Letters to the Editor
The Rollercoaster of Remediation
Ms. Jennifer Bradner’s “The Rollercoaster of Remediation” obviously comes from a good heart, but everything in my 20 years of teaching (tenured and adjunct) tells me she’s dead wrong. Renaming remedial courses so that they sound like “real” college courses
is not going to soothe students, and it’s not our job to soothe them. While I like Ms. Bradner’s idea of telling students that they didn’t get everything they needed from their high school classes, I usually suggest that their outrage be directed at the programs, classes, and institutions that have failed them. However, we also discuss their own responsibility for their learning. I have found that students in remedial classes usually work much harder and with more success than their
cohorts in the standard freshman composition class, once their own responsibility for learning is offered to them. Worrying about offending these students implies that they are too stupid to notice if we call the classes something else. This is hardly a flattering or empowering view of them. Let’s not succumb
to EduSpeak. We offer such classes because college is no longer an exclusive institution. Colleges need money; they need students. Let’s not have that need drive our educational standards down to a 1 billion served model. Instead, let’s offer students remedial and developmental classes as a gift and a chance to take charge of their own learning.– Jeanie Murphy, Pierce College Puyallup, WA
Keep Flying the Lettori Flag
Domenico Pacitti’s commendable and ongoing coverage of the discrimination against foreign teachers in Italian universities is a shocking and cautionary demonstration of just how an intransigent European Community member state can deprive foreign citizens of their legitimate rights under the European treaties. Since Pilar Allue’s first victory in the Court of Justice in 1989 we, the foreign teachers, have had to resort to all the remedies available to European citizens to have the Allue case law enforced in Italy. As colleague Henry Rodgers is quoted as saying, the Italian state’s continuing refusal to respect the treaties risks Italy acquiring the ignominious distinction of being the first founder member to be fined by the Court of Justice. This is tragic when one considers that freedom of movement was promoted as the main advantage of European citizenship and a catalyst for greater integration and harmony. The community objective of second or third language acquisition can hardly be helped by discrimination against mother-tongue teachers. We were fortunate to find a Euro-spirited and legally astute lobbyist like Henry Rodgers to help us. Teachers aspiring to work in Italy, however, would do well to be aware of their rights and vigilant in defending them. Your magazine does well to keep this unfortunate example of discrimination before the attention of the foreign language and literature teaching community.
– Kurt Rollin, La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Domenico Pacitti’s “Lettori win again but fear Italian Houdini tactics” succinctly summarizes Italy’s discriminatory treatment of foreign lettori in blatant defiance of European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgements. The sheer effrontery of this defiance is
remarkable and could ultimately earn Italy the ignominious distinction of being the first founder member of the Union to be fined by the ECJ. While the latest case against Italy was pending there, Italy tried to impose a contract, whose conditions were significantly worse than the actual conditions for which it was being prosecuted. Yet universities remain curiously unembarrassed that the discrimination is common
knowledge. Oxford University Press’s authoritative “EU Law,” a prescribed reference work in universities, includes coverage of lettori case law. Absurdly while the Faculty of Law teaches that the ECJ has forbidden discrimination against lettori, the Faculty of Letters continues it. Two Member State governments acted against the discrimination their citizens were suffering in Italy. During its EU Presidency, Ireland influenced Commissioner Padraig Flynn to open infringement proceedings, although previously he had been unresponsive to lobbying from Euro MPs. It is only fair to point out also that the UK intervened in the case, albeit in support of revised Commission proceedings which had dropped crucial pleadings on status.– Henry Rodgers, La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Your report Nov/Dec 2001, on the Lettori question states that “The Irish government (then) successfully lobbied the European Commission to open infringement proceedings which resulted in the June ruling” (The European Court of Justice condemning
Italy for failure to uphold European Law). There is no evidence to support this assertion. Although governments are entitled to intervene on behalf of their citizens, the Irish government declined to do so. The United Kingdom was the only state which intervened. The person responsible for the case in Ireland was Commissioner Padraig Flynn, who lost his job along with most Commissioners when the disgraced Santer Commission was forced to resign amidst accusations of corruption and maladministration. The European Ombudsman found that Commission guilty of maladministration following my complaint that Flynn had secretly abandoned the principal pleading in law concerning the status of foreign language lecturers in Italy as teaching staff. Flynn also denied me the opportunity to examine the correspondence between
the Commission and the Italian state. I filed suit in the
European Court of Justice for access to these documents the ruling will be made on 11 December, 2001.– David Petrie, Chairman, Association of Foreign Language Lecturers in Italy (Allsi), Verona, Italy
(Editor: On December 11th, the European Court of Justice found in favor of David Petrie, and granted him access to the correspondence between the Irish Commission and the Italian state.)
Campus Equity Week at the University of Kansas
The week of October 28 to November 3 was Campus Equity Week, which focused attention on issues of fairness and equality of education. Campus Equity Week was honored by teachers and their unions across the United States and Canada, and it included a day
devoted to recognizing the work of graduate employees, Wednesday, October 31. The week falls at an awkward time for the University of Kansas, because the negotiations for a new contract between graduate teachers and the KU administration have already entered their second year.The negotiations process involves KU administrators and their legal team meeting to exchange counterproposals with the Graduate Teaching Assistants Coalition (GTAC). GTAC is the union representing all GTAs, affiliated since 1995 with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the Kansas Association of Public Employees (KAPE). Until a new contract is ratified, GTAs’ first contract, approved in September 1997, is still in effect. That initial contract brought such benefits as: guaranteed tuition waiver,
twenty-hour work week for half-time (50 percent) GTAs, a codified grievance process, contributions to health care for many GTAs and Graduate Research Assistants (GRAs), and a three-credit hour fee waiver guarantee.The contract gained by KU GTAC also provided subsidized health care for many other GTAs at Kansas Regents institutions. GTAC’s slogan for this academic year is also a national motto for Campus Equity Week. “Working Conditions Equal Learning Conditions.”
All undergraduates will work with graduate teachers at some point during their studies at KU. The education of undergraduates is greatly affected by Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs), who teach around one-third of undergraduate courses. Such is the situation nationwide. The services provided by the over nine hundred GTAs employed by KU every semester are varied. Many of us instruct courses autonomously. Other GTA tasks include leading discussion sections for large courses, meeting with individual students in conferences, evaluating essays, operating labs, lecturing, preparing lesson plans, and writing, proctoring, and grading examinations. But despite this valuable and essential labor, GTAs are not fairly compensated by KU.
All employees deserve to be treated fairly and to have a role in university decision-making.Working conditions for the University of Kansas’ graduate teachers remain subpar when contrasted to institutions with which KU compares itself. Not only are benefits better at other schools, including full health care coverage, but the pay is more reasonable. For example, the minimum salary at the University of Iowa
is $14,130. At the University of Michigan, GTAs’ minimum salary is $12,560. KU doesn’t have a minimum salary. Pay varies widely in different programs. According to KU, the average GTA pay is above $9,000. But graduate teachers in some departments earn only $8,400 for the school year Local media recently reported this that KU’s proposal for a minimum salary was $7,000. Among the events for CEW at the University of Kansas were an open forum with University Chancellor Robert Hemenway, and an organizing training session for GTAs. On Graduate Employee Day, October 31, we saluted our part-time
teaching faculty peers nationally and internationally.– Amy Cummins, GTAC President and GTA in English, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas
Hiring Practices
I am an adjunct at a four-year liberal arts college. I am on a semester-by-semester contract, and I am offered two courses each semester, which doesn’t qualify me for benefits. Recently, they hired a new person and gave her a 3/4 line, which gives her benefits. I know for certain that this person is less qualified than I in a variety of ways (we attend the same Ph.D. program). She has at least two to three years less teaching experience than I do and, she cannot teach the range of courses that I can teach.
In addition, her scholastic achievements have not been as prestigious as mine. Furthermore, the Department Chair told me that no 3/4 lines were available, and that they would not be hiring any full-time faculty in the future, while they told her the opposite. We share an office, and, three weeks into the semester, they have put her name on the office door, but have not put mine on there, despite two requests. I have always had cordial
relations with faculty and students, I have always fulfilled my responsibilities, and I have always received positive student evaluations and observation reports. I want to file a formal grievance about this. How do I go about doing so? Do I file the grievance directly through the institution or through a union, such as the AAUP or NYSUT?– Paula Orlando, New York University
(Editor: The hiring of adjunct faculty at institutions without unionized hiring procedures leaves all temporary faculty without access to recourse when it comes to addressing alleged hiring inequities. The assignment of courses and appointments is left to the
discretion of the department chair or dean. To answer your question, then, if you want to pursue this matter, we suggest you first talk to the department chair and ask her/him to give you some constructive feedback concerning why you were not offered the 3/4 line. You should think carefully before taking further action. Unless you have a written contract stating otherwise, you are an at-will employee and serve as an adjunct faculty member at the pleasure of your direct supervisor. If adjunct faculty are represented by your college’s union, contact a representative of the local and discuss your concerns with her/him.)
