next »

[minidonut]

I would suggest that everyone take a step back and pay attention to the structural shifts in academic labor that threaten us all. Underfunding higher ed. Textbook implementations of speedup across a number of dimensions (researching, teaching, and service). Think for a minute of students and enrollment/retention pressures as analogous to what happened in the home work industries of garment piece work, artificial flowermaking, or cigar making in the late nineteenth century. Hell, some things about distance ed are starting to look like early forms of Taylorism to me. If we do not stand together, we will assuredly hang separately.

Exactly.  This whole debate isn't about a single job ad, it's about a much larger picture/problem.  Anyone who believes that "the system [in academia] is fine, has always been fine, and will continue to be fine" should probably open a newspaper and, oh, I dunno, take a look at what's happening in the world? 

[qrypt]

Now that TF has gone all Marxist on us, a comment on the material base for these matters: time to campaign for some tax increases.  If we want more of us to have jobs in education that are secure and well-paid, we can't expect it to come from nothing.  And of course there's no point in imagining that all that's needed is to axe a few surplus adminidiots and the climbing walls & waffle makers.  

I'd rather pay Danish taxes if it means we could have Danish public services.  

In any event, politicians try to give the voters what the politicians think the voters are asking for.  So we have to ask for tax increases, convincing others that it's worth it.  

[minidonut]

I'd rather pay Danish taxes if it means we could have Danish public services.  

In any event, politicians try to give the voters what the politicians think the voters are asking for.  So we have to ask for tax increases, convincing others that it's worth it.  

It's not that we'd have to convince people that we need higher taxes, it's that we'd need to convince people that our government is capable of actually handling the sums it acquires.  People in general have little faith that our elected officials can do so - citing the abysmal states of the public school systems, the post office, Social Security, etc., etc. - so convincing them that we need to hand over more cash to a broken and wasteful system is not likely to work.

[temporaryname]

It would be a real mistake for those in tenure-stream positions and those teaching on a contingent basis to allow themselves to become completely adversarial toward each other right now. Classic division based on superstructure. Contingent folks are always trying to claw their way into the tenure stream, and the tenure stream folks are increasingly at risk of falling back into the contingent labor reserve army.

<snip>

I think of this a bit differently--I think of it as similar to the relationship between the poor whites and poor blacks in the old South (though with a bit more permeability between the groups). Neither group really had any power, but one group had a higher status and so believed that they did, and the rich whites milked the divisions for all they could.

So yeah, I agree, the fact that tenure-stream and adjunct faculty are so often fighting against each other is--well, to be honest, I really don't get it. I suppose some might say that this is because I'm tenure-track and therefore blind to the status and power I assume to be normal, but I don't think so--I just think that there are administrators (probably not even most of them, but enough of them to make a difference) who are more than happy to encourage fighting between adjunct and tenure-stream faculty rather than having them fighting together to improve their collective lot.

[minidonut]

So yeah, I agree, the fact that tenure-stream and adjunct faculty are so often fighting against each other is--well, to be honest, I really don't get it. I suppose some might say that this is because I'm tenure-track and therefore blind to the status and power I assume to be normal, but I don't think so--I just think that there are administrators (probably not even most of them, but enough of them to make a difference) who are more than happy to encourage fighting between adjunct and tenure-stream faculty rather than having them fighting together to improve their collective lot.

I think part of the reason for the adversarial relationship - and this has been brought up on numerous threads - is the feeling on the part of some (by no means all) TT faculty that adjuncts are in some way losers who couldn't make it as "real" professors, and that they deserve their lot.  This gets communicated in all sorts of ways, the message being "we each are in our respective positions because of merit and talent - mine obviously superior to yours."  Not such a great dynamic for building bridges.

Again, this is some, not all.  But it even happens on this board more frequently than you might think.

[temporaryname]

I think part of the reason for the adversarial relationship - and this has been brought up on numerous threads - is the feeling on the part of some (by no means all) TT faculty that adjuncts are in some way losers who couldn't make it as "real" professors, and that they deserve their lot.  This gets communicated in all sorts of ways, the message being "we each are in our respective positions because of merit and talent - mine obviously superior to yours."  Not such a great dynamic for building bridges.

Again, this is some, not all.  But it even happens on this board more frequently than you might think.

Oh, I know it does--I've seen it often enough. I think it happens in reverse, too, with adjuncts sometimes simply assuming that tenure-track faculty members harbor such attitudes (and refusing to believe evidence otherwise), or attributing the success of tenure-track faculty to something like luck in a much stronger than "There but for the grace of God go ye" sort of way.

The point I was trying to make is that things are likely to get much, much worse for both groups if we don't stop getting distracted by these sorts of things rather than finding some way to band together to save (or at least salvage what's left of) ourselves.

[minidonut]

Oh, I know it does--I've seen it often enough. I think it happens in reverse, too, with adjuncts sometimes simply assuming that tenure-track faculty members harbor such attitudes (and refusing to believe evidence otherwise), or attributing the success of tenure-track faculty to something like luck in a much stronger than "There but for the grace of God go ye" sort of way.

The point I was trying to make is that things are likely to get much, much worse for both groups if we don't stop getting distracted by these sorts of things rather than finding some way to band together to save (or at least salvage what's left of) ourselves.

Agreed, on all counts.

[tenured_feminist]

I believe in the Marxist diagnosis but my prescription is fundamentally statist and pretty much liberal (and definitely NOT neo-liberal). "Public" education should be made public again.

Once again, if we allow ourselves to be divided, we play into the hands of the people who want to run universities more like businesses and develop a more docile and productive workforce through insecurity.

(On a tangential side note, d_f_b, I can see what you mean by the race analogy but I don't quite buy it, largely because I agree with Barbara Fields' interpretation of race as ideology rather than superstructure. Also, the boundary between adjunct and tenure-stream is also more permeable than the boundary between white and black. That matters -- to move from Marx to Foucault -- because it provides an additional layer of discipline for adjuncts aspiring to move up and tenure-streamers fearing a drop down. Because blackness was, for most African Americans living under Jim Crow, an inescapable legal, social, and cultural assignment, the incentives and capacity to develop internal, community-based power networks were much higher.)

[lurquita]

Good Morning, Forumito/as:

Re: the venerable Tenured Feminist's comment

Once again, if we allow ourselves to be divided, we play into the hands of the people who want to run universities more like businesses and develop a more docile and productive workforce through insecurity.

And then, if you notice, there is a brief article on academic mobbing on the home page of the CHE today AND the New York Times has two articles (one an op-ed by Krugman) about the rise in hate-related activity. 

I'm too young to remember the sixties (I am mid-"Gen-X") BUT this sort of hatred goes against the peace, love, and solidarity that my favorite first grade teacher (a 60's era hippie, who went on to be a Montessori principal) taught us kids about back in the day.

Tenured Feminist is so right--if we do not actively make a point of sticking together, we will indeed hang separately.

It makes me remember, too, from an undergraduate literature class I took once in Italian, when we read Fontamara, and the peasants at the end had only this to say: "after all so much injustice [...] what are we to do?"

And, as a Spanish scholar (which I believe is obvious, given my moniker), all of this makes me think, too, of the Spanish Civil War.

If we are all at each others' throats, snarling for the scraps left over next year and in the years that follow, what will happen to the academy?

Where can we start?  How can we take a stand? 

I know that I don't understand how budgets work, although my chair explained it a bit when I pressed, and the president of my university (who gave himself a nice, fat raise this year for next year) babbles about "being careful with our funds" at the beginning of the year meeting, but I still do not know where the 30k a year the students pay (if they don't get the reduced price) goes.

Would understanding the budget help us at all? 

What else is there to consider as we try to plan for the sand that shifts under our feet daily?

Tenured Feminist is ever-so-right when she brings this issue up, and for whatever reason, it kept me up last night and I tossed and turned like a gaffed fish. 

Ideas on resisting the tide, anyone?

Lurquita

[educator1]

So yeah, I agree, the fact that tenure-stream and adjunct faculty are so often fighting against each other is--

well, to be honest, I really don't get it. I suppose some might say that this is because I'm tenure-track and therefore blind to the status and power I assume to be normal, but I don't think so

I have learned a lot from these fora, including the degree of friction between TT and non-TT faculty at some institutions and the lack of understanding of the true variation in non-TT faculty positions.

We all seem to make the fundamental error of generalizing from our own positions and experiences and seem not to understand that others are different.

There is a model for non-TT positions that works and is based on a concentration on teaching by those with significant professional or other experience in the field that can enhance not only their own classes but those of the TT faculty that have spent most of their time in academia. This model is alive and well in my school and my fellow lecturers and I are respected, generally write the syllabi of most of the undergraduate and beginning graduate courses, and participate in the life of our departments.

This foundation of mutual respect between educators and researchers and the sharing that can occur between them is perhaps the foundation (IMHO) for the cooperation that many posters are calling for.

[j_source]

lurquita,

I can't speak for everyone's budget but the largest single driving force in ours is faculty and staff compensation, that is, salary (which doesn't change much) and benefits.  It's the health insurance premium increases that are absolutely killing us.  In the decade I've been at this college the increase in health insurance premiums every year has been between 7% to 22%.  I doubt we'll ever see a single digit increase again.  In the meantime options have decreased, items covered have decreased, and the copay has increased. 

Ongoing and deferred maintenance is a major item as well.  With many buildings that are many decades old, a couple 100+, maintaining them at a minimally safe level (forget air conditioning or upgrading electrical systems to accommodate more computers) is very costly.  Some stuff can be put off, hence the deferred, but life safety codes absolutely demand some stuff is done every year.  When the fire marshal says X must be done, we have to do X regardless of what it costs.  Bricks and mortar and ivy is damned expensive.  But not as expensive as health insurance costs.

[sibyl]

Would understanding the budget help us at all? 

Of course it would.  It would help us understand the priorities of the institution, and help us to anticipate the arguments from administrators that they have relatively few options. 

I was once on a committee that considered a recommendation to cut the budget of the athletic department (we were NCAA Division III).  They seemed to have large funds for travel, which mystified us faculty, because they were "just" phys-ed teachers and coaches and didn't attend scholarly conferences, which we knew to be the only legitimate uses of travel funds.  We were set straight by the admissions director, who explained that the coaches were essentially doing double duty as recruiters, putting in as many or more hours on the road than the admissions staff, talking to students individually and producing more successful students than the bulk efforts used by admissions (and he had data to prove it); the admissions director offered to cut his travel budget to protect the athletic department's budget.  We ended up cutting other things.  The point of this story is that, the more we understand about the way our institution works, the less we can be snowed by people who use our ignorance against us and the more we can work toward useful solutions.

We should also learn something of how other institutions work.  Early in my career I heard a faculty member denounce the large number of administrators at the institution, saying it was a scandal and a disgrace.  I then heard a colleague rise calmly and say, "We have two administrators and staff (including secretaries and skilled and unskilled labor) for every one faculty member.  At the nine schools to which we compare ourselves, the ratio ranges from 2.2 to 2.6.  We are lean.  And I for one would like more faculty secretaries, not fewer."  Comparison helps us to identify questionable practices.  (For example, at my institution the development office is very large; it has as many employees as some much-larger peers, and its cost of raising a dollar is unusually high.  The development office has been under the gun since this cost has emerged.)

Anger and outrage are sometimes extraordinarily effective weapons, especially for organizing.  But the best armies are those that can bring multiple weapons to bear, especially since any one weapon can be neutralized in some situations.  (Britain's naval superiority was useless at the Dardanelles, for example.)  Knowledge of other institutions, of how budgets work, and of our institution's priorities as expressed in the budget will all add to the arsenal.

[ruralguy]

Sibyl-

These are the most intelligent and well thought out words posted so far for this thread.

It would serve others well to take Sibyl's advice and learn about
institutional budgets, and , well, just about everything else at your
school. Knowledge is power.

[categorical]

It would be a real mistake for those in tenure-stream positions and those teaching on a contingent basis to allow themselves to become completely adversarial toward each other right now. Classic division based on superstructure. Contingent folks are always trying to claw their way into the tenure stream, and the tenure stream folks are increasingly at risk of falling back into the contingent labor reserve army.

I would suggest that everyone take a step back and pay attention to the structural shifts in academic labor that threaten us all. Underfunding higher ed. Textbook implementations of speedup across a number of dimensions (researching, teaching, and service). Think for a minute of students and enrollment/retention pressures as analogous to what happened in the home work industries of garment piece work, artificial flowermaking, or cigar making in the late nineteenth century. Hell, some things about distance ed are starting to look like early forms of Taylorism to me. If we do not stand together, we will assuredly hang separately.

This sounds like a version of the "class warfare" some Republicans try to convince us is so damaging to our society.  I think that adjuncts are getting rather tired of "hanging together" for the system.

[cranefly]

Grasshopper, you forget the travel time. When I was an adjunct, that amounted to 25 hours a week, and about $200 a week in gas, and another $100 a week average for car repair...