Lesko Blog

  • 17 Nov 2009 /  research

    Eliza Doolittle sputters in response to yet another petty humiliation: “Just you wait, Henry Higgins!” 

    As the saying goes, revenge is a dish best served cold. To whit, I have heard faculty off the tenure-track pinpoint the exact day when that meal will be served. It’s the day when students, parents, voters, politicians etc… realize that 70 percent of college faculty are getting the short end of, well, everything. When that happens, look out! Just you wait, Henry Higgins!

    Sadly however, I think Americans are as unaware of the plight of part time faculty today as they were in 1990. So aren’t part timers able to spin their own message. Why can’t they seem to whip up a tsunami of attention and support? After all, they’re highly-educated people; they teach public relations, marketing, labor relations, and writing. Wouldn’t you think people with such skills could get Americans to focus on the “adjunct problem?” Yet here we sit, no closer to the reckoning today than we were decades ago—hundreds of thousands of Eliza Doolittles waiting to throw slippers at the Henry Higgins that is higher education.

    The answer isn’t pretty. To begin, according to a recent job satisfaction study conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago, out of 500 job categories, teaching scored among the most highly-rated jobs in terms of overall job satisfaction. Thus, while studies document an adjunct faculty job satisfaction “gap,” compared to the job satisfaction ratings of those at the bottom of the job satisfaction list, part time faculty job satisfaction levels are stellar. 

    Next, higher education has dropped off our mainstream media’s journalistic radar. The number of mainstream newspapers with weekly coverage of higher education has been reduced to a few usual suspects. In the EU, higher education gets daily coverage in scores of national newspapers. So, as higher education is reduced to a supplement in the daily diet of Americans, the plight of part time faculty becomes even less likely to make the cut when editors decide what is news.

    The final reason that faculty off the tenure track haven’t managed to capture the spotlight and shine it onto their issues has to do with the fact that since the early 90s, tenure-line faculty have spoken out on behalf of their non-tenured colleagues. For example, SUNY’s Dr. Peter D.G. Brown, has taken on both the union and the institution on behalf of the college’s 8,000 part timers. Dr. Eileen Schell, Associate Professor of Writing and Writing Program Director at Syracuse University, has focused her research and writing on labor issues that impact faculty off the tenure-track for over a decade. Dr. Cary Nelson stepped into the spotlight on behalf of adjunct faculty when he published Manifesto of a Tenured Radical in 1997. This reliance on the tenured consiglieri has been a double-edged sword. 

    Why? When tenured faculty frame the national discussion of what it is faculty off the tenure-track want and need, part-time faculty end up disempowered. Then, what happens when adjunct activists disagree with the advice of their tenured consiglieri? Adjunct activists have been attacked in print and online by their tenured friends for suggesting faculty off the tenure-track need to chart a course different than that suggested by some of the current tenured consiglieri. 

    The last reason is somewhat obvious, but tenured faculty in the humanities (the discipline from which many of these tenured consiglieri have sprung) shouldn’t be relied upon to explain part time faculty woes to America. Yearly, tenured and tenure-line faculty in the humanities cram MLA panel discussions aimed at developing strategies to better communicate to the rest of America the need for humanities research and teaching. Yet, we regularly read pieces such as the one published in February 2009 in The New York Times: “In Tough Times the Humanities Must Justify Their Worth” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/books/25human.html?_r=1). Sigh.

    So who’s going to make sure that the day of reckoning comes—that Henry Higgins gets what’s coming to him and Eliza Doolittle gets her due? I don’t know. Of one thing I am certain, however. Faculty off the tenure-track must star in their own higher education drama. Until they speak for themselves and shape the research and national discourse surrounding their own exploitation, it will be impossible to whip up the tsunami of attention and support necessary to make any truly substantive changes in how temporary faculty are hired, evaluated, valued, rewarded and compensated.

    To quote Henry Higgins: Damn! Damn! Damn! DAMN!

    Tags: , ,

  • 09 Nov 2009 /  politics, unions

    In September, there were pieces in The Chronicle (http://chronicle.com/article/An-Activist-Adjunct-Shoulde/48348/) and on InsideHigherEd.com (http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/09/10/maisto) about the New Faculty Majority. September, it seems, is the time of year when people’s thoughts turn to adjunct faculty and what should, could, would be done to address the “adjunct problem.” This past September, we read about the New Faculty Majority, a group founded by SUNY-New Paltz tenured faculty member Dr. Peter D.G. Brown, whom I know and respect very much for his work on behalf of SUNY’s adjuncts.

    The group’s official launch was clunky. It went public without a name. Let me digress and explain that in the mid-90s, I launched a group called the National Adjunct Faculty Guild, a membership organization that provided, among other benefits, access to health care. The dues were modest, and the membership grew. We held three conferences. Attendance at the conferences was modest, between 50-100 people. I disbanded the NAFG after six years. It became obvious that though the members wanted and needed access to health and life insurance, they were unprepared to pay even modest premiums. They also clamored for a national union—a task I was unprepared to tackle.

    So I was pleasantly surprised when I spoke to an adjunct activist who told me of the formation of the New Faculty Majority. Since then, I’ve been watching and waiting to see the next steps the group would take. The other day I visited the group’s web site and came away puzzled, disappointed and dispirited. The group has a laudable list of goals now: job security equity, benefits equity and compensation equity. Equity? Why not parity, I wondered? Equity is the concept the academic labor unions have been trying to cram down the throats of their members over the past several years. If you need a quick lesson on the difference between the two, check out this piece (http://www.adjunctnation.com/blogs/part-time-thoughts/?p=86).

    Then, I looked at how the group intends to be funded. This is from the New Faculty Majority web page: “In January 2010 we plan to begin membership dues in order to establish a national office, with an executive director and a small staff. (Unlike most of our employers, we shall certainly provide our own employees with a living wage and benefits.)” A national office with an executive director and a small staff? Ok. So what do the members get in return for helping launch a bureaucracy? The benefits page answered that question: “All of us will benefit from a thorough reform of employment practices in higher education. The benefits of NFM are not services per se but the power of our numbers. We are working to restore the profession of teaching and to ameliorate the substandard conditions and terms of employment now allotted to the majority of higher education faculty.”

    In short. No services, per se.

    So let me understand this New Faculty Majority structure and system. Adjuncts pay money to a group so the group can pay for a national headquarters, hire an executive director and a staff. This sounds terrifyingly familiar. The members keep the bureaucracy in the manner to which the bureaucracy will quickly become accustomed.

    How nice for the executive director and the small, but well-compensated staff.

    What, I wondered, could have driven the group so far off course short of the organization having been co-opted by members of the education unions. Then, I went and studied the list of NFM leaders. Ah, the answers were all there: UUP, AFT, NEA, AAUP, UC-AFT. Then I studied the list of the kind folks who had agreed to serve on the group’s “Advisory Board.” Three out of the eight members of the board were from the AAUP.

    What was next, I wondered? An invitation to AFT-Washington’s Sandra Schroeder to come and “advise” the group?

    Well, yes, it turns out that the New Faculty Majority has, indeed, put feelers out to the President of the AFT-Washington. I can only imagine Schroeder’s terms. The New Faculty Majority would, of course, have to endorse the AFT’s FACE farce. The New Faculty Majority would endorse a legislative boondoggle that seeks to, at base, reduce te numbers of the New Faculty Majority. 

    The New Faculty Majority has morphed into the same old thing: a group that takes money from adjunct faculty in order to, first, feed and clothe a bureaucracy. The group’s goals are perfectly acceptable. Those involved, however, can see no other way to get there than by plodding down the failed course charted by America’s higher education unions over the past 35 years.  

    Tags: , , , , , , ,

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes