony alert.  We're not very good at recognizing it, you know.

[snarls]

Clearly I chose the wrong venue to address this. Not one of the replies I've received has even faintly considered that I might be correct. So be it.