Part-Time Thoughts

  • The MLA is hurting financially. At the Philadelphia conference, the organization’s leadership voted to increase dues for the first time since 1993. I’d say 16 years of holding firm on a dues schedule was a pretty decent track record, and that certainly costs associated with running the organization have increased substantially since 1993. I’m guessing, for instance, staff salaries at the MLA have not been frozen for the past 16 years, and neither has the rent paid on the MLA headquarters, nestled snugly inside the old Standard Oil Building, built by John D. Rockefeller on lower Broadway near the Battery in New York City. 

    This year’s Delegate Assembly, which began at 1 p.m., wasn’t the most raucus gathering, even if the leader of the MLA’s Radical Caucus was there. Grover Furr, like Loretta Lynn, was there ready to stand by his man Ward Churchill, well actually, as Furr put it: “We’re not really standing up for Ward Churchill here, we’re standing up for the First Amendment to the Constitution.” How quaint. The MLA is an association focused on the humanities, not the interpretation of the Constitution or the Constitutional amendments. It’s moments like this when I have to say that the MLA is made to look buffoonish, self-important and silly in the eyes of the general public. A bunch of English professors vigorously debating the First Amendment. Maybe over at the Association of Legal Eagles we could have a rousing debate on the use of Beowulf in the courtroom? The resolution at hand was one condemning the University of Colorado for firing tenured professor Ward Churchill.

    Everyone take out your dead horses and begin beating vigorously.

    You won’t be shocked to learn that the MLA Delegate Assembly then spent a whopping 30 minutes talking about the financial exploitation contingent faculty. By then, so many delegates had slipped out of the room to go to a wine and cheese tasting somewhere, anywhere, the Delegate Assembly was left without a quorum. So the remaining delegates professed their undying love for and support of those of the contingent persuasion, and no resolution was able to be passed. 

    So what is the answer to this insulting six-hour comedy that focuses on the dismissal of one Ward Churchill versus what I believe is the wholesale massacre of thousands of non-tenured faculty thanks to non-continuing appointment clauses in their contracts? First of all, the MLA’s Executive Director was recently quoted in the New York Times as impugning the quality of instruction delivered by thousands of her own association’s members. If you are a faculty member off the tenure-track and have been a member of the MLA for two years, run for office at the next possible opportunity. It’s time that the make-up of the association’s Executive Committee changed drastically to reflect the change within higher education. Next, if you are a non-tenured faculty member, and belong to the MLA, withhold your dues this year in protest of Feal’s patently absurd condemnation of non-tenured faculty. Send a letter to the membership office letting them know exactly why you are choosing to sit it out this year. Feal has no business making such pronouncements, and the Executive Committee has no business letting her do so, or sitting by after the fact and doing nothing Unless, of course, the entire Executive Committee agrees with her, in which case they need to be re-educated and replaced. 

    The MLA relies on thousands of faculty off the tenure-track to butter their bread. Repaying the professional and financial support of thousands of members who hold non-tenured appointments with a public slap in the face is inexcusable and demonstrates incredible hubris on not only Feal’s part, but that of the MLA’s Executive Committee, as well.

    Tags: , , , , ,

  • Before you huff and puff at me, I want to say that it the title of this piece comes from the Executive Director of the Modern Language Association, Rosemary Feal, and not me. She said it to a reporter from the New York Times who wrote a piece on December 18th about the outlook for graduates in the humanities. To paraphrase the article, perhaps those with graduate degrees in foreign languages, literatures, humanities and English would have a better chance of supporting themselves by turning to lives of crime rather than expecting to find a tenure-line job in higher education. Just please remember the old addage: “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” That being said, identity theft, pick pocketing and taking candy from babies which can later be sold for a profit on eBay should be fields that could interest future Master’s and Ph.D. holders.

    This is from the New York Times piece:

    To make matters worse, the share of tenure-track jobs available has been shrinking. Tenure-track positions for assistant professors made up 53 percent of the English jobs advertised and 48.5 percent of those in foreign languages. From 1997 until recently, the group said, 55 percent to 65 percent of the advertised positions were tenure-track jobs. And since part-time adjunct positions are less likely than those for tenure-track jobs to be listed with the language association, the overall share of faculty members being hired for tenure-track jobs is probably smaller than the survey indicates.

    Ms. Feal said the trend toward hiring adjunct faculty members rather than permanent tenure-track professors had been going for about three decades, but was more pronounced than ever, as a growing number of struggling colleges and universities hired by the course or by the semester — usually paying little, and providing no benefits.

    “Having so many contingent faculty diminishes the overall quality of teaching and learning,” she said. “The individual course might be great, but you can’t expect temporary hires to do the kind of curricular planning it takes to maintain a successful department.” 

    I have just one word for Ms. Rosemary Feal: bollocks. Of course you can expect temporary hires to do curricular planning. Why? Because first of all temporary hires already do course planning. If, in fact, departments don’t require temporary hires to do curricular planning, it’s the administrators in the department, and not the temps in the department who are then responsible for any and all issues with respect to the quality of teaching and learning in said departments. 

    However, here’s the real issue. No study to date has linked the “quality” of teaching and learning to the extensive use of adjunct faculty. Hell, no one can really agree completely on what “quality” teaching is for the heaven’s sake. The AFT started the propaganda campaign when their leaders had to think of something to say to various state legislators to pry loose the millions and millions of dollars the AFT wants to fund its boondoogle FACE. So, starting with Dr. William Scheuerman when he was still the UUP union leader, he went before the New York State legislature and started the rumor that J. Edgar Hoover was a cross-dresser, and part-time faculty were lovely people whose existence within higher education was systematically destroying undergraduate education. 

    If the New Faculty Majority group does not work to dispel this bold-faced lie, it will be a miscarriage of justice of epic proportions. However, as more and more union members move into “advisory” and leadership positions within the New Faculty Majority, such unsubstantiated and damning statements will, most likely, be printed over and over again in newspapers across the United States. The New Faculty Majority will not answer the lies, alas, with the truth about who non-tenured faculty really are.

    The good news is that, really, no one cares that contingent faculty “diminish” the overall quality of teaching and learning, because of the financial benefits associated with the exploitation of temporary faculty. There are just as many administrators quoted in just as many newspapers touting the competency of their respective colleges’ contingent faculty. The AFT, NEA, AAUP and Rosemary Feal can all shout from the highest mountain top, but colleges and universities all over this country will continue to employ large numbers of temporary faculty.

    The job market for graduates in the humanities is in the crapper. Shouldn’t Rosemary Feal be pushing for reductions in the  number of graduate students accepted into Ph.D. programs? Shouldn’t she be pushing for mandatory retirement for tenure-line faculty at age 65? There are so many reasons that the humanities job market is a disaster. For Feal to zero in on the high number of non-tenured faculty as one of the main reasons shows her biases and that the MLA’s leadership has bought into the flawed notion that overall student retention and graduation rates have fallen because of the increased reliance on non-tenured faculty. Student retention is impacted by student preparation more than anything else. 

    Rosemary Feal has had a big glass of the Kool-aid mixed up by AFT leaders to differentiate between tenured and non-tenured faculty. (Tenured faculty are good for student retention and success. Non-tenured faculty are bad for student retention and success.) It’s the plot of a cheap dime store novel. It’s not a plot I would expect the Executive Director of the Modern Language Association to play a part in, much less quote as literary brilliance.

    Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes